JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I asked a question in the "BEHAVIOUR" thread that has so far gone unanswered, but I feel that it is quite important to American members, so I will paraphrase it here.

In "American culture", the merest hint of "unequal representation", will place a major stumbling block in the hearts, minds and attitudes of the "governed". If history is to be referenced, there is probably no more a defining point of agreement among Americans. Somewhat a colonial carry over I suppose. It is similar to the old revolutionary cry of "taxation without representation".

My other question was somewhat related. It deals with the meaning of the words "peers" and "peerage". In American "culture" the word "peers" simply implies similarity or familiarity. I am inclined to believe that the British usage of "peerage" refers to something quite different. This is a "very important" concept in the American mind.

Judgement by ones "peers" means something a little different in Great Britain than in the United States. If I am not mistaken, "peerage" in Great Britain is meant to incorporate a class structure.

I well realize that this is your forum and you may set the governing rules as you wish. I do not mean to imply an absence of legality.....but I am questioning the old American definition of equality, which is deemed quite important in American "culture".

Since the forum moderators seem intent on stating their opinions on the "lack of American culture", and have stated that Americans are the major problem on this forum.....I feel that what I consider a "lack of legitimate representation", is just another slap in the face to America, and what might be considered a "cultured" way of asking us to leave.

As an afterthought I would like to add that the words "culture" and "class" have very different meanings. Culture certainly does not bestow class !

Charlie Black

Hi Charles,

I'm of the opinion that a peer is someone of equal standing irrespective of class or culture, I am, and view others, as neither above nor beneath anyone. Where I come from that has been a very important concept to instil, and if you've followed the developments in NI you'll be aware of the much still work to be done on this.

John thank you, your appraisal is quite sound and echoes my own.

Thanks

Gary

[David G. Healy]

The following have agreed to work as moderators: John Geraghty (Republic of Ireland), Stephen Turner (England), Gary Loughran (Northern Ireland), Antti Hynonen (Finland), Evan Burton (Australia), and Kathy Beckett (USA).

These moderators will have the power ro remove offensive comments in the JFK section. They will not be deleting the arguments that members are expressing. This is not an attempt to censor people's views.

Moderators will send me a copy of the passage that has been deleted? I will keep a record of these deletions that can be used later if we have to consider deleting someone’s membership. Details will also be sent to the person who has had passages removed.

It is hoped that this new moderating system will stop members from making offensive comments in the first place. If not, the moderating system might encourage member's to change their approach to debate.

It is possible that we will get a case where a member appears to be determined to cause trouble. We will have to consider removing this person from the forum. This will be decided by a majority decision of the moderating committee and the three administrators of the forum.

For further guidance of expected behaviour see:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

John,

Frankly when it comes to forum moderator's of ANY stripe, one is too many and 1000 aren't enough!

Having said that, will these mod's be deleting entire posts? Or, what THEY deem 'offensive passages' within the posts, and how will those deletions appear on the screen? For that matter, what does the forum define is offensive? The criteria for their decesions is what?

Who is the USofA mod Kathy Beckett? Please post her profile...

David Healy

David a simply forum search gives you this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5680

I read that, which led to the above questions ...

[Evan Burton]

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Charles Black]

Hello Gary

I believe you when you say that you think " a peer is of equal standing irrespective of class or culture".

But what "you" think regarding this is not what is thought by a great percentage of people in an ethnically diverse and multi cultured country such as the U.S.

For example if a black man is on trial for the molestation of a white young lady, in a Southern U.S. city which happens to have a predominantly white population, he will probably legally go to trial before 12 white angry jurors.

Do you really believe that he would feel that he was being tried by a jury of HIS peers? The U.K., despite heritage and "some" cultural similarities,

is socially far removed from the "true facts of life" in the U.S.

Less than a hundred years ago, there were gunfights occurring still in the streets of some western U.S. cities.

If an American law enforcment officer were told that he could not carry a gun.....he would rightly refuse and probably accuse you of being insane.

When U.S. citizens are aware that the criminal element in this country all posess firearms, and if they were told by a politician that you cannot protect your wife and children with the use of equal force....I think that you would have an expatriate former U.S. politician looking for a job in the U.K. or elsewhere.

The U.S. and the U.K. do not necessarily share the same problems just because we somewhat share the same language.

In a manner of speaking, John Simkin is correct in that our cultures differ. But it isn't that simply explained. Some elements of American culture are quite similar to that in Great Britain. BUT.....

we are multi cultured....the Poles don't have the same culture as our Arabs, and our indigenous population does not share the same culture as our French population, or our Vietnamese or Hispanic.

We are quite intermixed.

That is why I feel that your definition of "peer" or "peerage" is necessarily different than ours.

Four hundred and fifty years ago, this continent was populated by what was commonly referred to as savages. Only Savages. Could the European colonist consider these "savages" as their peers?

Life here was a long and rugged struggle for survival...in the not distant past. We are still struggling. That is why I feel that demeaning comments regarding American culture are very far out of order. We are two English speaking peoples who have been subjected to a far differing past four centuries. We, here in the colonies, are not that distant from those times only a little over a hundred years ago, that a farmer carried a firearm with him when he plowed his fields if he was to be at all certain of returning.

Though I will be the one of the first and the loudest to say that we are two different societies and cultures......but I will never accept any insinuation that mine is lesser to ANY other.

I am proud to say that in defense of our welfare, that we can be quite agressive, and have had damned good reason to be.

My point being that we have been deliberately selected to be under represented by forum moderators, and this was done, in my opinion, as an insult !

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Evan

If you were referring to Jack White in your

"..little White lies" addendum, I feel strongly that you have disqualified yourself as a moderator!

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Evan

If you were referring to Jack White in your

"..little White lies" addendum, I feel strongly that you have disqualified yourself as a moderator!

Charlie Black

Charlie...I agree. Burton came to this forum to discredit Jack White. At the bottom of

every posting, he refers to me as a xxxx.

I have protested his being named a moderator to no avail. Apparently the forum

shares his views, since one of the administators called me a senile old snake, or

some such.

I suggest that the same rules apply to administrators that are imposed on members.

Jack

[Jack White]

[...]

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

[...]

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

John,

re the above, should or must? please clarify.

DHealy

David...I too protest to no avail that some are allowed to use unidentifiable photos,

such as Lamson, Burton and Matthews.

Jack

[Jack White]

Unlike you, I make a living image composing, compositing and editing! Individual Z-frames frames altered within hours of the assassination, 1st alteration pass on the film 60 days -- plenty of time!

STUPID? In your fondest dream... lmao!

From where I come from .... when someone works for their Daddy, we call it a "lifetime allowance".

Bill Miller

When someone works undercover for the govt, I call them a provocateur.

Jack

[John Simkin]

[...]

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

[...]

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

John,

re the above, should or must? please clarify.

DHealy

Most members do abide by these rules. I will continue to urge members to post an identifiable photograph. However, if they don't, should their membership be deleted?

[Evan Burton]

Jack, could you point out where I have used unidentifiable photographs? I will correct my errors.

[Evan Burton]

I will remove my signature after this post.

[Antti Hynonen]

John Simkin Posted Today, 07:07 AM

QUOTE(David G. Healy @ Feb 8 2007, 02:50 PM)

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Nov 15 2004, 02:07 AM)

[...](ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

[...]

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

John,

re the above, should or must? please clarify.

DHealy

Most members do abide by these rules. I will continue to urge members to post an identifiable photograph. However, if they don't, should their membership be deleted?

John,

In my mind it is more important to focus on what they say, how they say it. I wouldn't support deleting someones membership merely because of a unidentifiable photograph, or due to a lacking bio either.

In otherwords, your policy thus far, has worked fine.

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

I have never hid my bias against your opinions regarding Apollo and 9/11. This bias alone does NOT disqualify me from being a fair moderator within my assigned sub-forums.

I strongly urge you, if you perceive any bias against you (or your fellow travelers) in moderation, please report your concerns to the other moderators - and if you feel it is necessary John / Andy.

I am more than happy to have any actions of mine reviewed by my peers and the Forum management.

[Evan Burton]

Like others, I'll be treading very lightly. In most cases I would expect to have no need for any 'moderator' function unless asked to intervene.

If there are cases of clearly offensive posts, then I might expect to be required to be pro-active and delete the offensive words. I do not foresee many - if any - occasions to remove an entire post.

I can say that my moderator actions will be taken in consultation with other moderators.

These actions will always be documented so as to explain the reasons for any actions, and - as always - people can bring any concerns regarding any actions to other moderators.

Edited to add:

Oh, and just so people do know where I stand... I have firm views on 9/11 and Apollo. I have no pertinent views on JFK, RFK, MLK, Watergate, etc.

Evan

If you were referring to Jack White in your

"..little White lies" addendum, I feel strongly that you have disqualified yourself as a moderator!

Charlie Black

Charles / Charlie (I'm unsure as to your preferred method of title),

It's a understandable concern, but I believe an unfounded one. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, I would ask you to "... judge me not by the colour of my skin, but by the content of my character..."

If you feel any actions / posts of mine are not in keeping within the Forum guidelines, I'd urge you to report them to another moderator.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

My point being that we have been deliberately selected to be under represented by forum moderators, and this was done, in my opinion, as an insult !

Charlie Black

Charlie, just a thought. Could the underepresentation of American forum members as Moderators be because only one American member put their name foward for this unpaid, thankless task?As I said, just a thought.