WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[Cliff Varnell]

51 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on (at both this forum and then at my site when I transfer that material over there so that I know my own remarks are in a safe place that won't disappear when this forum goes down the tubes due to a lack of funding),

The EF is funded thru 2024.

You've worn out your welcome here, David.

Take a hint and take a hike.  You will not be missed.

[James R Gordon]

The rules of the site are:-

 

General Posting Behaviour:-

No member is allowed to use foul language and/or disgusting expressions.

Members would be ill advised to argue as to what defines foul language or disgusting expressions. Every member understands what is and what is not acceptable.

Solicitation of goods and/or services is not permitted. This is a Forum for discussion.

No member is allowed to make personal insults with regard to another member OR with respect to fellow members opinions.

 

No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying

 

Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member

will not use this board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or

defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane,

sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise

violative of any law.

 

Action:-

If such behaviour is detected the member will be reminded through a

PM. If behaviour repeated there will be an instant withdrawal of a weeks posting

privileges. If after returning there is a further insurance then there will be

an immediate indefinite withdrawal of posting privileges.

 

Membership Behaviour:- Limited Posts per Week.

Members of the admin team who notice members disregarding the accepted modes of behaviour:-

i. insulting and taunting fellow members

ii. using language that members know to be prohibited

iii. bumping posts in order to alert the attention of fellow members not being repeated during a 24 hour period

iv. and similar aspects of behaviour

these members may find that they have had their posting allowance limited to two – or in extreme exceptions limited to one post per week.

Warning may well not be issued – members are aware of the rules of the forum and are expected to abide by these rules.

Initially the penalty will last for a week. Only in extreme cases will it last longer.

Membership repeated offences, may result in either a longer period of limited posts or a punishment of a different kind.

 

Voicing For Banned Members:-

It is deemed to be a breach of the rules where a current member posts on behalf of a banned member. It is relatively easy to identify when such a breach may be taking place if requested by a member to post on their behalf. Safest to post for yourself and not on behalf of others.

The penalty will be that the offending member will be placed on "Two Posts a Day" for a a period of time.

Racism:-

Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum. If the racism is particularly offensive the member will be expelled immediately and without warning.

Chaotic Threads:-

Threads which descend into chaos may be completely deleted.

Accusations of Member Credibility:-

Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is

using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members

at forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this

forum:-

Action:-

Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members:-

Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may loose their posting privileges or indeed be banned.

General Comment:-

Having posted these Terms of Forum Use, no further warnings will be given.

If members need to consider if a link, a word or sequence of words will be acceptable - to post or not post before posting, - then we would advise not to post such words or terms.

Membership in The Education Forum is voluntary, subject to approval by the owners of the Forum. Suspension of member, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum.

Limitation of Liability

Posts on the Education Forum are owned by the individual members who post there and who are SOLELY responsible for the content of their posts, and that the Education Forum, as an entity, is in no way responsible for the content of the posts.

THEREFORE IN NO EVENT WILL THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE EDUCATION FORUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES RELATING TO LOST REVENUES OR PROFITS, LOST DATA, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION) RESULTING FROM OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON OR MADE AVAILABLE IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS OR ANY OTHER WEB SITE TO WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED OR ON WHICH A LINK IS PROVIDED TO THESE DISCUSSION FORUMS, EVEN IF THE ADMINISTRATING TEAM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE BASED.

Edited August 3, 2018 by James R Gordon

 

[Michael Clark]

I think everyone is getting ground-down in minutiae (sound familiar?). Members are saying that they don’t like it. David says too bad.

His lifting of this material is taking these items out of a context of debate and mounting them on his wall, for his own benefit, in a context of ridicule.

He says he is saving his material. He doesn’t need a website to do that.

It’s akin to being a guest of a guest at a party, recording their conversations, publishing them out of context, and then asserting his right to attend the next one.

No rule is necessary to tell the boy to bugger-off when he shows up at the next one.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Are you arguing that the small section you published from James was all he had to say.

No, I never said anything of the kind. And I never said that it was ALL Jim had to say in a particular discussion.

Again, the aim is to archive MY OWN WORDS first. And since I choose not to engage CTers on every crackpot idea they post on the forums, then of course there IS going to be "editing". ALL CTers "edit" here as well. They don't respond to each and every comment made by somebody else.

And, BTW, that "DiEugenio Part 1" page doesn't concern you or The Education Forum in any way at all. That material did not originate at the EF forum.

 

Quote

The Bill Kelly post is a six page thread. Please provide the link to your site which demonstrates that you published every word.

From looking at your site it appears to me you edit.

See my last comments.

Of course I haven't responded to every single post on ALL SIX PAGES of a thread. (Who does?) But I've linked to the complete discussion (as mentioned many times before).

Again---

I attempt to archive the portions of discussions that I myself have participated in. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

By your own admission tou are copying members work and editing it. In the case of the Bill Kelly thread you have selected what you feel is pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work edit it and place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.

James

 

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

David,

By your own admission tou are copying members work and editing it. In the case of the Bill Kelly thread you have selected what you feel is pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work edit it and place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.

James

Yeah, that's what I figured.

For more than three years this thread has been here, and in that whole time not a SINGLE person asked to have their content removed from my site. Now, suddenly, CTers are crawling out of the woodwork with complaints. Even just 3 days ago, Bart Kamp couldn't have cared less about what I did on my rinky-dink little blog. Now, three days later, he's ready to leave the forum and demand that all of his own posts be removed because of MY site that three days ago he didn't care about at all. Unbelievably fickle.

And, again, can you just imagine this thread existing if a "CTer" had archived some of his posts at his website (which likely HAS occurred somewhere online)? It never would have been started in the first place, of course.

Bye.

Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future. And when that happens, you might even find yourself wanting to seach my site for your forum posts that have been lost for all time because of the fact that Internet forums rarely last forever.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

...........

Bye.

Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future. 

That’s ironic. It sounds like a death wish for a platform that gave you such enjoyment for so long.

Remember, David, that your flaunting of your foul behavior is what raised the ire of the membership...

 

On 8/19/2019 at 10:20 PM, David Von Pein said:

 

Edit: multiple links to DVP’s forum have been deleted in this quote from this forum.

 

DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

David says my assertions have been explained numerous times in reasonable ways, but so far he hasn't explained or countered a single one. In my view, that's very telling.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, quite frankly, after doing this back-and-forth "CTer vs. LNer" thing at various forums for about 16 years now, it gets tiresome and repetitive to type in the same answers time and time again (year after year). Which is one of the main reasons I created my link deleted page at my "JFK Archives" website/blog, so that I can quickly access information about a particular assassination sub-topic being discussed (which is what I did in my first post above). It sure saves a lot of time (and typing).

But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

David's interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not reasonable. He seems to be trying to convince us of the single bullet theory by using a simplistic and flawed logic based upon the fundamental refusal to believe that evidence could ever be suppressed, altered, or destroyed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But CTers don't ever seem to want to admit that ANY non-SBT theory involves far more complications, implausibilities, and incredible coincidences than does the Single-Bullet Theory --- e.g., the perfect "lining up" of the bullet wounds on the two victims. CTers don't think it's a bit odd or incredible that THREE different bullets would have had to cause those three bullet wounds in Kennedy and Connally (and have the wounds line themselves up in a perfect "SBT"-like manner) if their conspiracy theory is correct about JFK's throat wound being a wound of entry.

And then there's the disappearing bullets that the conspiracy theorists say entered JFK's body but never exited---and then those bullets were never seen again.

I guess I'm supposed to think that those two incredible things I just mentioned are more believable and more reasonable than to just believe that one single bullet went through both victims simultaneously (which is, of course, precisely what the zapruder film shows (link deleted) based upon the reactions of Kennedy and Connally seen in the film).

Link deleted

DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

He [DVP] is also completely ignoring the experienced (at least in terms of Parkland) medical professionals who were there at the time and examined the President's wounds in person.

The doctors at Parkland knew the difference between a bullet entrance wound and a bullet exit wound; they had seen and treated them many times. In my opinion, it is arrogant to try and imply that they didn't know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound and that your flawed and biased logic trumps their real world medical expertise. They saw an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck. I'm not going to trust David's simplistic, immature, and what I view to be fundamentally flawed "logic" over the doctors who had experience in seeing that kind of wound in person and who all reported seeing a bullet entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck at Parkland.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Among the few doctors who actually saw the throat wound at Parkland Hospital before Dr. Malcolm Perry cut through it to start the tracheotomy, there were at least two physicians (Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico) who said that the throat wound could have been "either" an entrance or an exit wound.

Do CTers think that Perry and Carrico are lying to the Warren Commission here?:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"

DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"

DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

The doctors at the Bethesda autopsy examined the back wound and felt the end of it. It was a shallow wound. It did not traverse the body. The single bullet theory ends there. LN's have not and can not provide one piece of evidence that CE 399 did traverse JFK's body except with what I feel is immature "logic" that willfully rejects any notions that any evidence could be suppressed - even if there are multiple instances where evidence WAS suppressed in this case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The fact that there was NO WHOLE BULLET IN PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ENTIRE BODY is strong evidence (all by itself) that the bullet went clean through his body.

Plus, there's the fact that the autopsy doctors knew that JFK had one bullet hole of entrance in his upper back and one bullet hole of either entrance or exit in his throat, with very little damage in-between those two cutaneous wounds.

Two bullet holes. No bullets in the body. No major damage in the body that would have caused a bullet to stop dead in its tracks. Hence, we got this conclusion from the autopsy surgeons (which is the only reasonable conclusion the autopsy physicians could have logically reached):

"The missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Warren Report; Page 543


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

And I am sure that my last post about Admiral George Burkley was going to go nowhere, because LN's can't explain it. I understand why they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If I were an LN, I would be ashamed to have to stand behind the Warren Report as well.

To recap for those just joining us, Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda, and Burkley directed the President's autopsy. Burkley was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission. And LN's think this failure of the WC to call Burkley to testify was entirely reasonable and that the WC did a thorough and fair investigation of JFK's murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There were several witnesses who could have been called by the Warren Commission to testify, but weren't. Dr. Burkley was one of them. Bill Newman was another. Gayle Newman another. Charles Brehm another. And James Chaney. And on and on.

But, in my opinion, none of the people I just mentioned are key "conspiracy" type witnesses at all. Not even Bill and Gayle Newman (link deleted), who have been touted for decades by CTers as critical witnesses that prove a conspiracy in JFK's murder. But they actually don't prove any such thing.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the exact time when JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass the building and 5 minutes before the assassination, and he was also seen there in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:32 PM, calm, collected, not sweaty, possibly even holding a soda, two minutes after the assassination and seven minutes after he was last seen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're placing way too much faith in Carolyn Arnold....

Link deleted

DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, politely forwent shooting JFK or Connally in their faces as they moved toward him on Houston, shot the president and Connally with the only rifle ammunition remaining in his possession, while his vision was obscured by tree branches, ran another maze of boxes to stash the rifle, ran back to the stairwell, ran down four flights while not being observed by others who were also descending the stairwell at the time, and arrived back in the same place, not appearing suspiciously sweaty or even breathing hard, all in seven minutes? Is that reasonable?

Or is it truly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of the explanation of why Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM and seven minutes later at 12:32 PM was that he was in the lunchroom the whole time.

That kind of thought enrages Lone Nutters. Their proof that Oswald did all that running and shooting and running was the shooting itself. They know he did it because they know he did it. They know Oswald is guilty, so they know that anything suspicious that can't be explained in a non-conspiratorial way CAN be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, because they know that Oswald did it. It's this circular, fundamentally flawed logic Bugliosi relied upon.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, you're starting out with a false premise in the first place---Oswald being on the second floor at 12:25 PM (based on Carolyn Arnold's 1978 tale about having seen Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25, which is almost certainly a false story).

I'm not going to type out all this material yet again, so it's "Link Time" again. Click if you so desire. If not, so be it:

..... links deleted

DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Why did Oswald go back to his boarding house for his revolver? Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have carried it into the TSBD with him when he went to work that morning, on the chance that he might have to shoot his way out afterward?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I touched on this issue almost exactly 9 years ago at The Education Forum:

--- Quote On: ---

"Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate." -- DVP; August 21, 2010 (link deleted)

--- Quote Off ---

My 2010 comment about Oswald needing to take the revolver into the TSBD twice assumes, of course, that Oswald would not have wanted to leave his revolver somewhere inside the Book Depository overnight on November 21-22. But hiding the gun someplace overnight within the TSBD would certainly have been an option for Oswald had he brought the revolver to work with him on Thursday morning.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Why didn't Oswald go to the bus station, or take a taxi to an airport, or have any plan whatsoever after the assassination? According to the official story, Oswald gave up a taxi to a lady, and then boarded a bus that was heading back in the direction he came, and then took another taxi. I don't know if he boarded that first taxi, but that's TWO motor vehicles that he was able to get on, yet his very best plan for escaping after the crime of the century was to... go to the movies. Reasonable, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Oswald didn't have a car of his own. So how else would you expect this Lone Assassin to get from Point A to Point B on November 22nd? He'd have to either walk, take a bus, or a taxicab, or hitch a ride with someone. And LHO did three of those four things right after the assassination. All three of which seem logical to me from the POV of Oswald as the lone killer who was trying his best to get away from the crime scene in Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible.

And his plan most certainly did not include going to the movies. He ducked into the movie theater merely because the theater was handy and nearby, and at that point in time he was desperately trying to avoid capture after killing Officer Tippit. And what better place than a dark movie theater to hide out and get off the sunny streets? Makes perfect sense to me. Which means, of course, it won't make a lick of sense to a JFK conspiracy theorist. (What's new there?)


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable to assume Oswald planned out the assassination, but gave absolutely no thought at all to escape, especially since he had over $180 at his disposal and a demonstrated ability to leave the country?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I've said in the past, I don't think Oswald really thought he would have a chance to shoot JFK from the Depository on November 22. He took his rifle to work that day, yes. (There's no question about that fact, IMO.) And he wanted to shoot Kennedy that day, yes. But he knew that the odds would probably be against him as far as being able to secure total privacy at the exact moment when JFK passed by the building. And it's my opinion that if LHO had not had the total privacy that he ended up having on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 PM on 11/22, he would certainly not have attempted the assassination at all. And if Bonnie Ray Williams had not vacated the sixth floor when he did at about 12:20 PM that day, Oswald would have abandoned his assassination plan.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Is it reasonable for Louie Steven Witt to have had his first and only political protest of his entire life right next to a stranger with a handheld radio precisely in front of the president being assassinated? A specific type of protest/heckling that no one else seemed to have ever engaged in before, invoking Neville Chamberlain, a man whose visual trademark was using a closed umbrella not an open umbrella.

Is it reasonable to be suspicious of Witt when he claims to have had his vision blocked by the umbrella, when we can all clearly see with our own eyes that the umbrella was over his head at the time of the shooting? What is the reasonable explanation for his lie? When is being suspicious going to be appropriate?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, certainly not when we're talking about Umbrella Man. Because being "suspicious" of Umbrella Man means that I'm going to have to start believing in some really crazy conspiracy s-h-i-t --- like poisoned darts coming from that umbrella in broad daylight and in front of hundreds of witnesses. Or: having the umbrella being used as some sort of signaling device to tell the shooters when it's okay to fire. And neither of those conspiracy theories comes close to measuring up on the "Reasonable" or "Believable" scales.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

Oswald didn't want to be tied to the rifle, so he ordered it under an alias that ended up tying him to the rifle. More luck, in this case good luck for the LN's and bad luck for Oswald. Is it reasonable to wonder why Oswald didn't just go into any gun store in Texas and pay cash for a rifle if he truly didn't want to be associated with it? If he truly, truly didn't want to be associated with the rifle or take credit for JFK's assassination, why did he pose for a picture with it?

How many times had Oswald posed for photographs with his weapons before?

How many boarders had Ruth Paine ever taken in, before and after the assassination?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In my opinion, it was crazy for Lee Oswald to keep the rifle in his possession for seven months after he tried to kill somebody with it on April 10, 1963. But the fact remains: he did exactly that. He shot at General Edwin Walker in April, and he held on to that same Carcano rifle for seven more months and then killed John F. Kennedy with it in November.

I guess maybe my point here is: The mindset of an assassin is a hard thing to figure out.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

I could go on and on, but the LN's hand wave it all away. Luck, coincidence, mistakes...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In a case the size and scope of the JFK/Tippit/Ruby case, there is bound to be quite a bit of all three of those things --- Luck, Coincidence, and Mistakes. And there are. No doubt about it.

But what I want to know is:

How much evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald are the conspiracy theorists willing to "hand wave" away?
 

And, where is that link that you say that you provide to the gentle reader, for that thing called “context”? That is what the embedded forum “quote” feature is for.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Denny Zartman]

Take my name and my words off your website, David. You do not have my permission to use them.

[Denny Zartman]

36 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

David,

By your own admission tou are copying members work and editing it. In the case of the Bill Kelly thread you have selected what you feel is pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work edit it and place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.

James

 

Thank you, sir.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

 

David,

I have grave reservations that you print everything a member says.

In this page

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-1.html

from 2010 there is screeds from you and a small paragraph from James D 'E. Are you arguing that the small section you published from James was all he had to say.

The Bill Kelly post is a six page thread. Please provide the link to your site which demonstrates that you published every word.

From looking at your site it appears to me you edit.

James

 

Mr. Gordon, would the forum care if i published a book called "a collection of forum posts".  This book would verbatim quote debates between members.  I would adf my commentary regarding the posts.  I would charge $29.99 and of course give no member or the forum  any royalties or license payments. If the forum is ok with this, I will get my book published asap.  Is there a difference between publishing a book or on a web site?  There was some dangerous ground here.  You made a tough call.  

Edited August 27, 2019 by Cory Santos

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

That’s ironic. It sounds like a death wish for a platform that gave you such enjoyment for so long.

Not a death wish at all. Just a fact of Internet life. Virtually every forum I've ever posted on is now gone --- e.g., JFK Lancer, Amazon's Discussion Boards, the "old" Duncan MacRae forum (due to a hacker that time), Bob Harris' forum, and Rich DellaRosa's forum. All have died. And it's a shame. Because there was a lot of good stuff on most of those forums. Which is one of the main reasons I make an attempt to archive (i.e., save) my own contributions at my own website.

 

Quote

Remember, David, that your flaunting of your foul behavior is what raised the ire of the membership...

I've provided (i.e., "flaunted", if you will) links to many of my "Assorted Assassination Arguments" dozens of times over the years here at this forum. Never once, prior to yesterday, did anyone ever ask me to remove their content from those pages. (I guess you'll say that nobody ever once clicked on any of them, right? But I know that's not the case.)

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Mr. Gordon, would the forum care if i published a book called "a collection of forum posts".  This book would verbatim quote debates between members.  I would adf my commentary regarding the posts.  I would charge $29.99 and of course give no one any royalties or license payments. If the forum is ok with this, I will get my book published asap.  Is there a difference between publishing a book or on a web site?  There is some dangerous ground here.

It’s a matter of decorum, not legalese, IMO. Some may argue, and win, the argument presented here, but no-one can argue that the forum owners have the right to make such a decision.

Heck, I was given a vacation by James and he was clear that I had not broken any rules. I accepted that and moved on. David made a choice here. His pathetic forum-debate trophy wall was more important to him than engaging in debate.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Michael Clark

[Cory Santos]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

It’s a matter of decorum, not legalese, IMO. Some may argue, and win, the argument presented here, but no-one can argue that the forum owners have the right to make such a decision.

Heck, I was given a vacation by James and he was clear that I had not broken any rules. I accepted that and moved on. David made a choice here. His pathetic trophy wall was more important to him than engaging in debate.

I think Jim and others were and still are bringing up a legal point.  Can someone publish their work without a license?  That is the issue and I think they have answered the question.  I was willing to help all involved but was told apparently I was wrong lol.  So, let the chips fall where they might.  Mr. Gordon made a tough call but gave his reasons.  David perhaps you should consider finding a compromise that makes everyone happy?

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I think Jim and others were and still are bringing up a legal point.  Can someone publish their work without a license?  That is the issue and I think they have answered the question.  I was willing to help all involved but was told apparently I was wrong lol.  So, let the chips fall where they might.  Mr. Gordon made a tough call but gave his reasons.  David perhaps you should consider finding a compromise that makes everyone happy?

Well put, and I agree. I think I was the only one making a case outside of rules and law. I don’t think your book would lose in court. Yet, there are courts that stand outside of a court of law. I can’t imagine having the gall to carry-on like DVP did, and happily walk among it’s members. If earning the respect of your peers is the definition of self-actualization, then David has sunk pretty low. He may have earned respect for his debate skills, but his website, as attested here, is a stab in the back to everyone that did not appreciate his self-promotion and pernicious proclivities.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah, that's what I figured.

For more than three years this thread has been here, and in that whole time not a SINGLE person asked to have their content removed from my site. Now, suddenly, CTers are crawling out of the woodwork with complaints. Even just 3 days ago, Bart Kamp couldn't have cared less about what I did on my rinky-dink little blog. Now, three days later, he's ready to leave the forum and demand that all of his own posts be removed because of MY site that three days ago he didn't care about at all. Unbelievably fickle.

And, again, can you just imagine this thread existing if a "CTer" had archived some of his posts at his website (which likely HAS occurred somewhere online)? It never would have been started in the first place, of course.

Bye.

Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future. And when that happens, you might even find yourself wanting to seach my site for your forum posts that have been lost for all time because of the fact that Internet forums rarely last forever.  Go ahead and tell us your site doesn't receive a lot of hits from the links to it you post on here.  

 

Might it be your site that goes belly up in the near future?  Without the hits you get from the links to it you post here?

Edited August 27, 2019 by Ron Bulman