WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[John Kozlowski]

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David stated previously here that the reason he archived posts was to have a record of his conversations with CTs. I think the fear expressed that he will "collect posts" is unfounded and much ado about nothing. If he can no longer participate here there is presumably no reason for him to "collect posts."

I was just letting him know that blocking an IP will not keep someone away. I have no dog in this fight but thought in case something happens in the future that James should know there are options that can be considered.

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

The EF forum is owned by Invision. We do not own this site - we lease it from Invision - and the kinds of options above are not open to us.

If we did own the site that would be a different matter.

I am not unsympathetic to the ideas expressed and if this were an independently owned site that would be different.

James.

 

2 hours ago, John Kozlowski said:

Have you talked with them about making it private? If that’s the route you want to take it should be able to be done very easily. Ive modded a few forums in the past which were under different providers and they all had an option similar to what I stated. It would just require people to login to be able to view posts. Like I said earlier it may limit new members but it would be private.

Google, DuckDuckGo and Bing apparently all index every single post from this forum, at least from the “JFK Assassination Debate” sub-forum, which is what I follow.  JFK assassination-specific queries on all three of these search engines usually produce Education Forum results high on the first page of the results.  The more specific the query is, from my experience, the higher the Ed Forum ranks in the results.

That’s the main reason I try to make every post I write as good as I can make it.  And yes, I wish they were all better.  But keeping criticism alive of the Warren Commission conclusions is important to me and hopefully just as important to most other people here, and this is one of the best ways available to do it.  Once again, thanks to James R. Gordon for helping to make this happen.

If the Ed Forum were to become a private website, the search engines would no longer cover it.  Please keep the “JFK Assassination Debate” forum open and public!  A lot may depend on this!  

[John Kozlowski]

10 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

Google, DuckDuckGo and Bing apparently all index every single post from this forum, at least from the “JFK Assassination Debate” sub-forum, which is what I follow.  JFK assassination-specific queries on all three of these search engines usually produce Education Forum results high on the first page of the results.  The more specific the query is, from my experience, the higher the Ed Forum ranks in the results.

That’s the main reason I try to make every post I write as good as I can make it.  And yes, I wish they were all better.  But keeping criticism alive of the Warren Commission conclusions is important to me and hopefully just as important to most other people here, and this is one of the best ways available to do it.  Once again, thanks to James R. Gordon for helping to make this happen.

If the Ed Forum were to become a private website, the search engines would no longer cover it.  Please keep the “JFK Assassination Debate” forum open and public!  A lot may depend on this!  

There are definitely cons to making it private. I wasn’t trying to sway his mind one way or another. It would hurt this place more than help. 

 James said he didn’t really have any options and I was just letting him know that isn’t really true at all. Like you said if someone does an internet search they won’t find anything from here and that will keep new users from signing up.

   I’ve been a mod on quite a few forums over the years and it has helped many but also hurt some. At this point since DVP isn’t able to comment I see no real reason for him to continue to copy posts. But if it would continue for some reason there is always that option.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, John Kozlowski said:

I was just letting him know that blocking an IP will not keep someone away. I have no dog in this fight but thought in case something happens in the future that James should know there are options that can be considered.

Thanks John, I was really just using your post to reply to what seems to be a general concern.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 Please keep the “JFK Assassination Debate” forum open and public!  A lot may depend on this!  

A red letter day-Jim and I agree!

[Pat Speer]

This forum was conceived as a place where people can share ideas about the assassination...and have them read by people from all over the world. When it was set up, there were a number of "private" forums, where people shared ideas with a small group of people. Most of those forums have since disappeared, along with the vast majority of the posts on these forums. Those wishing to join private forums now join Facebook groups, and have their posts read by perhaps as many as 20 or 30 people, as opposed to the 100 to 1,000 that are likely to read a post on this forum. 

Taking this forum private so no one can copy the words of those uncomfortable with the idea someone might copy and paste their words elsewhere on the internet would be silly, IMO. It's one of the reasons this forum was founded, for crying out loud. John Simkin used posts from this forum to fill in blanks on his Spartacus website. He never asked for permission to quote posts on his website. It was John's hope this website would become a Spartacus-like resource used by people around the world. So he contacted a number of researchers, writers and witnesses, asked them to join, and allowed newbies like myself to join in the discussion. Thankfully, the vast majority of these posts are still available for study.  

Feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere you like.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Pat Speer

[Robert Card]

17 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

David stated previously here that the reason he archived posts was to have a record of his conversations with CTs. I think the fear expressed that he will "collect posts" is unfounded and much ado about nothing. If he can no longer participate here there is presumably no reason for him to "collect posts."

In my view, I have no problem with DVP copying my comments to his site.   The problem is he cherry picked the first sentence of my comment where I was prefacing my point, and only used that.   If he's going to copy comments, then he should copy the entire comment, and not cherry pick.   What he copied was not the thought I was trying to convey.

[B. A. Copeland]

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If he can no longer participate here

Wait...what happened?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Wait...what happened?

He's been banned.

[B. A. Copeland]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He's been banned.

Whoa....:O. Thanks for the response.

[James DiEugenio]

B A , just read the thread for about the last four days and you will see why.

[Michael Clark]

Lee, if you still get notifications, you presence is missed. 

In relation to this/a particular, present situation, it was claimed/insinuated (elsewhere) that some number of your posts were deleted. I think that I read that you deleted them. Can you clarify, or, perhaps, return?

 

On 4/29/2004 at 2:37 PM, Lee Forman said:

Hello. My name is Lee Forman. Born in 1966, I had written several reports on the JFK assassination back in my High School days in the early 1980s, concluding that a conspiracy was unquestionable. My interest in the case began in part due to my older brother's curiousity, as he had been born November 23, 1963.

I am at present a Sales Director working in the Telecom sector. I received my Bachelors in Political Science at Messiah College in Pennsylvania in 1991.

My interest in the JFK assassination debate was renewed following my learning of letters which had been sent to A&E by Ladybird Johnson, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, criticizing the airing of "The Guilty Men" on the History Channel, due to it's implication of Lyndon Baines Johnson as a conspirator.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

My suggestion would be to restore access to EF for David after he removes his EF archive from public view. There is no intellectual property problem in backing up own messages posted here, and even messages of others if all are kept in a private document and not publicised on own website. The new rule on Copyright ownership from yesterday is very useful.

I hope David will understand the intellectual property issue he is in involved with and removes his archive from his webpage. In that case, I would recommend reinstating David's access to EF.

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest]

On 8/26/2019 at 7:48 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I agree. I wish our resident LN attorney Lance would weigh in with a legal opinion on this mess.

Alas - or perhaps not, depending on your perspective - there is no legal issue.  I investigated in depth, including taking various legal actions, against a mega-site (much larger than this) that repeatedly banned me for expressing Christian sentiments at the atheist-dominated "spirituality" sub-forum.  If you substitute "JFK conspiracy theorist" for "militant atheist," the debates were essentially identical.  Because this is a privately-owned site, there is no legal basis for a claim of discrimination, selective enforcement, violation of free speech or whatever.  (You could incur liability for defamation on a privately-owned site, but that's a different issue.)  On the other hand, the notion that any of us have a protectable "privacy" or "intellectual property" interest on what we post on Internet forums strikes me as hysterical - not as hysterical as Harvey & Lee or the notion of Ruth Paine as a CIA operative, but pretty hysterical nonetheless.  No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

Edit:  Because lawyers have to be paranoid about this sort of thing, I should point out that I am no longer a lawyer at all and the above is simply my experience.  I retired in 2018 and resigned from the bar in 2019.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Guest

[W. Tracy Parnell]

57 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

That does indeed appear to be the real issue here. After all, where are all the lawsuits since David has not removed any of the ostensibly offensive material from his site and that material was the "real issue" according to the "aggrieved" parties.