Jump to content
The Education Forum

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again, if you go back to that DVP vs DiEugenio blog post on his site, you will see that Von Pein did not come close to quoting my original postings fully on the subject.

He posted a very brief rebuttal to a guy named Mike Williams.

My original post on the subject, which I sent to Bill Kelly, was like four times that long, at least.

Anyone can see that just by clicking through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein. You and your stupid little games you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why should anyone have to ask that their own material be removed from this site just because David Von Pein is taking snippets of  it and misrepresenting it?

Do we have any other options?

I have written one of the administrators here regarding this matter. I will let you know if I get a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I have written one of the administrators here regarding this matter. I will let you know if I get a response.

I have written as well, and if Von Prein doesn't get a move on then Google will be written to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a debate. This is not a game.

When I joined this forum, I agreed to have my words posted here - not elsewhere.

I resent my words and my name being taken from this forum and posted elsewhere without my knowledge or permission. The person who is doing that is wrong, PERIOD.

Stealing content without permission or compensation and then editing it to suit their own purposes is not free speech, it is thievery and it is misrepresentation. But the person who is doing this is allowed to continue stealing content from this forum, allowed to edit it in a dishonest way, and still enjoy the privileges of remaining a member. I'd like to know why.

As far as I am concerned , letting this practice continue is a violation of the agreement I had when I joined this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all concerned.

I have had a number of complaints on this issue. To be honest, until Bart and James DiEugenio got in touch did it begin to dawn on me what the problem was.

I have no concern with David archiveing his own material. However I see his archive incudes contributions from other members. From what I gather, the complaints refer to the points that the others being archived are not being represented fairly. Put simply David appears to be editing other members comments. I believe David may also be copying members original research without permission. To fair to David he appears to be trying to establish a chronological argument. But it appears he is doing so by editing the viewis of fellow members - as opposed to a full copy of their views. And the complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.

This is not a banning offence - at least I do not think it is. But what David is doing is offensive to members especially as the members arguments is being edited by David  - and in the eyes of those members  - David is misrepresenting their work and research, And the problem - as I see it - is that these edited members views are being published on a foreign site and is done without the permission of the members.

There is only one option open here. This is not a banning offense and restricting David's posting rights will not work because he can still copy members materials. The only option is to  deny David access to the site. The EF has never done this before, but looking at the complaints - and the legitimacy of the complaints - unless access to the site is denied David is free to copy verbatum members work and edit it as pleases him.

I feel it is terrible it has come to this. Although I disagree with David's views he is a respected researcher. But the essential point is that fellow members do not have editorial access to their work on David's site On his site, David is the editor of EF members ideas and views and the complaint is that David is misrepresenting their position.

So here is what is going to happen. Starting tomorrow if members see that David is still copying and pasting their research onto his site then please immediately inform me, I will then immediately remove David's access to this site. Hopefully David will read this and immediately stop this.

James

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Absolutely right. I think what is happening here is an effort to silence David and that is not a good thing even for his opponents. Some of the CTs want this to be a "sandbox" where they can float even the most preposterous theories (H&L is still being discussed almost daily) without being challenged. While that may be an enjoyable exercise for them, they presumably want those theories to be taken seriously by other researchers and eventually the public at large. So, people like David and Lance perform a service to everyone by refuting the more ridiculous theories and debating the enduring ones. Those serious about finding the "truth" should welcome such scrutiny.

This is a privately owned forum. No one has a right to post here except for those who own this forum. No one is saying that ideas cannot be challenged HERE. But taking content from this forum written by other people and posting it on another, separate website without their permission is simply wrong. It's against the terms of service of this forum, and even if it wasn't, it is still WRONG. And editing the content stolen from this forum and posting it on another privately owned website without permission is also wrong. Here, people can read both sides and both sides have an equal opportunity to respond, and that is FAIR. On another website, that cannot be done, and that is UNFAIR.

I welcome the scrutiny HERE. I welcome the challenges on facts HERE. I welcome the debate HERE. But I will not stand for my words and my name to be taken and used on another website without my permission. I am not creating content for any JFK website other than this one. Stealing my words and my name and posting it on another website without my permission or my knowledge is utterly and completely wrong.

If Von Pein wants content for his website, he can create it himself. He does not have my permission to use my name and the content I have created without my permission. This is not a debate.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG TO PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

And the complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.

Incorrect. I've "changed" neither.

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), I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on this forum.

 

Quote

...and the complaint is that David is misrepresenting their position.

And that complaint is also untrue, insofar as (again) the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on.

There has been no "misrepresentation" on my part with respect to the topics that I have CHOSEN to talk about with the conspiracy theorists here at this forum (and then over at my own site when I copy those exact same discussions there).

As for the topics at this forum that I have not chosen to engage the CTers on, I always provide a link (or links) to the full and complete forum discussion on my webpages at my site. So, as I've pointed out numerous times previously, if someone wants to read the full thread, they can easily do so from my site (if such a link is available, that is, which sometimes it is not, but that's beyond my control because the thread was deleted by the moderators, and in such a case, then my site is now the only place to read any part of those deleted threads).

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2019 at 4:37 PM, Bart Kamp said:

No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place any way 😁😝😂

On 8/26/2019....

Bart Kamp said:

If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein.

What a difference three days can make, huh?

Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

To all concerned.

I have had a number of complaints on this issue. To be honest, until Bart and James DiEugenio got in touch did it begin to dawn on me what the problem was.

I have no concern with David archiveing his own material. However I see his archive incudes contributions from other members. From what I gather, the complaints refer to the points that the others being archived are not being represented fairly. Put simply David appears to be editing other members comments. I believe David may also be copying members original research without permission. To fair to David he appears to be trying to establish a chronological argument. But it appears he is doing so by editing the viewis of fellow members - as opposed to a full copy of their views. And the complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.

This is not a banning offence - at least I do not think it is. But what David is doing is offensive to members especially as the members arguments is being edited by David  - and in the eyes of those members  - David is misrepresenting their work and research, And the problem - as I see it - is that these edited members views are being published on a foreign site and is done without the permission of the members.

There is only one option open here. This is not a banning offense and restricting David's posting rights will not work because he can still copy members materials. The only option is to  deny David access to the site. The EF has never done this before, but looking at the complaints - and the legitimacy of the complaints - unless access to the site is denied David is free to copy verbatum members work and edit it as pleases him.

I feel it is terrible it has come to this. Although I disagree with David's views he is a respected researcher. But the essential point is that fellow members do not have editorial access to their work on David's site On his site, David is the editor of EF members ideas and views and the complaint is that David is misrepresenting their position.

So here is what is going to happen. Starting tomorrow if members see that David is still copying and pasting their research onto his site then please immediately inform me, I will then immediately remove David's access to this site. Hopefully David will read this and immediately stop this.

James

 

Mr. Gordon, 

Can you send me the terms of service we all sign when we become members.  I assume we give the forum a license to use our photo and opinions.  Most forums do.  This might help in this situation.  For everyone.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Again, if you go back to that DVP vs DiEugenio blog post on his site, you will see that Von Pein did not come close to quoting my original postings fully on the subject.

Yes I most certainly did. I posted every single word in this Bill Kelly post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15921-robert-harris-and-the-ce399-tom-foolery/?tab=comments#comment-194367

Why on Earth you're saying otherwise is a bigger mystery.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...