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

I think Von Pein and Parnell make one huge mistake and that is believing the content on Von Pein's website postings is a true representation of what happened here at EF and it is not. Many times he left the thread as he was outargued and could not add anything to the conversation any more, but there was no sign of that at his website. He presents himself as the winner of these debates whereas he definitely is not!

I also told Von Pein to bugger off out of the thread I started on the second floor encounter simply due to his derailment tactics which have happened oh so many times and I was not going to let that happen in that thread. He used my remarks, again if I may add, in a complete wrong context.

Had he removed the material from his site I would have considered the matter closed but DVP doubled down, so be it.......

Another way to preserve threads, if one thinks this forum has no long lifespan is submitting pages to the waybackmachine that way the entire thread (if you add all the pages to it) is preserved for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone has a right to post here. I think DVP and others, including sometimes myself,  have a useful critical function that is otherwise lacking here. I understand people don't want to be quoted out of context. Though it happens all the time  in forums like these. The only way it can reflect badly is with other LN'er's who might frequent DVP's site. Do we have to take ourselves that seriously? Why do we really care that much about what they think? 

Still because I look at DVP's  website very infrequently, I can't say how fair he is in these reconstructed arguments. I can imagine some might feel like they are unfairly quoted out of context to be used as a foil for DVP.  After all, DVP's central aim is to gain a following by using chosen examples to portray  himself  as a credible critic of a JFK conspiracy who wins  every argument, so what is the purpose of using his opponent's  names at all?  A compromise could be that DVP  agrees to releases the forum source, but not specifically the names of the people he was debating unless specifically given consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk,

I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material. As Bart has posted above, DVP was asked to remove the material. On its own I understand that would have ended the matter. DVP refused to comply.

True DVP has done this for years, but I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used. Because of this argument I have looked at DVP's site. It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context and edited by him to support the thread he is creating. In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore  DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum.

Hopefully the EF will now make it impossible for him to continue to do this,

Finally Kirk, you are absolutely right everyone has a right to post their opinions here. But DVP's has two opinion. There are the posts he used to make here  on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

I think Von Pein and Parnell make one huge mistake and that is believing the content on Von Pein's website postings is a true representation of what happened here at EF and it is not. Many times he left the thread as he was outargued and could not add anything to the conversation any more, but there was no sign of that at his website. He presents himself as the winner of these debates whereas he definitely is not!

So start your own website and present the threads in a way that makes you the "winner." Blogger is free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been absent for quite some time as we had a family emergency and it necessitated moving, etc.  I just found out about this a few hours ago.  Wasn't sure why everyone was upset, since this has been David's MO for years., and 'twas an old thread resurrected, yes, 'twas. I understand it has to do with  changing posts of members(?) and publishing them, or leaving things out.  I'm going to have to look and see at some examples of this. 

I have to think that some of the hub bub is because David is a vocal LNer, and he may rub some the wrong way because of that.  Im  jus' sayin'.

Hopefully, he has provided links to the conversations he's had in the past as a sort of a "works cited" page. If not, then no one is sure who said what, or if it was said at all. 

 The "authors permission" is a good idea, to keep the integrity of the posts. 

As for showing himself the winner  of debates, I think most of us think we won any debate we have been in. I know I have :D  , so that's not a bone of contention. OTOH, yes it is but only for the beholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website.

MEGATHANKS!  I'll bet I speak for the vast majority of forum members in saying that this is a wonderful addition to the rules.  Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So start your own website and present the threads in a way that makes you the "winner." Blogger is free.

Parnell you make another horrible mistake.

I already have a website, a big one if only you checked the link in my sig.

And I do not need to copy and paste to that website as I make my arguments backed up with evidence, not denials inside this forum.....why would I need to fake it like Von Pein. The evidence does all the talking.

One more thing for you and your fellow LNers the Nile is a river in Egypt

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no real problem with DVP being at this site.  For the simple reason that you could argue with him under the rules of this site.  I am fine with free speech.

But man, when he writes over 130 chapters about you on HIS site with EF material, and twists it around to make him look like he won the argument, I just don't think that is proper use of copyright.  And the extent to which he did it, that is not fair use.

The ones he borrowed from me on Bugliosi were really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am of two minds on this subject.

1. Yes, DVP's extracts were edited to help his arguments. That is annoying. But at least he quoted his discussions accurately. As a result, a number of his extracts showed his short-mindedness, to the extent even that a newbie stumbling on his site would undoubtedly side against him. 

2. The idea that one can not quote public statements without the approval of the person making these statements is short-sighted, IMO. And extremely damaging to the goals of the members of this forum. If someone writes something outrageous, or dead wrong, these statements should not be withheld as personal property, or any such thing. I make dozens if not hundreds of references to online discussions on my website.  I quote online discussions with LNers and CTs alike. Some of the quotes involve eyewitnesses (I met so and so and they told me such and such). But most of them reveal mind-set. I use McAdams' own words against him. I use DVP's own words against him. And yes, I use the words of CT's like Fetzer against them. It should be noted, moreover, that among the best quotes I've been able to get via the various JFK forums are quotes from Dale Myers, in which he (badly, IMO) defends his SBT animation. I received these quotes via a middleman who took my complaints about Myers' animation to the source, begged for a response, and then posted Myers' response on the forums. This middleman--David Von Pein. 

It should be noted, furthermore, that at least one blogger who is not a member of the forums picked up on my online discussion (via DVP) with Myers, and exposed Myers' questionable methodology to thousands of readers who presumably never read the forums. 

 

So...to my way of thinking, this is how it should work. Anyone who is a public figure (which perhaps should be defined as anyone who has written a published book on the subject, made a TV appearance on the subject, or even, written extensively on a personal website on the subject) is fair game, and has no real gripe when they are accurately quoted extensively. But anyone who is not a public figure (i.e. the majority of those on this forum) is not fair game, and should only be quoted by name with permission, should they ask this to be the case. This does not, to be clear, prevent someone such as DVP from quoting them anonymously, moreover. In such case, an extract or article could be written exposing inaccurate CT thinking or inaccurate LN thinking by attributing the quote to "anonymous CT" or "anonymous LN."

My two cents.

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is this, the terms of service should generally state that the posts are the work of the author.  The author grants a license to the forum to publish these posts.  

As for other people republishing, the issue becomes should the forum restrict members from copying arguments?  Also, should members be upset if their work is republished?

The first answer is the forum can restrict the members as much as it wants.  Members can stay or leave.  However, the forum cannot give a license to anyone-see my book example- to republish arguments without the author's consent.  

That being said, it comes down to an issue between the author and the person republishing the work.  So Jim v. DVP.  The forum is really out of the situation except it can set ethical rules for participation in the forum.  The above post shows it has said members agree not to republish.  IF someone does that, the forum has a remedy, i.e. ban the member.  The two people involved have remedies potentially in a civil matter against each other.

So the question is should the forum restrict members from republishing?  That is a question for everyone else, not me.

Having said that, the solution would be for DVP to get a license from the forum to do this.  This agreement would include agreeing to publish the arguments word for word.

Then, DVP would pay a license fee to the forum to keep it going. 

Then, members who join and post would agree to a license agreement when they post on the forum which would be in the terms of service.  This agreement would include that his/her work could be included on a third party website based on a licensing agreement.  That is a win win for everyone.

As for DVP then giving his opinion on the arguments, the opposing person can have his her own site to counter anything said.  Certainly, if anything  is defamatory etc., there again is a remedy.  Or, the forum can moderate posts on the DVP site to ensure that his site has not violated the terms of service of the license which would include the terms of service of the forum preventing certain things.

So there is a solution which would continue to fund this forum and allow DVP to keep debate information on his site.  This is just an idea for people to consider.

 

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's an on line world these day's and that's what is being discussed here but what about books?  I've come across quotes from the forum in them.  If I'm not mistaken there was at least one in Lisa Pease A Lie Too Big To Fail and it seems like also in Mal Hyman's Burying the Lead recently as well as more in the past.  I'm pretty sure I've seen posts by Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock in particular quoted in a book or two in the past.  Which I don't see as a problem IF the quote is not taken out of context and the author is properly credited.  To me it is the same thing as quoting a line or two, even a paragraph from a book on the forum.  But I'm not a lawyer.  Although I do realize people have been sued for libel, defamation and slander for misquoting, editing and framing quotes out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is covered by fair use.

Fair use allows for the accurate quoting of another person's material in a brief form.  Its the law that allows for critiques of books, plays and film also.

But as I noted above, what DVP did was not fair use. No one can say what he did to me was "brief".  And in my view it was not accurate either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "If it's on the internet, it stays there"? Conspiracy theorists are facing the worst crisis in information loss ever. Important information and videos are being deleted or becoming more and more hard to find, at least with a simple search engine result. Like I said, free speech is more important than taking on DVP. There is a crisis in free speech where people view the free speech amendment more as a handicap than a code of ethics. Most people would rather the keys to the world be handed over to Kyle's Mom from South Park. 

Edited by Micah Mileto
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...