Deleted Thread

[John Simkin]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray’s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

[Tim Gratz]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray’s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great decision! Keep the Forum professional!

[Nancy Eldreth]

I agree and thank you for answering me. What I hope is that the last post was read and know that it doesn't go far with anyone.

The bad part is that so much is lost of what does need to be stated. That is the only hurt in this. Compressions of truths that always get deleted. And they get their way. Not for much longer.

[Terry Mauro]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray’s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear John,

Please remove my name from your mailing list, and withdraw my membership from this forum as I can no longer tolerate having my reputation sullied by, nor

associated with, the likes of someone of the caliber of Nancy Eldreth.

Regrettably yours,

Theresa C. Mauro

[Jack White]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray’s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John...maybe I missed the posting you found offensive.

I do not read every message, but I have found no message

offensive enough to complain about, except those which

contain personal attacks on other researchers. In particular,

I recall several Pamela Ray messages which I agreed

with. Why not let her postings stand, since any ideas should

pass the test of the readership. What did she say which

was offensive enough to warrant removal?

Jack

[Stephen Stocker]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray*s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John...maybe I missed the posting you found offensive.

I do not read every message, but I have found no message

offensive enough to complain about, except those which

contain personal attacks on other researchers. In particular,

I recall several Pamela Ray messages which I agreed

with. Why not let her postings stand, since any ideas should

pass the test of the readership. What did she say which

was offensive enough to warrant removal?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I wondered the same thing, though sadly I didn't have the chance to read any of it.

I generally find Pam's posts interesting and often informative, but I have no idea what may have taken place in that thread. I trust John's judgment, but I am curious.

Steve

[Dawn Meredith]

I have grown increasingly concerned about the development of Pamela Ray*s online seminar, To Kill A Country. When I got up this morning to read the latest postings I decided that it should be deleted. I took this decision because it was breaking all the rules stated at the beginning of the online seminars and had ceased to be an academic discussion on an aspect of the JFK assassination.

Members are of course free to start up a discussion on this subject in the main part of the JFK Forum. However, if members break the forum rules, their posts will be deleted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John...maybe I missed the posting you found offensive.

I do not read every message, but I have found no message

offensive enough to complain about, except those which

contain personal attacks on other researchers. In particular,

I recall several Pamela Ray messages which I agreed

with. Why not let her postings stand, since any ideas should

pass the test of the readership. What did she say which

was offensive enough to warrant removal?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I wondered the same thing, though sadly I didn't have the chance to read any of it.

I generally find Pam's posts interesting and often informative, but I have no idea what may have taken place in that thread. I trust John's judgment, but I am curious.

Steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

----____________________

John, Jack and Steve,

I agree, I found Pam's posting very informative, I did not get to read what ever occurred today as I had court most of the day.

I too trust your judgement, but wish I had seen what was so offensive. Could that part have been cut and her thread kept up, or had the whole thing just degenerated so badly that it was beyond saving? I did notice that it had attracted a LOT of posts.

Dawn

[Tim Carroll]

Pam's "seminar," involving inmate love affairs, her notions of "Christianity" (which I will say right here don't include Catholics or Mormons, do they Pam?), and Israeli aerial films of the assassination in Dealey Plaza, was swamping what was explicitly arranged as an academic process. She can peddle that stuff all she wants, but no self-respecting institution of higher learning would provide her a pulpit for that crap, and neither should an organized forum of seminars devoted to academic advancement. Additionally, my sense of fairness for her issues is diminished mightily by the overt anti-Semitism of her undocumented, unfootnoted pronouncements. No one is stepping on her ability to post in the regular forum, although I do hope she doesn't further provoke my loathing of her bigotry. My language can become quite unconstrained in such an event....

Tim

Edited November 29, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Nancy Eldreth]

What one person prior to me had asked was for Mr. Simkins to freeze the thread I take it that meant to let it stay but no more could post under it. Let it stand.

I asked the same thing.

If it can go back up and I hope it still can go back up it would be a battle won in my point of view.

So much gets lost because of twisted information and belittling a person down. That is what both of us stated on Pam's long and effort filled topic.

It is sad that this does keep happening. I do think lessons have been learned from it and maybe this could be a giant step in breaking though to more information that will help us understand more behind the Files story.

I do think there is a lot. IF we keep pushing it off and away from us we will never get to the bottom of it.

I know for Pam and myself it was a break though we did get a chance to talk and open up about somethings so hidden to both of us. I do speak for her and maybe I shouldn't, but for me it was a very big break through.

Thank you,

[John Simkin]

As I have said many times, the main objective of the Online Seminars was to create an academic approach to this subject. Pamela Ray’s seminar clearly did not fall into that category. In fact, it appeared to be some sort of love story that really should have been on some other kind of forum. I was also uncomfortable with some other aspects of its content. However, despite my reservations, I allowed it to remain. That was a mistake on my part.

Nancy then joined in with what appeared to be an account of her relationship with James Files (it is often difficult to be sure what Nancy is actually saying). These posts upset many members who began to make attacks on Pamela and Nancy. This deteriorated into the kind of argument that has plagued other forums. This is something I have tried to avoid. There were requests to lock the thread in order to stop these attacks. I considered doing that but eventually decided to delete the thread. The main reason was that it showed the JFK research community in a terrible light. I was not happy about the image this thread portrayed of this forum (and its members). I was worried that this one thread would undermine all the great work that was being done on the other threads. Yet it was the most popular of all the threads. What does that tell people about the JFK research community?

As I pointed out at the beginning, Pamela is free to post her story in the main part of the forum. Nancy, I suggest you start up a thread where you can tell your story. I also hope that members show restraint in their responses to these two stories. In fact, I think it would be better if everybody just ignored them.

[Nancy Eldreth]

I was the second person to request the thread to be locked up.

I have to agree it was more like a novel than something you would put up on a seminar. However, I am glad that we did cross notes that at least is where I did get something out of it and realized a bit more information.

I feel a bit blushing here, I do not have any releationship at all with James Files just more of a pen pal and that is it. In fact for about ten months we never wrote to each other. Only recently submitted a letter to him and heard back from him. Three weeks ago turned another letter in, only to ask Files about Tosh Plumlee's questions.

Which I still havn't heard any response. Maybe soon or Pam may get him to answer the question. Who knows? I DO HOPE HE ANSWERS IT

I don't feel affended at all if anyone saying to these threads ignore it, in fact I have stated those words myself, many times. However, it isn't something that even I can ignore and turn my own back on, it is something that compels me to do this. High interest, fascination, drive, and a hope to get an out come.

The day I turn my back on it everyone will know. In the meantime, I hope the research community survives this.

Edited November 30, 2004 by Nancy Eldreth

[Wim Dankbaar]

John,

Whether you agree with Pamela Ray and/or the James Files story or not, I think it is important and fair to state that you did not delete that thread because she (Pamela) broke the forum rules. Because I can imagine that many (and certainly me) are left with this impression.

Wim

[Stephen Stocker]

As I have said many times, the main objective of the Online Seminars was to create an academic approach to this subject. Pamela Ray*s seminar clearly did not fall into that category. In fact, it appeared to be some sort of love story that really should have been on some other kind of forum. I was also uncomfortable with some other aspects of its content. However, despite my reservations, I allowed it to remain. That was a mistake on my part.

Nancy then joined in with what appeared to be an account of her relationship with James Files (it is often difficult to be sure what Nancy is actually saying). These posts upset many members who began to make attacks on Pamela and Nancy. This deteriorated into the kind of argument that has plagued other forums. This is something I have tried to avoid. There were requests to lock the thread in order to stop these attacks. I considered doing that but eventually decided to delete the thread. The main reason was that it showed the JFK research community in a terrible light. I was not happy about the image this thread portrayed of this forum (and its members). I was worried that this one thread would undermine all the great work that was being done on the other threads. Yet it was the most popular of all the threads. What does that tell people about the JFK research community?

As I pointed out at the beginning, Pamela is free to post her story in the main part of the forum. Nancy, I suggest you start up a thread where you can tell your story. I also hope that members show restraint in their responses to these two stories. In fact, I think it would be better if everybody just ignored them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, John. As I said, I didn't see any of it, so I was in the dark.

I know it can't be easy to decide what's appropriate when dealing with issues as sensitive as many of these are. I don't envy you!

At any rate, I think your position is a fair one, and I appreciate your reply.

Steve

[John Simkin]

Whether you agree with Pamela Ray and/or  the James Files story or not, I think it is important and fair to state that you did not delete that thread because she (Pamela)  broke the forum rules.  Because I can imagine that many (and certainly me) are left with this impression.

I apologise if I did not make this clear. However, I am surprised you are making so much fuss about this. Pamela sent me copies of your emails to her. From this it was clear you did not want her to post her story on the forum. You also objected to the photograph of Pamela and yourself being posted. I thought I was doing you a favour by deleting the thread.

I also came close to deleting your seminar as it did not include notes and references. Passages such as the following is not acceptable behaviour in an academic seminar:

Father Bush is still friends with Orlando Bosch and Felix Rodriguez, the latter also convicted for his role in Watergate and in 1967 the head of the CIA team that tracked down and murdered Che Guevara in Bolivia. Felix is also a key figure in Iran-Contra, alongside Luis Posada Carrilles. He reports directly to George. Get the facts: +"Felix Rodriguez" +Bush. Do the search click here.

I did not delete the thread because of the responses from Tim Carroll and Tosh Plumlee. Their corrections proved to be very useful. Maybe you will now consider editing your original seminar to include notes and references.

[Wim Dankbaar]

John,

Of course I objected against posting that piece. After all, my friend Zack was falsely accused of being present at a torture scene and I was falsely accused of two lies.

In that regard, you did me a favor indeed. It was the suggested reason you gave, that I had a problem with. Thanks for straightening it out.

If you want to delete my seminar, go ahead, I don't care. You invited me to post one, remeber? I don't understand your fuss about a mistake I made by relying on a bad source (in this case Paul Kangas).

I retracted the statement that Rodriguez was convicted for Watergate. We all make mistakes. Even Tosh, you and Tim do.

If it is allright on this forum to say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin and quote your sources as Posner, Peter Jennings and John Mcadams, then I fail to understand why you're upset with one mistake by me, even to the point of deleting a thread. Is that because you can't stand the Files story and I'm one its messengers?

Wim