The Future of the Education Forum

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks Ron, or Mr. Ecker if you prefer. 

Mr. Graves - my bet is that Mr. Ecker would agree that all of us should expect to be treated with civility, and without sarcasm.

 

Paul,

Thanks.

One would certainly hope so.

--  TG 

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The problem with that is, the utter disdain has already been well-established.  The discussion as to whether "language matters" would be more relevant if one were starting from scratch.  When one Senator whom everyone knows despises another Senator rises and says "If I may interrupt my esteemed colleague ..." it's exactly like "With all due respect ..."  Everyone knows he means "I can't take another second of this fool I completely despise ..."

The real problem is not the language but the disdain.  The disdain exists primarily, I believe, because the various JFK assassination theories, including the Lone Nut theory, have become fundamentalist religions, pure and simple.  You are asking an assembly of fanatical Roman Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Russian Orthodox to "play nice."  Take my word for it, they don't and they never will.  They might maintain a facade for some short period, but the differences and disdain are too deep to keep a lid on for long.  When you then factor in that the "assembly" we're talking about is an internet forum, I do not believe any solution will be anything more than a very short-term one.

I pointed out to James that I participate on a Christian site where the membership is quite small, everyone theoretically is a Christian and 97% of them are very conservative Protestants, and the discussions are very closely moderated - yet it is the inevitable bloodbath of feuds, insults, warnings, closed threads, banned members and all the rest.  So good luck here.

 

Lance,

Excellent post (in my humble opinion).

Thanks,

--  TG 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Rob Couteau]

I too believe that language matters. Treating other posters respectfully - without sarcasm or disdain - is much more important than being "right" or "wrong" about a particular subject. And if a member displays a consistent pattern of such undiplomatic behavior, then the moderators should ban him or her, simple as that.

 

[Paz Marverde]

The problem, here, is Mr. "With all due respect". The one that now is pretending to have finally found the peace in his heart and the ability to avoid to be a t-roll. We could call him also Mr. "KGB mole", if you prefer, or Mr. "I am here to derail whatever post accusing you to be a Putin mole". Period 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Paz Marverde

[Michael Clark]

It is difficult for me give my answer to the question that James asked, simply because the answer is so obvious that I take it as almost a rhetorical question. Language does matter. Some things matter more however. Respect for the membership as whole is more important than language, grammar, politeness. Tommy's 100 word sentences are a form of self-stimulation and are disrespectful to the reader. Paul Trejo's "politeness" is meaningless in light of the falsehoods that he constantly purveys. Walton's hit list, of what he deems are absurd theories, that he shuffles through whenever he wants to place a member's offerings in his bucket of contempt that he carries around the forum, is hugely disrespectful to the forum and all members in it. James's point about language, assuming he is pointing out David's harsh words that he sometimes uses is more than a fair point; but, IMO, it pails in comparison to the overall damage to the forum that is done by the other three members I have mentioned.

What is really worthy of note is that James and others who support the forum financially are doing so for the benefit of about 30 people who post here with some frequency. While the maintainance of the historical record of the forum, long before I came here, is invaluable, maintaining it for the few who now participate, and the the very few who walk in with muddy shoes, makes no sense.

I would like to know what James' ending of financial support means to the forum. I want to help, if something can be done. It seems that maintaining the forum, closed, as a historical record and maintaining it as an open and operating forum are the two options apart from turning out the lights. If it could be made clear what the costs are and how to make payments going forward, if that method is actually different from how it is done now, I think that would be helpful.

Thanks for all you have done in the past, James, and the other admins and moderators.

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

43 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

It is difficult for me give my answer to the question that James asked, simply because the answer is so obvious that I take it as almost a rhetorical question. Language does matter. Some things matter more however. Respect for the membership as whole is more important than language, grammar, politeness. Tommy's 100 word sentences are a form of self-stimulation and are disrespectful to the reader. Paul Trejo's "politeness" is meaningless in light of the falsehoods that he constantly purveys. Walton's hit list, of what he deems are absurd theories, that he shuffles through whenever he wants to place a member's offerings in his bucket of contempt that he carries around the forum, is hugely disrespectful to the forum and all members in it. James's point about language, assuming he is pointing out David's harsh words that he sometimes uses is more than a fair point; but, IMO, it pails in comparison to the overall damage to the forum that is done by the other three members I have mentioned.

What is really worthy of note is that James and others who support the forum financially are doing so for the benefit of about 30 people who post here with some frequency. While the maintainance of the historical record of the forum, long before I came here, is invaluable, maintaining it for the few who now participate, and the the very few who walk in with muddy shoes, makes no sense.

I would like to know what James' ending of financial support means to the forum. I want to help, if something can be done. It seems that maintaining the forum, closed, as a historical record and maintaining it as an open and operating forum are the two options apart from turning out the lights. If it could be made clear what the costs are and how to make payments going forward, if that method is actually different from how it is done now, I think that would be helpful.

Thanks for all you have done in the past, James, and the other admins and moderators.

Michael

 

Very well spoken, Michael.

I, too, plan to make a financial contribution.

Just one question, though.  When you say that Paul Trejo is "purveying falsehoods," aren't you in effect accusing him of l-y-i-n-g?

--  TG 

PS  I learned to write grammatically correct long sentences in my "Legal Analysis" class in law school.  Not that my 100 word-long sentences here would necessarily reflect that.  (Laughing Out Loud)

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Don Jeffries]

James,

This forum has always had a substantial number of lurkers who, probably with good reason, hesitate to jump into the fray with such strong personalities. It has always been dominated by a small number of posters. 

I respect you for providing this forum to everyone. You are certainly free to run it as you see fit, and we should respect the rules you establish. However, I have always thought that this is a lost cause in terms of this research community. Writing about the subjects I do, from the perspective I have, has brought me into contact with lots of extreme individuals who are attracted to the JFK assassination, 9/11 and other popular conspiratorial-type subjects. They are far too often opinionated to a fault, arrogant to varying degrees, and totally assured that their own take on a given issue is the right one. However, they are also willing to think outside the box, and are our best hope, imho, of solving the JFK assassination and other cases. 

My argument was, and has always been, that there is an inconsistency here and it seems the majority of the moderators have historically held a bias against advocates of a huge, all encompassing conspiracy. The neocon types, or those who expend more energy criticizing particular "conspiracy theories," or who castigate "conspiracists," have always seemed to be untouchable here. Those extreme types make this forum, or any forum, more interesting and intriguing. 

I'm sure I echo the sentiments of everyone by hoping that this forum continues to be available to researchers and interested members of the public.  

 

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 12:34 PM, James R Gordon said:

I want to make one more comment today. Mark Knight is right we do all have other commitments - though not the demands that Mark has from the needs of his family member. And I usually rely on members reporting rather than actively monitoring this site

Mark is a much more restrained admin member than I. Many is the time he has counselled me from positions I wanted to take. Aside from Mark and Paul, I want to hear if there actually are members who also feel that the use of language is important in the quality of discussion. I honestly am not sure the general membership feel it is important and one member has already insulted me and this thread.

So I would like to know, am I the only one who is concerned?

 

No Sir, you are not the only one concerned.  Some have posted about your question already, others may.  I am concerned too.  I'm still new here time wise but like to think there are others out there who like me for years before I finally joined look to the site frequently for relevant informed discussion of pertinent topics even if picking through posts is necessary.

Of course language, how it is used, is important.  Some moderation is necessary though a difficult and time consuming job.  Thank you for doing it.  

[Kirk Gallaway]

Of course, language matters. Sometimes I might be a bit confrontational or try to inject some humor into things, but I think language and tone matter greatly.

From a moderator perspective if someone  can't be contacted because his mail box is full. (Which can happen to anybody) then they should be dropped until a contact is made. I don't think James, Kathy and Mark are under any obligation to share their dialog  to us. But they did, which is greatly to their credit.

My experience on forums as these, as opposed to say some others,  is limited. I've been a member on about a dozen sites. I think moderating this site is potentially a hard job, a harder job than any other one I've been.There are a lot of people who are guarding their little pet theory kingdoms, and some of them are on a fringe.

Lance said:

In the main, people who promote what I consider lunatic fringe theories are anything but lunatics, tending to be very intelligent and dedicated - which is part of the fascination.

This is very true, Similarly, I don't believe in Harvey and Lee for example, but you can't dismiss the proponents out of hand because some do very valuable work in other areas. But I still consider Harvey and Lee (that is, humans meddling in human affairs) a thousand times more likely than "Virgin Birth". Ha ha! (which I think could be kind of a cool name for a  band!)

I think what Don is proposing is that things would liven up a bit if we could get some more proponents of huge, all encompassing conspiracies. I've thought from time to time that things could liven up a bit. i think some of the doldrums is just the cyclic nature of forums like these. However, that could be a double edged sword, resulting in  endless, futile  conversations with rather closed, paranoic types.  Some would welcome that, as I'm always astounded how many take the bait and feed the t-r-o-l-l-s. But for me, time can be spent more wisely. I guess I'm revealing my prejudice, though the last thing I consider myself to be is a Neo Con.

I'm not an expert on policing forums. But I think the mods are to be applauded for a lot of things done right.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Michael Clark]

 

[Pat Speer]

As a long-time member, and an occasional participant in other forums. it's clear to me that this forum remains the most civil forum on the assassination, in which a multitude of views are presented. Many of the other forums have given up, and are little more than excuses for people to yell at each other.

Long may it run.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As a long-time member, and an occasional participant in other forums. it's clear to me that this forum remains the most civil forum on the assassination, in which a multitude of views are presented. Many of the other forums have given up, and are little more than excuses for people to yell at each other.

Long may it run.

I know I should let dead dogs lie and moderation is a double edged sword.  But I can't help think back on years I read the forum before joining and trying to put it all in perspective.  The  forum did outlast Mc Adams though if I remember right he was banned previously.  Then again Jim D was banned for a while too.  FWIW, some wont believe this is not brown nosing but I Hate that myself, I never blamed him for responding in kind, IMHO.  Somebody(s) are assaulting your credibility and intelligence and you don't?

Pat, you used to post on Jeff Morley's JFK Facts website, as did Jim some.  While Jeff moderated it for several years there was some relevant informative conversation there.  Then he hired Tom what was his name?  Who had also been banned from here if I remember right again.  It's never been the same since.  

Moderation is a delicate and difficult but important matter.  Thanks again to those who attempt it.  I know I've over stepped the bounds of common courtesy in anger before.  Thank you for your tolerance. 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=long+may+you+run&view=detail&mid=A2A58D54DEC839E2A4DDA2A58D54DEC839E2A4DD&FORM=VIRE

  

[Paul Brancato]

Tom what's his name derailed many threads here, but I often found interesting connections in his posts

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

I know I should let dead dogs lie and moderation is a double edged sword.  But I can't help think back on years I read the forum before joining and trying to put it all in perspective.  The  forum did outlast Mc Adams though if I remember right he was banned previously.  Then again Jim D was banned for a while too.  FWIW, some wont believe this is not brown nosing but I Hate that myself, I never blamed him for responding in kind, IMHO.  Somebody(s) are assaulting your credibility and intelligence and you don't?

Pat, you used to post on Jeff Morley's JFK Facts website, as did Jim some.  While Jeff moderated it for several years there was some relevant informative conversation there.  Then he hired Tom what was his name?  Who had also been banned from here if I remember right again.  It's never been the same since.  

Moderation is a delicate and difficult but important matter.  Thanks again to those who attempt it.  I know I've over stepped the bounds of common courtesy in anger before.  Thank you for your tolerance. 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=long+may+you+run&view=detail&mid=A2A58D54DEC839E2A4DDA2A58D54DEC839E2A4DD&FORM=VIRE

  

I should have been more clear in my post. The current make-up of this forum is about as civil a group as I have seen. A few people have been rude to each other. I suspect they all will get over it.

The level of nastiness is currently a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, IMO. This forum has at times been as high as a 7, I would say. Other forums on which I've posted, the JFK assassination forum, all.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk, JFKfacts, the IMDB discussion forum for the film JFK, and numerous discussions on Amazon and youtube, have ranged between 5 and 10. There was at one time a character on alt.assassination.jfk, who used to send me emails telling me that my family was destined to burn in hell. There was another guy on youtube who was always trying to get me out in the hills so he could show me what a good shot he was, which my family took as a threat.

In sum, then, the bad behavior currently on this forum is minor in comparison to what we've seen on this forum in the past, and what I've seen elsewhere.

P.S. McAdams was never a member of this forum.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Jim Hargrove]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:27 AM, James R Gordon said:

This morning I noted that there were 762 reads of the thread and 13 responses - and that included the multiple responses by two members who used the thread to continue their own discussions. It would appear that the majority of members who read the thread do not share my views and have ignored the thread. In all good conscience I cannot accept remaining with the status quo and all the issues that has provoked and also be expected to fund this forum - as I have done for a number of years. I will stop payments to Invision after April 4th. That means this forum is funded until May 11th - approximately 7 weeks. What happens now to the EF is for the membership to decide.

Like others, I’d like to thank Mr. Gordon for making this forum possible for a number of years at his own expense.  It often must have felt like a thankless task.

Rather than let all the information contained in these many pages simply die, perhaps Mr. Gordon would consider taking a few steps to preserve it.  If he is not already doing so, I wonder if there is a way to archive all the posts immediately.  It would surely be easier to do that now rather than trying to somehow reconstruct all this data after it was erased from the current server.  Can any of us help defray the cost of that?

Better yet, if there were new conditions of support that might enable James to reconsider his decision, no doubt many of us would appreciate hearing about them.  Some of us would surely be willing to help in any way possible.  

April 4th is just two weeks away.  I do think the use of language is important, but establishing the truth in this case, to me, is even more important.  Call me pessimistic, but two weeks seems like insufficient time to settle either issue.  Is there a way at least to extend the deadline?