Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Future of the Education Forum


Recommended Posts

I just want to mention one thing because it is egregious behavior, IMO, and the mods may not have noticed. Our prolific “KGB did it” member has started to equivocate his theory with that of being a patriotic Amarican. To be sure, he has supported his position by pointing out that he is a proud American, and questioned whether detractors of his theory are patriotic. And, make no mistake, sometimes his sarcastic comment that “ Putin is a very nice man” is used to characterize his impression of the character of other members.

It can be very hard to control oneself under such circumstances, and such behavior is guaranteed to provoke harsh, personal pushback if it is not checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The current state of my closed mind is that the Lone Nut theory is BY FAR the most compelling and best supported by the evidence

Thank you for the honesty Lance.  

To be that informed and come to such an illogical conclusion which the evidence in fact contradicts, let alone not apply the context of the times is something with which I cannot come to grips.   

The presentation of said pov not better represented than by DVP....  And truly a wonderful source of the historical record....  Freely offered I may add....   This conflict is not resolvable.....  

So when a CTer presents something, is it not incumbent on you as WCR LN supporter to use WCR evidence to refute it?  Further, if said evidence is not AUTHENTIC it is of no evidentiary value other than to suggest the tampering of same.

Authenticate the evidence Lance...as if a court of law.... And make a case....  Don't just say we're wrong...

Show me why with logic that works

Cool?  Or too much to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I just want to mention one thing because it is egregious behavior, IMO, and the mods may not have noticed. Our prolific “KGB did it” member has started to equivocate his theory with that of being a patriotic Amarican. To be sure, he has supported his position by pointing out that he is a proud American, and questioned whether detractors of his theory are patriotic. And, make no mistake, sometimes his sarcastic comment that “ Putin is a very nice man” is used to characterize his impression of the character of other members.

It can be very hard to control oneself under such circumstances, and such behavior is guaranteed to provoke harsh, personal pushback if it is not checked.

 

deleted; moved to it own thread titled "An Open Message To Michael Clark"

 

--  Tommy  :sun
 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim:

Language is important.

When members start calling people psychotic, I mean that is over the top. 

There is nothing in my forensic and legal examination of the evidence that has anything to do with Lance's teleological epistemology.  That is simply a way of demeaning the other side.

Today, with what we know about the Single Bullet Fantasy, in every aspect of that horrendous hoax, I would argue the opposite: to believe in CE 399 today, to even think it was fired in Dealey Plaza, that is what takes a faith based position.    And if one does not buy the SBF or CE 399, then by definition, Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

Our side does not disagree about that. Where the splintering comes from is 1.) What really happened?, and 2.) How much of the rest of the case is phony?

As far as that goes, I am probably conservative in my thinking.  I am an agnostic on Harvey and Lee, and Z film alteration, and do not buy body alteration.  On PM, I await a first generation print to decide.  Although I do think the ROKC crowd and Bart have pretty much done away with Baker's lunch room encounter.

But my overall point is that these are genuine questions to ask and discuss.  They are not points to be ridiculed out of hand.  Mili Cranor's reply to the wide throat incision is the correct approach.  She replies with data and testimony.  That is why she is well respected and people in the medical field seek out her views.  And that should serve a s a model for what discussion on this case should be.  Whatever she thinks privately of LIfton she keeps close to her vest (or dress)--she engages his ideas on forensic level.

To me, that is what this case deserves.  And hopefully, this forum will take that example in the future. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have provoked each other and wasted bandwidth in long-running exchanges across several threads, exchanges which have deviated from our stated purpose in this Debate.  For all that, though, we have never approached the level of scurrility permitted the press during the first several US presidential elections.  Let's be proud of that and hold ourselves well below that standard of incivility and purposelessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

I am making an extraordinary statement to the forum. Mark Knight is one of the four owner admin members of this forum - Kathy Beckett is presently on holiday and David Butler has yet to comment.

My comment which gave rise to this reflection by Mark was a comment by me - to the admin team-  about being unable to contact David Joseph about his contacted.

Hi all,
There was a complaint about David’s arrogant attitude a little while ago. I tried to PM him but he has blocked any PM’s Actually is something we can change??
Anyway since I could not contact him I placed him on moderation, thinking that he would get in touch asking why. But no, and his attitude continued and I just did not approve any post.
Any way I have removed his privileges. Maybe when he can no longer post he will ask why and I can then explain that his attitude needs some improvement.
James

I have released David for the benefit of this conversation. Mark made the following comment to me which I publish - in whole - without seeking his consent. However I wish to make clear it is because of his statement that I am creating this thread. If Paul Bracato has indeed exited the forum because of current behaviour on the forum - and I believe Mark is also referring to admin behaviour I totally agree with Mark. And if a member of his standing has decided to leave the form then it is not something we should ignore Or Assume that there are not other members who feel exactly the same as Paul.

The text of Mark’s email to me:-

I think we may have a problem here.
Paul Brancato is one of the most reasonable and thoughtful forum members we have...or had, if he follows through.
David Josephs is on vacation from the forum...but Thomas Graves is not. While Mr. Graves may not be making personally insulting posts, most of his recent posts certainly insult the intelligence of the average forum member.
But Mr. Graves remains, mocking the entire purpose of the forum.

So does Michael Walton, whose incessant carping at Chris Davidson without actually citing any errors in his calculations is getting quite tiresome, at least to me. Is Chris Davidson on the right track? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But as he's working out his evidence, should we continue to allow Mr. Walton to, essentially, question Davidson's intelligence?
Now, I am certainly not a rabble-rouser. But Mr. Brancato's proposed departure tells me that we are doing SOMETHING wrong in the way we are handling this forum.
So what's the answer? If I had it, with 100% certainty, I'd share it with you. But I don't know.
What I do know is, if we run off the Brancatos and keep the Graves' and the Trejo's, what kind of forum will we have in 6 months, or a year? Probably not the kind we want to have.
Discuss, criticize me, whatever. But we need to be doing something differently, IMHO.

I feel very strongly that language does matters even on a forum whose purpose is to exam the brutal murder of an American President. It has been my position that conduct of members- whatever the criticism of that members - by other members may have been towards them - should not be excused. And maybe I - and I stress “I” - have not been consistent on this matter.

I leave it to members to discuss what the future of this forum should be. And be in no doubt that the future of this forum is the point. If respected members are voting with their feet and are leaving this is an issue we ALL should be concerned about.

 

James R. Gordon,

I know that you are very busy, but could you please ask Mark Knight to explain to me how most of my recent posts have been insulting the intelligence of the average forum member ? 

Also, could he please explain how I am "mocking the entire purpose of the forum"?

Thank you,

Thomas W. Graves  :sun

 

PS   Also, could you please request that David Josephs address me properly in the future, or not at all?

Please see my most recent post on the "David Josephs" thread in which I have offered to stop saying "with all due respect" to him (and to everyone else for that matter).

 

PPS  This just in from James DiEugenio on the "An Open Message To Michael Clark" thread.  Do you and / or Mark Knight agree with James?  (Thanks.)

 

OMG.

I mean is this for real?

TG, half of your idea is now on the ropes, unless you did not notice.

The House investigation is over and after one year they could no evidence of collusion.

The Senate is reportedly about to do the same.

Mueller is so desperate he is indicting xxxxx farms he knows he can never give due process to.

Months ago I linked to an article showing the whole DNC Russian hack thing was also dubious.

So that part of your idea is about to expire.

And you questioned me, oh those many moons ago before your sabbatical, about buying into unpatriotic Deep State paranoia because I said I would wait until the investigations have presented their findings.  But you knew better and started questioning my sagacity in doing so.

Please TG, show at least a bit of humility and self knowledge.

Further, your idol Peter Bagley  admitted to Malcolm Blunt that the so-called Oswald defection was a planned operation.  Why not acknowledge that just to show you are being at least a bit objective.

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mr. Spell Check:

 

Who is Steve Gordon?

 

Corrected already.

My bad.

Nice "catch," by the way, James.

(I must have been thinking of Flash Gordon meets Steven Reeves or something.)

 

--  Thomas, Tom, Tommy     :sun

(aka "TG", "Mr. Spell Check, ...)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James R. Gordon,

I know that you are very busy, but could you please ask Mark Knight to explain to me how most of my recent posts have been insulting the intelligence of the average forum member ? 

Also, could he please explain how I am "mocking the entire purpose of the forum"?

Thank you,

Thomas W. Graves  :sun

 

PS   Also, could you please request that David Josephs address me properly in the future, or not at all?

Please see my most recent post on the "David Josephs" thread in which I have offered to stop saying "with all due respect" to him (and to everyone else for that matter).

 

PPS  This just in from James DiEugenio on the "An Open Message To Michael Clark" thread. 

Do you and / or Mark Knight agree with James?  (Thanks.)

 

OMG.

I mean is this for real?

TG, half of your idea is now on the ropes, unless you did not notice.

The House investigation is over and after one year they could no evidence of collusion.

The Senate is reportedly about to do the same.

Mueller is so desperate he is indicting xxxxx farms he knows he can never give due process to.

Months ago I linked to an article showing the whole DNC Russian hack thing was also dubious.

So that part of your idea is about to expire.

And you questioned me, oh those many moons ago before your sabbatical, about buying into unpatriotic Deep State paranoia because I said I would wait until the investigations have presented their findings.  But you knew better and started questioning my sagacity in doing so.

Please TG, show at least a bit of humility and self knowledge.

Further, your idol Peter Bagley  admitted to Malcolm Blunt that the so-called Oswald defection was a planned operation.  Why not acknowledge that just to show you are being at least a bit objective.

 

edited and bumped

--  Thomas, Tom, Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Graves,

As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (If I'm wrong about this, maybe you can allow me to hang onto my illusion/self-delusion a bit longer.)

If my understanding is correct, then it is not about you or about me. It is not about making derisive and demeaning comments about other forum members, nor is it about bumping your posts merely to repeat the aforementioned comments. As I have mentioned at another time in the forum, if someone uses the button on each thread to go to the first unread post, they will see your post upon their return to that thread...no post bumping necessary.

I'm not advocating making this forum a humorless place. But demeaning other members or calling them something other than their name is disrespectful, not humorous. Dale Carnegie knew the importance of referring to someone by name. If you haven't read any of his books, I highly recommend them.

We can certainly demonstrate respect towards other members even if we find a theory of theirs to be total rubbish. But a critique without the "Jane, you ignorant slut!!" tone, pointing out errors in fact or logic, is a strong argument. An argument with an "anyone with half a brain can see" position comes across as not only weak but condescending.

Surely we can discuss and debate the assassination descending into that snakepit. If we can't, maybe continuing this forum IS the wrong course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

In an attempt to bring this full circle, and back on topic...

First, let me just say - wow!  I mean, WOW!

So here we are. Everyone has a big concern about how to cut back on, as Mark Knight said, the "carping." That's actually the term he used for my rebuttals to another member's insistent posting of mathematical formulas to somehow prove that one piece of unaltered evidence in the case - and which actually proves that the official shooting sequence could not have happened the way the WC said it happened - has been altered or faked. And with a heaping dose of irony, who would actually be right in this particular case - the big bad US government? Or the forum member?

Nowhere did I question this member's intelligence - ONLY his theory. And Knight calls my rebuttal "carping." And by the way, Mark, you don't have to cite errors in his theory.  All you have to do is watch the video I posted over and over to prove that no math in the world is going to prove his theory. In this particular incidence a picture really is worth a thousand words. Here is that quote:

So does Michael Walton, whose incessant carping at Chris Davidson without actually citing any errors in his calculations is getting quite tiresome, at least to me. Is Chris Davidson on the right track? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But as he's working out his evidence, should we continue to allow Mr. Walton to, essentially, question Davidson's intelligence?

Meanwhile on another thread, the Josephs thread where all of the conspiracists are welcoming him back with open arms, Knight posts this about the sllort (a word spelled backwards):

Mr. Josephs, I thank you for your contributions to the forum. I don't get involved in the H&L discussions simply because I don't have time to get up to speed on the subject. But I appreciate your work on other areas of the JFK assassination. As a moderator, I would simply advise you, as I would any other member, to not respond in kind to provocative posts. IOW, "don't feed the T-R-O-L-L-S."

And yet, as Lance Payette was eloquently explaining the why's and where of's about the ongoing problems of this forum, Josephs himself gets on, and says:

...5% exposure and a closed mind and one based on 90% and some level of acknowledgment that the cold war produced many things thought to be improbable...

Then tops it off with:

"No matter how paranoid one is, what the government is really doing, is much worse "....

I'll say this as politely as I possibly can.  The man definitely has anger and paranoia issues.  But don't take my word for it - he himself just admitted as much:

I applaud those with cooler heads... I'm Passionate, Mediterranean, hot blooded.....And make no excuses...

Lance then replies clearly to Josephs with:

"You now characterize my views as based "on a 5% exposure and a closed mind."  Do you not see that you are doing PRECISELY what you accuse others of doing?  Do you not see that you are making my VERY point, that there is no solution to this situation?  You do not see this because Harvey and Lee is your religion, and I do not share your view the Pope is infallible.  True Believers can never understand why others do not share their views.  The only possibility can be that the others are uninformed and close-minded."

And we're expected to believe that anything is really going to change here for the better?

Who are the sllort, Mark? Who are the carpists? Are they those that vigorously fight back on theories that are, at best, head-slapping stories and, at worst, do nothing but muddle the JFK assassination picture? Someone like Tracy Parnell (apologies to using his name here) one of the nicest people on this board but who doesn't buy into the Hardly Lee story and vigorously pushes back on it? As far as I know, he's a WC apologist but even he has tactfully called some people out for their nastiness on here.

Is it Jeremy who runs the assassination site in the UK? Bernie? David Von Pein? Lance even?

If you'd look around on this board, Mark, you'd find there are plenty of folks on this board who you probably hold in higher esteem than us sllort and carpists who would be considered huge sllort in their own right. There is one who seems to do nothing but follow me around on this board, criticizing me for changing my avatar for goodness sake. In fact, it got so weird that another member made a comment to this sllort about how he seems to be doing nothing but follow me around.

And if you can't find any, Mark, PM me and I'll be glad to share with you some of their greatest hits.


 

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr Graves,

As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (If I'm wrong about this, maybe you can allow me to hang onto my illusion/self-delusion a bit longer.)

If my understanding is correct, then it is not about you or about me. It is not about making derisive and demeaning comments about other forum members, nor is it about bumping your posts merely to repeat the aforementioned comments. As I have mentioned at another time in the forum, if someone uses the button on each thread to go to the first unread post, they will see your post upon their return to that thread...no post-production necessary.

I'm not advocating making this forum a humorless place. But demeaning other members or calling them something other than their name is disrespectful, not humorous. Dale Carnegie knew the importance of referring to someone by name. If you haven't read any of his books, I highly recommend them.

We can certainly demonstrate respect towards other members even if we find a theory of theirs to be total rubbish. But a critique without the "Jane, you ignorant slut!!" tone, pointing out errors in fact or logic, is a strong argument. An argument with an "anyone with half a brain can see" position comes across as not only weak but condescending.

Surely we can discuss and debate the assassination descending into that snakepit. If we can't, maybe continuing this forum IS the wrong course of action.

 

Mark,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Allow me to say that I do hope that a member of this forum can believe in and espouse the general theory that the KGB killed Kennedy (or at least programmed/trained Oswald to do so and weren't able to call off the mission once Oswald had returned to the U.S.), and that its doing so (in concert/conjunction with a certain number of "moles" and false defectors, and a lot of gullible people), gave rise to such a plethora of conspiracy theories and accusations against the government and the country's institutions (like main stream media) as to make it possible, eventually, for someone like Vladimir Putin to, through the wonders of modern, algorithm-based social media and its attendant Russian trolls, bots and contradictory, yes contradictory "fake news" (like Roger Ailes mastered at Fox News) not only ensure that a certain presidential candidate lose an election, but to actually help a candidate favorable to Putin win, with or without "collusion" from the winning candidate.  In other words, a president who is, at best, the mother of all "useful idiots."

 

Regardless, and in the context of your above reply, is it a two-way street here regarding "respect" and civility in general? 

Specifically, I hope that neither you nor any of the other moderators condone David Joseph's consistently referring to me as tommy.

I humbly suggest that you look at it this way, Mark:  How would you like it if I (or anyone else) addressed other people here as, for example, "Tom," "Dick," "Harry," "Jane," but addressed you as "mark"? 

Wouldn't that kind of "bug" you after awhile, and make you want to reciprocate in some kind of equally childish way?

 

--  Thomas  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why is Graved allowed to drag in a post from another thread onto this one?  For purposes of bumping it?

That is not bumping a post, that is pulling it out of where it is and thereby depriving if of its context.

Well, as they say, the more things change....

James,

I rather like that, actually.

-- Tommy  (aka "T.G'", "Mister Spell Check" "Graved" ...)  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
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...