Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Future of the Education Forum


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I too believe that language matters. I believe in polite and civil discussion, and have been slow to respond because I don't know what else to say. Such belief should go without saying, the question is what to do when a poster simply doesn't share that belief.

I almost left the forum once due to one poster's vile statements and accusations directed at me with impunity (about matters not even related to JFK). The offender left at some point thereafter, apparently of his own accord. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

Some moderation seems necessary. (I believe in "moderation in all things.") Perhaps if other forum members would promptly call out a poster for being impolite and uncivil, that would solve the problem without having to depend on otherwise busy moderators. Perhaps a motto of the forum in this respect should be "nip it in the bud." If a poster ignores the admonitions of fellow members, treating such admonitions as no more than personal attacks deserving the same, then moderators should take action.

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Gordon - I can understand how it feels when you ask for a discussion on the future of the forum, and whether members feel that language matters, and you get posters positioning themselves, or bickering with each other rather than addressing your questions. 

Can we all agree to address each other with the names we prefer to be called? Can we agree to try to let go of past slights? Can we ignore those we still don’t wish to engage with, and keep our public discussions free of personal attacks? 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have stated so well, I believe language matters, as does intent. That being said, I would like to see the forum continue, with the diversity of thoughts on the assassination, whether I agree or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Accordingly, I would recommend wholeheartedly that those of us who are interested in intelligent and civil discourse on the true subject matter of this Forum (as opposed to some of the totally insane theories which are sometimes peddled here and elsewhere) consider the simple option of ignoring all posts from those who seek to bring this Forum to its knees.

Amen.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
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  :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
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  :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Paz Marverde
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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  :sun

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 by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...