To James Gordon

[David Von Pein]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am totally in understanding with Mr. Gordon here.

This is why very few, if any, ROKCers are here today.  The only one I can think of is Vanessa Loney.

Secondly, its one thing to argue with someone on this forum about certain pieces of evidence.  But there are rules one has to uphold in that arguing.

When one goes elsewhere, the rules are usually not being upheld. So one is free to vent at will--while still being a member here. 

And I also agree with the proxy rule.  Its one thing to quote from a book or an essay.  Its quite another to use yourself as a funnel to someone who has been banned.  We just had this issue come up a rather short time ago when the same person was using Jim Hargrove.

Jim DiEugenio, deep down, has got to know that I'm right about this "Posting At Other Forums" matter, but I guess he feels obligated to stick up for the EF owner anyway because DiEugenio apparently doesn't possess the gonads to speak up for what everybody knows is right concerning this situation, which is --- this forum has no right to dictate what I (or anyone else, including you, James DiEugenio) have to say at any other forum or website.

If you, Jim Di., want to rip me a new anal cavity at the Deep Politics Forum (which you have done on occasion, and I have the links to prove it), then you have every right to do that without having to walk on the eggshells created by a silly rule that exists at a different forum.

And I'm not sure if such a rule is even constitutionally legal. It might not be legal. (Any lawyers present?) But even if such a rule is constitutionally legal, it is still an unfair, petty, and downright childish rule to have on the books of any Internet forum. And even James Gordon himself realizes that it is a rule that probably doesn't belong in the "Terms Of Forum Use" at the EF site, otherwise he would not have said this to me yesterday:

"Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so. .... You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them. If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019

So, as we can easily see, Mr. Gordon has come right out and admitted that pretty much the only reason he's keeping the "Do Not Cast Aspersions At Other Forums" rule on his Rules page is to simply spite me.

What a sweet guy!

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Andrej Stancak]

I find it incomprehensible that someone would issue some very derogatory statements about the administrators of this forum on some other platforms. If an administrator is at low esteem in a member's eyes, that member should consider leaving the Forum.  While differences in views among two members of the Forum can be heated at times, none of the members should go to a different forum and write derogatory evaluations about the other member there, administrator or not. Such rule protects this forum and it can be required from any EF member. I see no problem saying "We differ with XY in this and that point" on Facebook or some other forum, but I find it unacceptable to see statements portraying another member of this Forum as a coward, l_i_e_r, fraud, dishonest, incompetent, you name it. My comment does not strip anyone from the freedom of speech because it is possible to express differences of views without questioning the character or abilities of any of the forum's members.

I should also add that an administrator does not need to be an expert in a particular aspect of the case, and administrators seldom take part in actual exchanges in threads. They are here to moderate, to check that we abide by the rules. Admins are arbiters in the matter of conduct on this forum.   

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for your opinion on this matter, Andrej. I will respectfully disagree with you, however. The rule that is in place here [below] restricts freedom of speech at other Internet locations, and this forum's owners do not (or at least should not) have a right to place such restrictions on anyone outside the purview of The Education Forum (IMO)....

"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum – may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

15 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I should also add that an administrator does not need to be an expert in a particular aspect of the case, and administrators seldom take part in actual exchanges in threads. They are here to moderate, to check that we abide by the rules. Admins are arbiters in the matter of conduct on this forum.

Just "for the record"....

James R. Gordon has posted 935 times [as of this moment on 2/25/2019 AM] since he registered here on August 1, 2004.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

Anybody who wants to ban anybody is ugly on the inside. As long as it's not spam or advertisement, free speech is more important than hurt feelings. People will just find more ways to insult eachother's intelligence, ad hominem is a lot easier to spot than most the other common discussion-sabotaging tactics. And anybody who isn't living under a rock understands that freedom of speech is a hot button issue on the internet. Some see online censorship for what it is, some don't care about anybody but themselves.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Micah Mileto

[Ray Mitcham]

Posting derogatory comments, by banned members, of this forum, about anybody, poster or regulator, on this forum should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with free speech. It is common courtesy, and is a form of cowardice by the posters here, who do so on this board, who seem to use the comments as a proxy form of insult. There is usually a very good reason why the banned member have been banned, and there is no good reason to allow their comments to be rebroadcast here.

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

There is usually a very good reason why the banned member have been banned, and there is no good reason to allow their comments to be rebroadcast here.

I totally agree. ....

DVP Facebook Post

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Greetings Kathy Becket,

Yes, James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives---and I was very glad to hear that because it wasn't like that at all under John Simkin's pre-2013 ownership.

And I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike).

So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views. And the EF site has good functionality too. It's simple to navigate and I like the look of the design and the pages. So that's another "plus".

Also --- Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway. Most of my discussions here have been with people other than James. So I really can't see why my problems with Mr. Gordon should make me want to quit the forum entirely. That doesn't make sense to me. I've been able to archive many good EF discussions (covering several different JFK sub-topics), and 99% of those discussions haven't included a single post by James R. Gordon at all.

Plus, I think you missed my main point, Kathy. Which was (again) --- I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members. And my opinion in this regard has got nothing to do with my disagreements with Mr. Gordon as far as the Single-Bullet Theory or any of the other evidence in the JFK case.
 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David Von Pein said:-
James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives

That is not strictly accurate. Yes I confirmed that any banned member’s postings are not immediately deleted - unless - a members insists they are removed. And that has happened a few times in the past. So all members have the right - if banned - to insist their work is also removed.

David Von Pein said:-
Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway

Two points:-
First:- As a moderator my position is different from that of a normal member. You will not see members of the admin team posting as frequently as normal members. There is not rule insisting that they limit their posting if becoming a member of the admin team. It appears to be one consequence of taking up an admin position.

Second:- I find discussions with you somewhat restrictive. In the discussions on the John Connally injuries - which is where my discussions with you have essentially entailed - I have found when discussions get technical (and beyond what the WC examined) you tend to disappear. If you disagree then search for the last discussion we had and you will see that I made the last response and you disappeared and did not respond thereafter.

Since Gary Murr has been generous to place his work in the public domain - at least as far as the EF is concerned - I will soon be returning to the subject so you will shortly have another chance to debate with me and lets see where that takes us.

David Von Pein said:-
I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members

I am sorry I am not going to budge on this point. You are free to commend and praise whatever EF member you wish on whatever forum you wish to choose. The rule does not prohibit you doing that in any way whatsoever.

However I am gaining the opinion that you want this rule removed in order that you are free to criticise member as and whenever you wish. You want me to remove this rule in order you can freely express what you really feel about this forum and its members. I will not agree to that.

It appears you are followed quite widely so I understand that if on another forum you abuse this forum and its members I will quickly hear about it and you have been advised what will happen were I to hear such reports.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

It appears you are followed quite widely so I understand that if on another forum you abuse this forum and its members I will quickly hear about it and you have been advised what will happen were I to hear such reports.

I can only sit here and shake my head in disbelief that someone who owns and moderates an Internet forum in the year 2019 AD could possibly utter the words that James R. Gordon just uttered above. Absolutely incredible (and pathetic).

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I am sorry I am not going to budge on this point. You are free to commend and praise whatever EF member you wish on whatever forum you wish to choose. The rule does not prohibit you doing that in any way whatsoever.

Well, Duh!!

I wonder why there wouldn't be a forum rule saying: "Forum members are prohibited from saying really nice things about other EF forum members and its admins. on other Internet forums."

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Derek Thibeault]

Although not sure I agree with the rule that you can't criticize the forum at other sites, I don't understand why if you like being part of the site and the debates you would want to go trash the site elsewhere. I am part of the FP for JFK FB page and do not love everything that gets posted over there but I don't rip that page here. I don't see a point in it. If I don't like something then I should debate it. Seems like a lot of wasted time and stress to go and bash a site you like. IMO

[David Von Pein]

51 minutes ago, Derek Thibeault said:

Although not sure I agree with the rule that you can't criticize the forum at other sites, I don't understand why if you like being part of the site and the debates you would want to go trash the site elsewhere. I am part of the FP for JFK FB page and do not love everything that gets posted over there but I don't rip that page here. I don't see a point in it. If I don't like something then I should debate it. Seems like a lot of wasted time and stress to go and bash a site you like. IMO

You're missing the basic point (and principle) too, Derek. I'm not saying I have a burning desire to go all around the Internet saying rotten things about The Education Forum and its members. That's not the case at all. But the EF forum should have no right to dictate what I can say at non-EF localities. And I shouldn't have to make a special effort to always "watch what I say" at other sites whenever the topic of an EF member comes up. I should be able to say what I think. But that's not currently possible (if I want to stay an active EF member, that is)----especially after today, because Kamp's spies will now be on the constant lookout for any "anti-EF" remark that I might make anywhere on the Internet.

But I guess I'll just have to accept this ridiculous situation if I want to be able to continue to post here (which, I'll admit, I do).

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

Let me try to help.  First, think of this like meeting at Mr. Gordan's home.  He gives an open invite each week to discuss a topic  however he says outside the meeting you are not to criticize people at the meeting for their comments.  If you do that, you have violated the rule.  There is no free speech issue.  This forum is not the government (which is required) and you are free to join or not join.

DVP feels admin. should not care what he says on other sites and wants a rule change.  I understand.  Here is where the rule should be examined two ways.  First, if you post about the forum and/or directly quote from the forum, you are using the forum.  Thus, the admin. should care what you are saying at other sites if your statements are derogatory, as opposed to debate, and are related to the forum. So lets clarify, if you are a member and go to another site, if you use this forum by quoting from it or make a derogatory statement about a member at another site and point to a discussion on the forum, its wrong. 

 

However, if you are just saying "I debated NAME on this subject and he/she has no clue) there should be no problem because you did not quote or cite back to the forum.  If you says "NAME's work is all crap" should not be a problem.  But if you then anchor those statements by quoting or directing someone or directly  referencing the forum then that makes it a rule violation.

So, could you do a lecture and say you debate conspiracists all the time and they have no clue?  Sure.  Could you then show forum examples? No. You linked the statements to the forum.

However, and this is key, you can do that lecture and show the debates.  All you need to do is one thing.  Say you disagree and why without calling any member names.

Same goes for your other internet sites.  

Use the forum, say someone is wrong and why   but dont call names and be derrogatory.  

This is my understanding if the rule. 

This above is provided as general information only.  It is not a legal opinion nor legal advice.  Nothing here can be construed as constituting legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.  You are urged to seek independant legal advice regarding this or any other matter.  

Edited February 25, 2019 by Cory Santos

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

[...]
But I guess I'll just have to accept this ridiculous situation if I want to be able to continue to post here (which, I'll admit, I do).

 

Pleeeeeeze, Your one and only goal in life, based on my witness of your posting actions over the past few decades, is to support the conclusions of the 1964 WCR, PERIOD! Whenever, wherever that takes you. Of course you'll post and adhere to ridiculous situation{al) *required* demands. It's your job!