So, who is running this forum now?

[Pat Speer]

26 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I am strongly disturbed by the thrust of this post and the number of people who agree. The moderators are welcome to do whatever they would like, but I would hope they want to foster and encourage an environment of free speech here. Especially considering the namesake of this section of the forum, and the sentiments he expressed in his sadly cut short life time. 

No matter how much you may find an opinion to be unfounded or invalid, it should at least have a platform to be heard. I'd rather it be heard and ridiculed here than not heard at all. If we start accepting that some opinions are ok and other's aren't, well hell we might as well all be Warren Commission apologists for pete's sake. Rather than calling for censorship, make an effort and legitimately rebuke what you disagree with. Censorship breeds ignornace.

Although I am inactive these days, I spent a decade or so as a moderator, and we did not moderate or censor things simply  because they were wrong. That wasn't our purpose. If we were to remove or censor every stupid post the forum would be five people sitting around saying "Yeah, what you said."

The threads and posts that got removed were largely ones focusing on sex (there was a member who tried to turn every thread into a discussion of some politician's sex life) or the Jews.  Sadly, there could be no discussion of Israel's possible involvement without someone spinning it into an international Jewish conspiracy involving Jews in the media, Jews in the research community, etc. So those topics were largely off-limits. 

But most every other discussion was wide open. We had people denying the moon landing, people denying the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, people claiming the fall of the twin towers was a hologram, etc. Stuff that many of us found embarrassing, frankly. But the forum's commitment to the free exchange of ideas survived. As it will survive this silly notion Ukraine is full of National socialists, whatever. 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

5 hours ago, John Cotter said:

His Hunky Dory album is one of the greatest masterpieces in any genre.

https://www.google.com/search?q=David+Bowie%2C+Hunky+Dory&oq=David+Bowie%2C+Hunky+Dory&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i512j0i512l7.8661j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8445ea0d,vid:6hyFs1Cju2A

It’s excellent.
 

Starman suddenly became so sad to me, once he was gone. 
 

 

[Mark Knight]

On 11/29/2022 at 11:43 PM, David G. Healy said:

 

Yes the old days, quite moving concern, this place. In fact, I was warned of my upcoming expulsion from the Ed Forum, 3 times... I will be signing off from the forum at the end of this week... who'd of thought in 2004 that I'd be one of the last old-timers here in nearly 2023... and if Len Colby showed here again, I'd take him to task anew.... of course there were disinfo agents hereabouts, image shifter I liked to call them back then -- and .john mcmadman had entire university classroom(s) full of them... fighting with the best of them, the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome' bunch... mod's insisting we have a clean discussion of the facts, like we were going to determine where the next JFK investigation was going, and an obvious conclusion.... and there hasn't been one person join this forum without a pre-determine assassination conclusion in their mind... so "keep an open mind" is pure BS....

Present and future authors bounced book ideas off this forum membership, some good stuff, some trash the result over the years.... But always someone had some concept to sell, most of it nonsense... Glad I witnessed it... it's no-wonder fascism has poked its nose out....the unknown history of JFK assassination investigation: a waiting game, the au contraire crowd will die the WCR truth will stand... the best I have seen over the years regarding assassination evidence is: Oliver Stone/Jim DiEugenio latest -- the Doug Horne's Series -- And a guy that still posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk, one Ben Holmes who keeps every single .john mcmadam acolyte toes to the flames... using Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement, Holmes has been devastating when it comes to debate concerning JFK assassination case evidence. Not one lone nutter has had success against Holmes including .John who was needless to say outmanned in debating Holmes.......

So I bid you adieu, go in peace, but don't go silently... and Pat, I got here April 2004 (an invite from John Simkin (not Andy - we didn't get along), after Rich DellaRosa's JFK assassination research website shut down, at which I was the film/photo site moderator -- which,  by-the-way spawned many other photo assassination archives)

David Healy -- 11-29-2022

David,

I became a member here on March 22, 2005, and I was a lurker for a few months prior to that. While I haven't agreed with all of your comments and conclusions, I do have a great deal of respect for your research. Hate to see you go, sir.

I recall a couple of people that I believed [and still believe] were disinformation agents. But at this point I believe most of those people decided after the 50th anniversary that their "services" were no longer needed. Since 2005, there have been some relative newcomers who have begun their careers here by rearguing some long-ago disproven points. Unlike other forums, in which they might have been advised to review the archives before posting, the EF has been a bit more patient...probably due to the vast size of our archived threads. 

I have recently noticed some members calling disagreements on facts "ad hominem attacks," and I would suggest they occasionally review the definition of the term. As an administrator, I try to bend over backwards in not being heavy-handed in dishing out discipline, because I realize that I, too, sometimes crossed some lines in my early days here.

The administrative team here is in email contact with one another whenever a situation arises in which may require administrative action. Usually action comes only after a consensus is reached, but occasionally an administrator may take immediate action if the situation seems to warrant immediate action. We can't be everywhere on the forum 24/7, as we also have lives in the "real world," just as most of you do. As Kathy pointed out, the "report" button helps you serve as our "eyes and ears" when we are tending to other matters and miss something.

Even David Von Pein has been better lately about not making those "Only an idiot would believe that!" comments than he used to be...a backhanded ad hominem if there ever was one. So I must point out that even his level of discussion here has elevated the EF, and as long as he continues in that way, I have no problem with him even if I do disagree with most of his conclusions. And being able to disagree without being disagreeable is what makes the discussion forum great.

[David G. Healy]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

David,

I became a member here on March 22, 2005, and I was a lurker for a few months prior to that. While I haven't agreed with all of your comments and conclusions, I do have a great deal of respect for your research. Hate to see you go, sir.

I recall a couple of people that I believed [and still believe] were disinformation agents. But at this point I believe most of those people decided after the 50th anniversary that their "services" were no longer needed. Since 2005, there have been some relative newcomers who have begun their careers here by rearguing some long-ago disproven points. Unlike other forums, in which they might have been advised to review the archives before posting, the EF has been a bit more patient...probably due to the vast size of our archived threads. 

I have recently noticed some members calling disagreements on facts "ad hominem attacks," and I would suggest they occasionally review the definition of the term. As an administrator, I try to bend over backwards in not being heavy-handed in dishing out discipline, because I realize that I, too, sometimes crossed some lines in my early days here.

The administrative team here is in email contact with one another whenever a situation arises in which may require administrative action. Usually action comes only after a consensus is reached, but occasionally an administrator may take immediate action if the situation seems to warrant immediate action. We can't be everywhere on the forum 24/7, as we also have lives in the "real world," just as most of you do. As Kathy pointed out, the "report" button helps you serve as our "eyes and ears" when we are tending to other matters and miss something.

Even David Von Pein has been better lately about not making those "Only an idiot would believe that!" comments than he used to be...a backhanded ad hominem if there ever was one. So I must point out that even his level of discussion here has elevated the EF, and as long as he continues in that way, I have no problem with him even if I do disagree with most of his conclusions. And being able to disagree without being disagreeable is what makes the discussion forum great.

You've always been a scholar and gentleman, Mark. And, you and the mod's are running good ship here... your patience is obvious. I'm a bomb thrower with enough image effects composition experience to be dangerous and enough film/video industry (Hollywood) resource knowledge to be... Answer the challenge: was the technolgy, resources, talent pool, know how and time available in 1963-64 to alter the in-camera original Zapruder film? Of course there was. And for those inclined:a real year 2000 question is, how many times was it altered since 1964 to present... the Z-film is a perfect canard, why, to take away from case medical evidence...

Take care, Mark... seeya' round the hood...

p.s. even I don't agree with my comments and conclusions all the time...

Edited December 3, 2022 by David G. Healy