Thanks Moderators

[Steve Thomas]

That is all.

Just thanks.

Steve Thomas

[Benjamin Cole]

I would like a space in the forum in which the national security state in the present day is discussed, civilly. 

By study of the JFKA, many of us have had our eyes opened up to the roles of the Deep State, politics and media. 

Not much has changed since the JFKA in that regard, except the Deep State now has technology that makes 1984 look primitive. 

I understand politics will always intrude, and that is fine. But perhaps civil disagreements are possible. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

That is all.

Just thanks.

Steve Thomas

Steve,

     I agree that the 56 Years thread needed to be put to rest.

     But, since we are all erstwhile historians, I went back and studied the trajectory of that thread this evening.

     We were all having lively, informed discussions about current events until roughly October of 2022.

     Beginning in October, the thread was infiltrated and increasingly disrupted by Mathew Koch's MAGA spam, and an openly expressed agenda of disrupting and challenging the alleged "leftist" bias on the forum.

     It was all downhill after that, as Mathew's MAGA movement picked up momentum from a motley international crew.

     Jeremy Bojzuk posted a rather hilarious, literary critique of our forum's MAGA movement last night, by one Alex Wilson.  Worth reading, especially for T.S. Eliot fans.

      I wrote a comment about Mr. Wilson's "Hollow Men" critique this morning, but Mark Knight closed the thread just before I clicked the "Send" button.

Edited March 14, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Mark Knight]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I would like a space in the forum in which the national security state in the present day is discussed, civilly. 

By study of the JFKA, many of us have had our eyes opened up to the roles of the Deep State, politics and media. 

Not much has changed since the JFKA in that regard, except the Deep State now has technology that makes 1984 look primitive. 

I understand politics will always intrude, and that is fine. But perhaps civil disagreements are possible. 

 

Ben,

You are welcome to start another discussion on the Deep State on the Deep Politics forum here: JFK Deep Politics - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

The Education Forum has many layers. Even the JFK area has several layers besides just this discussion board: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Like an onion, The Education Forum has many layers. It was originally set up as a resource for educators. Lots of flavors here. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Steve,

     I agree that the 56 Years thread needed to be put to rest.

     But, since we are all erstwhile historians, I went back and studied the trajectory of that thread this evening.

     We were all having lively, informed discussions about current events until roughly October of 2022.

     Beginning in October, the thread was infiltrated and increasingly disrupted by Mathew Koch's MAGA spam, and an openly expressed agenda of disrupting and challenging the alleged "leftist" bias on the forum.

     It was all downhill after that, as Mathew's MAGA movement picked up momentum from a motley international crew.

     Jeremy Bojzuk posted a rather hilarious, literary critique of our forum's MAGA movement last night, by one Alex Wilson.  Worth reading, especially for T.S. Eliot fans.

      I wrote a comment about Mr. Wilson's "Hollow Men" critique this morning, but Mark Knight closed the thread just before I clicked the "Send" button.

It’s not very often we do agree on something, William. But, I too did find Alex Wilson’s descriptive writing very funny in parts. Did you by chance read any of the previous threads in the ‘Debunked’ section of the ROKC Forum? There is a mix of some very bitter, angry passages, but, also some very funny characterisations. There are some humdingers about you and your Harvard education/scholarly thinking, from Alex. In Britain we love ‘banter’ and there is plenty there. We could use a bit more humour at times. 
 

There does seem to be a bit of a one way forum rivalry, which I am not sure is entirely healthy. There are some good threads in the main section of JFK research IMHO. 

[Denny Zartman]

Thank goodness. In my opinion that thread has been a problem for a long time. The fact that it was not only allowed to continue here after becoming so controversial but promoted to a sticky sure appeared that, at best, angry and off-topic political arguments were tolerated, and, at worst, being officially encouraged. If that's an incorrect assessment, I apologize. But honestly that's the way it looked to me.

The personal vindictiveness I've seen here lately is dispiriting. I feel it's ultimately counter-productive. I have zero need to agree with any member of this forum on any topic outside the JFK assassination. If they have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion of the JFKA, I don't care who they pulled the lever for in the last election. Why dwell on it? Why go out of our way to attack each other over politics? I like reading the posts of those with good arguments and interesting bits of evidence. To develop a grudge against someone who has a solid JFKA argument because they hold an unrelated political opinion does me no good at all when studying the JFKA.

I don't see why so many here are driven to discuss divisive issues that are off-topic. If that must be the case, I'd suggest we state our positions succinctly, politely, respectfully, and refrain from personally attacking each other. If that's not possible, let's use the ignore feature or just take it to another Education Forum sub-forum. Aren't there enough opportunities to fight with folks about politics on Facebook and Twitter?

[John Cotter]

I don’t agree that with the deletion of the “56 years” thread or the banning of Matthew Koch.

Moving from a zero position to the ultimate sanction without warnings and a progression from lesser to more severe sanctions would be a fairer and more rational approach. The summary banning of someone, especially if it’s permanent, looks like scapegoating.

It must also be borne in mind that Matthew wasn’t the only offender. Even Mark Knight acknowledged this when he said, “NO ONE, it seems, can remain civil on this thread.”

I would take issue with this statement in one respect, in that some of us did remain civil on the "56 years" thread. I, for one assiduously avoided ad hominems because they are not only uncivil but they are also illogical. Benjamin Cole also remained civil at all times despite being constantly subjected to ad hominem attacks.

It’s ironic that the drastic decision to delete the “56 years” thread seems to have been at least partly prompted by Jeremy Bojczuk’s intemperate post yesterday which was riddled with abusive name-calling and ideological bias and in which he effectively called for the thread to be deleted.

It’s also ironic that in my reply to Bojczuk’s post I said the following:

“Needless to say, this censorship, vilification and shutting down of debate by the authorities – authoritarianism (if not fascism) in action – is an admission by them that their policies don’t bear scrutiny and that the arguments of the dissenters are valid.

“The unravelling of the official covid, J6 and Ukraine narratives as discussed on this thread shows that to be the case, notwithstanding the persistent disruptive tactics of authoritarian posters.”

In light of these observations, one can draw logical inferences from the deleting of the “56 years” thread and the banning of Matthew Koch which don’t need to be spelled out.

Edited March 14, 2023 by John Cotter

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I don’t agree that with the deletion of the “56 years” thread or the banning of Matthew Koch.

Moving from a zero position to the ultimate sanction without warnings and a progression from lesser to more severe sanctions would be a fairer and more rational approach. The summary banning of someone, especially if it’s permanent, looks like scapegoating.

It must also be borne in mind that Matthew wasn’t the only offender. Even Mark Knight acknowledged this when the said, “NO ONE, it seems, can remain civil on this thread.”

I would take issue with this statement in one respect, in that some of us did remain civil on this thread. I, for one assiduously avoided ad hominems because they are not only uncivil but they are also illogical. Benjamin Cole also remained civil at all times despite being constantly subjected to ad hominem attacks.

It’s ironic that the drastic decision to delete the “56 years” thread seems to have been at least partly prompted by Jeremy Bojczuk’s intemperate post yesterday which was riddled with abusive name-calling and ideological bias and in which he effectively called for the thread to be deleted.

It’s also ironic that in my reply to Bojczuk’s post I said the following:

“Needless to say, this censorship, vilification and shutting down of debate by the authorities – authoritarianism (if not fascism) in action – is an admission by them that their policies don’t bear scrutiny and that the arguments of the dissenters are valid.

“The unravelling of the official covid, J6 and Ukraine narratives as discussed on this thread shows that to be the case, notwithstanding the persistent disruptive tactics of authoritarian posters.”

In light of these observations, one can draw logical inferences from the deleting of the “56 years” thread and the banning of Matthew Koch which don’t need to be spelled out.

That’s a very important point, John. How does a person get banned indefinitely for “supposed” stalking, when that wasn’t in the rules? There was no warning, zero. Searching publicly available information is not a crime, and TBH certain people who identify as Democrats have regularly made insinuations and asked prying questions with malicious intent about forum members personal lives who they do not agree with. Those people know who they are.

This action is unfair, unjust, and frankly authoritarian. I think he should be reinstated with a reprimand. It has occurred to me that this may be an ideological banning, I hope that is not the case, I know some of the mods seem very fair but, I don’t think all are judging by some public comments. 

 

I think what the rational minds would like is a level playing field. Of course there are others who want censorship of opposition. 
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Thank goodness. In my opinion that thread has been a problem for a long time. The fact that it was not only allowed to continue here after becoming so controversial but promoted to a sticky sure appeared that, at best, angry and off-topic political arguments were tolerated, and, at worst, being officially encouraged. If that's an incorrect assessment, I apologize. But honestly that's the way it looked to me.

 

Denny,

     As a participant on that monster 56 Years thread, from its inception, my perspective is that we had a lot of lively, informative, and humorous discussions about history and contemporary politics on the thread -- until about October of last year, as I described above.  It provided a forum for discussions about American history and politics, beyond the narrow purview of JFK's assassination per se.

     I suspect that other long-term 56 Years thread participants-- Douglas Caddy, Steve Thomas, Joe Bauer, Ron Bulman, Kirk Galloway, Matt Allison, Sandy Larsen, et.al.-- would agree with my assessment, but I can't speak for them.

    The thread only devolved into controversial, petulant arguments during the past few months, after Mathew Koch joined the forum with the express intention of disrupting and challenging the alleged "leftist" bias on the thread.  The exception is that, prior to October, most of us had pointedly disagreed with Benjamin Cole's denial of Trump's J6 coup attempt, and his promotion of Tucker Carlson's "Patriot purge" narrative about J6.  Ben had also repeatedly criticized the Congressional J6 investigation, while refusing to watch the actual hearings.  At one point, even James DiEugenio had urged Ben to watch the damning J6 Congressional testimony.

      Some of the recent arrivals on the forum, who became strangely aligned with Mathew Koch's MAGA movement, never really understood the history of the 56 Years thread.  They have also had a tendency to mistake accurate criticisms of their erroneous opinions for ad hominem arguments.

      In the end, Mathew Koch did finally succeed with his October 2022 goal of "owning the libs"-- not by speaking the truth about contemporary American politics, but by destroying what had previously been a friendly, informative thread.

Edited March 14, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

I hate to see Joseph's thread deleted, especially at this point in time, coming up on 60 years.  It was historic in terms of active years and pages, even with many digressions from the subject there are many informative posts in it.  But it wasn't going to get any better the way things were, things had gotten out of hand.  The moderators were very tolerant.  But something needed to be done.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Ben,

You are welcome to start another discussion on the Deep State on the Deep Politics forum here: JFK Deep Politics - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

The Education Forum has many layers. Even the JFK area has several layers besides just this discussion board: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Like an onion, The Education Forum has many layers. It was originally set up as a resource for educators. Lots of flavors here. 

Thanks, but I am sure elsewhere in the Education Forum has no readership. Even this nook is read by dozens if that.  

When I see echoes in the present day from the JFKA, perhaps I post threads here. 

In the meantime, when newish members post, I hope they are treated as civilly as possible, even if their perspectives vary. 

My guess is this forum excels at driving away membership. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Denny,

     As a participant on that monster 56 Years thread, from its inception, my perspective is that we had a lot of lively, informative, and humorous discussions about history and contemporary politics on the thread -- until about October of last year, as I described above.  It provided a forum for discussions about American history and politics, beyond the narrow purview of JFK's assassination per se.

     I suspect that other long-term 56 Years thread participants-- Douglas Caddy, Steve Thomas, Joe Bauer, Kirk Galloway, Matt Allison, Sandy Larsen, et.al.-- would agree with my assessment, but I can't speak for them.

    The thread only devolved into controversial, petulant arguments during the past few months, after Mathew Koch joined the forum with the express intention of disrupting and challenging the alleged "leftist" bias on the thread.  The exception is that, prior to October, most of us had pointedly disagreed with Benjamin Cole's denial of Trump's J6 coup attempt, and his promotion of Tucker Carlson's "Patriot purge" narrative about J6.  Ben had also repeatedly criticized the Congressional J6 investigation, while refusing to watch the actual hearings.  At one point, even James DiEugenio had urged Ben to watch the damning J6 Congressional testimony.

      Some of the recent arrivals on the forum, who became strangely aligned with Mathew Koch's MAGA movement, never really understood the history of the 56 Years thread.  They have also had a tendency to mistake accurate criticisms of their erroneous opinions for ad hominem arguments.

      In the end, Mathew Koch did finally succeed with his October 2022 goal of "owning the libs"-- not by speaking the truth about contemporary American politics, but by destroying what had previously been a friendly, informative thread.

Was that the purpose in the first place?

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I don’t agree that with the deletion of the “56 years” thread or the banning of Matthew Koch.

Moving from a zero position to the ultimate sanction without warnings and a progression from lesser to more severe sanctions would be a fairer and more rational approach. The summary banning of someone, especially if it’s permanent, looks like scapegoating.

It must also be borne in mind that Matthew wasn’t the only offender. Even Mark Knight acknowledged this when he said, “NO ONE, it seems, can remain civil on this thread.”

I would take issue with this statement in one respect, in that some of us did remain civil on the "56 years" thread. I, for one assiduously avoided ad hominems because they are not only uncivil but they are also illogical. Benjamin Cole also remained civil at all times despite being constantly subjected to ad hominem attacks.

It’s ironic that the drastic decision to delete the “56 years” thread seems to have been at least partly prompted by Jeremy Bojczuk’s intemperate post yesterday which was riddled with abusive name-calling and ideological bias and in which he effectively called for the thread to be deleted.

It’s also ironic that in my reply to Bojczuk’s post I said the following:

“Needless to say, this censorship, vilification and shutting down of debate by the authorities – authoritarianism (if not fascism) in action – is an admission by them that their policies don’t bear scrutiny and that the arguments of the dissenters are valid.

“The unravelling of the official covid, J6 and Ukraine narratives as discussed on this thread shows that to be the case, notwithstanding the persistent disruptive tactics of authoritarian posters.”

In light of these observations, one can draw logical inferences from the deleting of the “56 years” thread and the banning of Matthew Koch which don’t need to be spelled out.

I agree with John Cotter's assessment. 

BTW, I disagree with John Cotter on many issues. So what? 

A forum should be a place for civil conversation, with varying views, from left or right or unaligned. 

I still say this space needs a thread to discuss the Deep State in current context---government "investigations" share the same characteristics through the decades....

 

[George Govus]

I lurked there a bit, posted a time or two. I noticed when it began to go off the rails and visited less and less. I don't think everyone on "The Inevitable Result" misbehaved. For the sake of what it was before the last six months or so, I think it would be a shame to flat-out delete the thing. Why not just unpin it, while keeping it locked, and let it naturally drift off into obscurity? That is, pump content into the other threads until the Offending One bumps to page two? Wash, rinse, repeat.

Though he's now gone, I will always remember He Who Shall Not Be Named for the delicious malapropism, "cognitive dissidence," which so nearly describes my life's work I am swiping the term.

Edited March 14, 2023 by George Govus
clarity

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Since the 1220-page '56 Years' thread will shortly be joining the choir invisible, here again is the link I gave:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2700-the-only-thing-to-fear-about-inevitability-is-the-inevitable-itself-or-a-portrait-of-the-hollow-men-in-motion

As Chris points out, the 'Debunked' section of that forum is well worth a read. Most or all of the far-out JFK-related theories that are sometimes treated seriously over here have been taken apart over there.

Incidentally, when I used the idiom 'right-wing nut-jobs' on the '56 Years' thread, I did so partly to see whether anyone would come forward and self-identify with that description. And, sure enough ...