Thanks Moderators

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Cotter writes:

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

He continues:

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

It’s perfectly clear that you wanted the “56 years” thread shut down or otherwise disappeared. Don’t be telling porkies.

Thanks for highlighting my one misspelling. That kind of pedantic nitpicking is a sure sign of desperation.

Did you know that the Nobel prize winning poet WB Yeats was dyslexic? Are you familiar with those words of his that I quoted – “the catch cries of the clown”?

“Trump fans, anti-vaxxers and the rest…troof movement…alt right manosphere hate merchants…QAnon…far-right”. All these are the catch cries of today’s clowns.

Since you’ve already been effectively reprimanded by forum Administrator Mark Knight for spouting this obnoxious nonsense, please delete this latest effort by you.

As for the JFKA, I have to wonder where exactly you really stand in that regard. Do you remember the time I exposed your self-contradiction in relation to the sheep-dipping of Oswald?

You first conceded that it only concerned painting Oswald as a Castro or Soviet sympathiser. However, when I pointed out that it clearly wasn’t only that, because he was also being painted as a shooter, you then denied that there was any sheep-dipping.

When I pointed out your self-contradiction, you ran like a scalded cat. This raises questions about what you’re really playing at regarding the JFKA.

The thing about the sheep-dipping is that it is one of the proofs that the CIA was behind the JFKA, because only the CIA would have the resources and diabolical know-how to conduct such an operation.

Is there a connection between your obfuscation regarding the sheep-dipping and your pro-establishment authoritarian diatribes which raises questions about your bona fides?

After all, since at least as far back as 1979 when the US government’s own investigative body, the HSCA, concluded that there probably was a JFKA conspiracy, the US government has been an accessory to the crime by not investigating who the conspirators were.

Who are you really, Mr Bojczuk? As far as I can see, your forum bio is practically non-existent.

Edited March 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[Mark Knight]

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

Mark,

I don’t see you as the bogeyman or the “source of all evils on this forum”. I was simply trying to defend myself in relation to one specific issue.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment of your final sentence above. It reminds me of a poem by one of my favourite poets, Thomas Hardy, “The Man he Killed” – not that we were trying to shoot each other or anything, because we were both “playing the ball not the man”.

The first stanza of Hardy’s poem is:

Had he and I but met

            By some old ancient inn,

We should have sat us down to wet

            Right many a nipperkin!

Edited March 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[Pat Speer]

44 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

As a formerly active moderator, Mark, I remember that the vast majority of people claiming they were "banned" from this forum wore it as a badge of honor, and took their banishment elsewhere where next to no one gave a crap. I remember as well that the reality was often that they were in fact suspended temporarily, and asked to leave the sandbox for awhile, or god forbid, have their posts approved before publishing as they are in other sandboxes. Unaccustomed to being chastised by mom or moderator, they then sulked and brooded only to send the occasional threatening email to the moderators, demanding their free speech rights, in what was once John Simkin's invite-only living room, and was never designed as a place where people can spew on and abuse others about anything. I remember for example a long heated debate with a supposedly learned person who claimed ALL his posts should be published at the top of the JFK Assassination forum--even if they were about 9/11, the moon landings, or Watergate...because what HE had to say was so important no one interested in the JFK assassination should be allowed to avoid them. As stated in an earlier post, this, too, will blow over. 

[Joe Bauer]

Deep research findings and postulations directly focused on the JFKA are the main foundation essence of the forum imo.

Debates over their contents and credibility get super heated at times.

It's those critical examination skirmishes however that test their mettle especially when offered by equally intelligent and well researched JFKA academics.

I find those debates not only stimulating but informative. 

Too bad the "56 years" thread got too over-heated and personal. Often times I also found it's postings stimulating and informative and it's posters very intelligent and thoughtful.

I have had mixed feelings about it's JFKA relevance validity sometimes yet still felt that the state of the world and our current national political scene in general can't totally be dismissed as not having at least some connection to JFK times and the assassination itself.

Still, I'm going back to the more JFKA focused threads for now.  My main forum interest roots if you will.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

Hi Mark, 

I mean the following with all due respect. I know you guys do this on a volunteer basis and it has eaten up peoples time lately, which must be frustrating. I also know that there is a great deal of political nettle and friction in the USA. With that taken into account, I will point out the following:

 

1) I agree that voluntary contributions are not a contract and they do not give a person special privileges or rights here. However, people do contribute not only on the basis of wanting the forum and its treasure trove of information and discussions to be preserved but, also so they can participate.
Without any caution or warning, or direct message/email, @Matthew Koch has been suspended or banned. You have also cited a reason for this banning in the public post, though not naming Matthew per se. Stalking was mentioned. I have no problem with there being a rule for that, which prohibits publicly available information about a person being shared or referenced about a person without their permission. But, there was no such rule for that at the time of you suspended Matthew. Jim Di also shared something about Lance, and he isn’t banned for the same thing. Why? Can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander? I witnessed the fracas between Ron and Matthew, however, there was previous vitriol which started with Ron using a play on words with Matthews last name. Ron did also respond breaking rules and as far as I am aware, he isn’t suspended either.

I am not seeking that anyone is banned or suspended here, I would like equality, a level playing field, a sense of fairness. And a situation where we all are clear where the line is.
 

2/3) I know it won’t be popular for me to say but, I can see where John is coming from. I have never had any truck with you, Mark. Our exchanges have always been rather cordial. If we go to page 865 or 866 of the thread in question: you did have some nettle with Matthew and I don’t think your response was fair, kind or impartial:

 

Mark Knight

Posted October 1, 2022

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

Just pondering my new surroundings...

The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump.

 

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie.

Whether he's related to them or not.

—————————————————-

Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable.

What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 
 

4) Makes sense. 

5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 
 

6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. 
 

In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. 
 

Chris 

 

4.  

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I'm in favor having a thread. When  i made that  comment/joke  about deregulation, I was saying something similar to John and I think now Chris in that I think the mods should have stepped in sooner in these last few months, and established guidelines. 

But the blame game is over. What's done is done.

Obviously the sooner we stop bitching at each other or at the mods, the sooner that's likely to happen.

[John Cotter]

29 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Mark, 

I mean the following with all due respect. I know you guys do this on a volunteer basis and it has eaten up peoples time lately, which must be frustrating. I also know that there is a great deal of political nettle and friction in the USA. With that taken into account, I will point out the following:

 

1) I agree that voluntary contributions are not a contract and they do not give a person special privileges or rights here. However, people do contribute not only on the basis of wanting the forum and its treasure trove of information and discussions to be preserved but, also so they can participate.
Without any caution or warning, or direct message/email, @Matthew Koch has been suspended or banned. You have also cited a reason for this banning in the public post, though not naming Matthew per se. Stalking was mentioned. I have no problem with there being a rule for that, which prohibits publicly available information about a person being shared or referenced about a person without their permission. But, there was no such rule for that at the time of you suspended Matthew. Jim Di also shared something about Lance, and he isn’t banned for the same thing. Why? Can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander? I witnessed the fracas between Ron and Matthew, however, there was previous vitriol which started with Ron using a play on words with Matthews last name. Ron did also respond breaking rules and as far as I am aware, he isn’t suspended either.

I am not seeking that anyone is banned or suspended here, I would like equality, a level playing field, a sense of fairness. And a situation where we all are clear where the line is.
 

2/3) I know it won’t be popular for me to say but, I can see where John is coming from. I have never had any truck with you, Mark. Our exchanges have always been rather cordial. If we go to page 865 or 866 of the thread in question: you did have some nettle with Matthew and I don’t think your response was fair, kind or impartial:

 

 

Mark Knight

Posted October 1, 2022

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

Just pondering my new surroundings...

The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump.

 

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie.

Whether he's related to them or not.

—————————————————-

Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable.

What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 
 

4) Makes sense. 

5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 
 

6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. 
 

In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. 
 

Chris 

 

4.  

 

Hear, hear.

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Cotter writes:

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

He continues:

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

Jeremy and Alex Wilson are objectively spot on. The last thing JFK research needs is to be associated with the American far-right. Assassination research has been marginalized and stigmatized since the 1960s, and like it or not but the general public currently labels any argument even remotely connected to the modern right as a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, regardless of its merits. It might be unfair, but if criticism of the lone assassin conclusion becomes uniquely associated with the far-right, the chance of any aspect of the case ever being reinvestigated is effectively zero. 

Let’s look at an example that both sides will hopefully be able to understand. When the Covid vaccine was first announced, hoards of normal ass people of all political persuasions had totally reasonable and valid concerns about taking a brand new drug with no long-term test data. However, after the topic became politicized, anyone who even hinted that the vaccine was anything less than God’s gift to mankind was instantly labeled an anti-vax Trump suckling mouth-frothing whack job that was literally evil for expressing even the slightest doubt or desire to apply a basic human level of scrutiny by reading primary sources before taking a new drug. The reasonable skeptics thus mostly kept quiet in fear of being crucified, and the general public and mainstream media immediately dismissed any alternative viewpoint as lacking credibility to the point of being mentally deranged. I’d probably describe myself as a left-leaning moderate if I had to choose, and I was genuinely disturbed by the censorship and overall attitudes of public about the vaccine during the pandemic. Were some of those attitudes justified? Sure, but that was mostly the fault of the vocal minority of right-wingers who were determined to willfully ignore legitimate evidence to prop up a liberal deep-state boogeyman and make themselves look like a bunch of moronic douchebags in the process. 

Is that what we want to happen to JFK research? Cause that’s the direction we’re headed if the Matthew Koch’s of the world turn the JFKA into a right-wing political soapbox. Expecting the general public to take the assassination seriously, pressure politicians, and do their own research in that scenario is delusional, and complaining about it will only make it worse. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Tom Gram

[John Cotter]

50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Jeremy and Alex Wilson are objectively spot on. The last thing JFK research needs is to be associated with the American far-right. Assassination research has been marginalized and stigmatized since the 1960s, and like it or not but the general public currently labels any argument even remotely connected to the modern right as a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, regardless of its merits. It might be unfair, but if criticism of the lone assassin conclusion becomes uniquely associated with the far-right, the chance of any aspect of the case ever being reinvestigated is effectively zero. 

Let’s look at an example that both sides will hopefully be able to understand. When the Covid vaccine was first announced, hoards of normal ass people of all political persuasions had totally reasonable and valid concerns about taking a brand new drug with no long-term test data. However, after the topic became politicized, anyone who even hinted that the vaccine was anything less than God’s gift to mankind was instantly labeled an anti-vax Trump suckling mouth-frothing whack job that was literally evil for expressing even the slightest doubt or desire to apply a basic human level of scrutiny by reading primary sources before taking a new drug. The reasonable skeptics thus mostly kept quiet in fear of being crucified, and the general public and mainstream media immediately dismissed any alternative viewpoint as lacking credibility to the point of being mentally deranged. I’d probably describe myself as a left-leaning moderate if I had to choose, and I was genuinely disturbed by the censorship and overall attitudes of public about the vaccine during the pandemic. Were some of those attitudes justified? Sure, but that was mostly the fault of the vocal minority of right-wingers who were determined to willfully ignore legitimate evidence to prop up a liberal deep-state boogeyman and make themselves look like a bunch of moronic douchebags in the process. 

Is that what we want to happen to JFK research? Cause that’s the direction we’re headed if the Matthew Koch’s of the world turn the JFKA into a right-wing political soapbox. Expecting the general public to take the assassination seriously, pressure politicians, and do their own research in that scenario is delusional, and complaining about it will only make it worse. 

I'm sick and tired of this "debate", so I'll keep this as short as possible.

You seem to have missed the fact that the diatribes of obnoxious name calling by Mr W's messenger boy Mr B (I couldn't be arsed looking up the spelling of his surname again) have been thoroughly refuted in my and others' posts here.

Either deal with those rebuttals or run along and don't be adding more gibberish to the gibberish already debunked.

Moreover, the forum Administrator, Mark Knight, has rightly condemned the obnoxious name-calling in question.

Why are you defending the indefensible? Are you disputing Mark Knight's judgement?

Finally, your second paragraph is a non sequitur vis-a-vis your first. Again I couldn't be arsed wasting any more of my precious time explaining why that is so. I've already dealt with too many steaming piles of nonsense here.

Edited March 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Jeremy and Alex Wilson are objectively spot on. The last thing JFK research needs is to be associated with the American far-right. Assassination research has been marginalized and stigmatized since the 1960s, and like it or not but the general public currently labels any argument even remotely connected to the modern right as a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, regardless of its merits. It might be unfair, but if criticism of the lone assassin conclusion becomes uniquely associated with the far-right, the chance of any aspect of the case ever being reinvestigated is effectively zero. 

Let’s look at an example that both sides will hopefully be able to understand. When the Covid vaccine was first announced, hoards of normal ass people of all political persuasions had totally reasonable and valid concerns about taking a brand new drug with no long-term test data. However, after the topic became politicized, anyone who even hinted that the vaccine was anything less than God’s gift to mankind was instantly labeled an anti-vax Trump suckling mouth-frothing whack job that was literally evil for expressing even the slightest doubt or desire to apply a basic human level of scrutiny by reading primary sources before taking a new drug. The reasonable skeptics thus mostly kept quiet in fear of being crucified, and the general public and mainstream media immediately dismissed any alternative viewpoint as lacking credibility to the point of being mentally deranged. I’d probably describe myself as a left-leaning moderate if I had to choose, and I was genuinely disturbed by the censorship and overall attitudes of public about the vaccine during the pandemic. Were some of those attitudes justified? Sure, but that was mostly the fault of the vocal minority of right-wingers who were determined to willfully ignore legitimate evidence to prop up a liberal deep-state boogeyman and make themselves look like a bunch of moronic douchebags in the process. 

Is that what we want to happen to JFK research? Cause that’s the direction we’re headed if the Matthew Koch’s of the world turn the JFKA into a right-wing political soapbox. Expecting the general public to take the assassination seriously, pressure politicians, and do their own research in that scenario is delusional, and complaining about it will only make it worse. 

Well put in my opinion, and the Covid analogy spot on. The middle position became impossible, even in my social circles. I wanted to hear the skeptic voices but that middle ground got completely hijacked, and like you I don’t want to see that happen here. 

[Guest]

Well, I guess that’s positive. Nobody seems to agree with what @Matthew Koch is being charged with. i guess because it creates a double standard. 
 

I do note the usual pejorative terms which led to the bickering and unpleasantness in the first place.

Mods, please take note. 
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I'm sick and tired of this "debate", so I'll keep this as short as possible.

You seem to have missed the fact that the diatribes of obnoxious name calling by Mr W's messenger boy Mr B (I couldn't be arsed looking up the spelling of his surname again) have been thoroughly refuted in my and others' posts here.

Either deal with those rebuttals or run along and don't be adding more gibberish to the gibberish already debunked.

Moreover, the forum Administrator, Mark Knight, has rightly condemned the obnoxious name-calling in question.

Why are you defending the indefensible? Are you disputing Mark Knight's judgement?

Finally, your second paragraph is a non sequitur vis-a-vis your first. Again I couldn't be arsed wasting any more of my precious time explaining why that is so. I've already dealt with too many steaming piles of nonsense here.

This post sort of reminds me of that chapter in James Joyce's novel, Ulysses, entitled, "K.M.R.I.A." -- an acronym for, "Kiss My Royal Irish Arse."  🤓

Joyce was a century ahead of Twitter and text message semantics.

[Matt Allison]

Perhaps to salve this heavy bereavement right-wingers are feeling over the loss of that beacon of integrity Matthew Koch, we can create some sort of shrine or statue to him, and leave a picture of it permanently atop the 56 Years thread page.

Just a suggestion. Or maybe the other message boards he's been kicked off of can inform us of what they did to honor him following his expulsion.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Perhaps to salve this heavy bereavement right-wingers are feeling over the loss of that beacon of integrity Matthew Koch, we can create some sort of shrine or statue to him, and leave a picture of it permanently atop the 56 Years thread page.

Just a suggestion. Or maybe the other message boards he's been kicked off of can inform us of what they did to honor him following his expulsion.

Matt,

    I don't want to engage in specious ad haminem slurs, but perhaps we could all take up a collection to buy Mathew a trophy, in honor of his tireless efforts during the past six months to own the libs and Make America Great Again.  🤥