MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Leslie Sharp]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We see the facts differently. 

In a nutshell, the debunked Russiagate Hoax, the debunked Russian-social-media farrago, then the Mueller Report, leading to the Donk impeachment of Trump---clearly there was an attempt to remove Trump for office, and not through the ballot box. 

Did Trump have a plan for Pence to somehow nullify results from certain states? It seems so (rather weak and half-baked, as Trump had zero backing in institutional DC, or from the intel-state). 

One reality does not foreclose the other reality. There can be Deep State regime-change ops against Trump, and also a Trump plan to have Pence nullify results from certain states.

We are worlds apart in views, and what we think are facts. 

But I welcome your participation in EF-JFK, and I do not disparage your views of facts. 

Your views are just not my views. 

That is why it is called a forum. 

As a courtesy statement, I am not ignoring any comments, but I myself will forego further comments on this thread. 

 

Trump plan to have Pence nullify results from certain states. . . . 
OR BE HUNG.

 

We might have been able to engage in constructive debate if instead of pushing out soundbites in your comments, you would cite the sources that cause you to refer to the Russia investigation as "the Russia-hoax," and reveal who influences your interpretation of the Mueller Report. 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

Stark Constrsts Between the Mueller Report and Attorney Barr's Summary

Special Counsel Report: The report makes the statement: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” It further states, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, Vol. 2, page 2 (March 2019) (“Special Counsel Report”))

Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted the Special Counsel office’s allusion to their lack of confidence in exonerating evidence as well as repeated findings that there was substantial evidence supporting the key elements of obstruction. Instead, Barr offered his own conclusions about the obstruction case against the president, stating, “I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” (Letter from Attorney General Bill Barr to House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, p. 3 (March 24, 2019) (the “Barr Letter”))

read the full analysis here. https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/stark-contrasts-between-the-mueller-report-and-attorney-general-barrs-summary/

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Chuck Schwartz]

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

[Paul Brancato]

27 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

Me too. His posts were enlightening.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

Ditto.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Me too. His posts were enlightening.

 

6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ditto.

And guys, what if people of a more libertarian / centrist / conservative viewpoint support the reinstating of @Matthew Koch ? 
 

I think both should be reinstated. I am happy for that to happen. There have been some others who got banned who weren’t bad guys either. They were taunted and goaded. 
 

 

[John Cotter]

6 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

 

And guys, what if people of a more libertarian / centrist / conservative viewpoint support the reinstating of @Matthew Koch ? 
 

I think both should be reinstated. I am happy for that to happen. There have been some others who got banned who weren’t bad guys either. They were taunted and goaded. 
 

 

I second that.

[Leslie Sharp]

16 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I also support the reinstatement  of Robert Montenegto to this forum. 

Hear, Hear!

[Guest]

More Orwellian style censorship from the moderators. The threads has been moved and title changed.
 

@John Cotter @Paul Rigby @Benjamin Cole @Matthew Koch

@Mark Knight @Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James R Gordon

 

MODERATORS: If you are in the ‘right’, why are you hiding from an honest, transparent conversation? 
 

You have given a reason for suspending @Matthew Koch as ‘stalking’. By your definition it is using publicly available information elsewhere in Education Forum threads. Matt Allison creepily did that to @Lori Spencer. And Jim Di Eugenio did the same to Lance Payette. Neither of these self identified ‘liberals’ were suspended like Matthew is. The way it looks is that its idealogical, discriminatory and a clear double standard. The stalking rule wasn’t even defined, you made it up. To add to the case, multiple moderators have cast aspersions about Matthew’s character. You have permitted him to be abused and subject to some heinous ad hominem. There is no equality in this case.
 

You claim as per your rules that there is a clear policy that a member shall be warned of any rule breaks. You have suspended @Matthew Koch with zero communication and he still around 2 weeks on has no communication from any of you. In my opinion, this is shabby, its incredibly poor etiquette. I would like a statement as to why you are not following rules. We deserve some clarity and honesty. 
 

IMO you are behaving like dictators and authoritarians. There is no equality. You want people to be attracted to post here, to pay for the upkeep of the forum and to provide a plethora of diverse opinions. You cannot achieve that if you do not stick to your own rules and processes, and you discriminate. You’ll make the forum die. 
 

I will request one final time that you reinstate him and that we wipe a clean slate, with no further escalation. If you continue to hide from discussion, then this will be taken outside of the forum, which may not be optimal for the parties concerned. 

[Mark Knight]

This thread was moved from the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE section of the forum because it has ZERO to do with the JFK Assassination and is instead more of a diatribe against the forum administrators. As such, the current location is the more correct place for the thread. The FORUM INFORMATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATIONS section was where the administrators [as a group; not just one administrator] decided such threads belong.

Let it be noted that the title change on this thread was NOT the action of the forum administrators, lest there be any confusion as to WHO changed the title of the thread. The originator of the thread changed the title.

You are entitled to your opinions; notice that not a single post has been deleted from this thread. Nor will it be. So please do rail on about censorship. 

Notice also that the "56 years" thread exists in its entirety in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum.

Take note that the Trump discussion threads have also been moved to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, intact.

In fact, in the interest of fairness to all political perspectives, I even opened a Biden Discussion Thread in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, so that members can make political posts for and against Biden as well as Trump.

All viewpoints are welcome here. Since the forum rules mention that disciplinary action by the forum administrators CAN be taken without issuing a prior warning, depending upon the administrators' perceived urgency of the disciplinary action, the forum rules were not violated by the administrators.

 

 

[John Cotter]

5 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

This thread was moved from the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE section of the forum because it has ZERO to do with the JFK Assassination and is instead more of a diatribe against the forum administrators. As such, the current location is the more correct place for the thread. The FORUM INFORMATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATIONS section was where the administrators [as a group; not just one administrator] decided such threads belong.

Let it be noted that the title change on this thread was NOT the action of the forum administrators, lest there be any confusion as to WHO changed the title of the thread. The originator of the thread changed the title.

You are entitled to your opinions; notice that not a single post has been deleted from this thread. Nor will it be. So please do rail on about censorship. 

Notice also that the "56 years" thread exists in its entirety in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum.

Take note that the Trump discussion threads have also been moved to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, intact.

In fact, in the interest of fairness to all political perspectives, I even opened a Biden Discussion Thread in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, so that members can make political posts for and against Biden as well as Trump.

All viewpoints are welcome here. Since the forum rules mention that disciplinary action by the forum administrators CAN be taken without issuing a prior warning, depending upon the administrators' perceived urgency of the disciplinary action, the forum rules were not violated by the administrators.

 

 

Mark,

Describing the thread as a “diatribe” is unwarranted. The points made by @Chris Barnard about transparency, fairness and evenhandedness are valid and require an answer.

The persistent refusal to address these points and the invoking of a provision which relieves the moderators of any obligation to address them and so render the moderators unaccountable is quite simply authoritarian.

The moderators are seriously mistaken if they think such an approach is good for the forum. Authoritarianism is always doomed to failure.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

This thread was moved from the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE section of the forum because it has ZERO to do with the JFK Assassination and is instead more of a diatribe against the forum administrators. As such, the current location is the more correct place for the thread. The FORUM INFORMATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATIONS section was where the administrators [as a group; not just one administrator] decided such threads belong.

Let it be noted that the title change on this thread was NOT the action of the forum administrators, lest there be any confusion as to WHO changed the title of the thread. The originator of the thread changed the title.

You are entitled to your opinions; notice that not a single post has been deleted from this thread. Nor will it be. So please do rail on about censorship. 

Notice also that the "56 years" thread exists in its entirety in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum.

Take note that the Trump discussion threads have also been moved to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, intact.

In fact, in the interest of fairness to all political perspectives, I even opened a Biden Discussion Thread in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, so that members can make political posts for and against Biden as well as Trump.

All viewpoints are welcome here. Since the forum rules mention that disciplinary action by the forum administrators CAN be taken without issuing a prior warning, depending upon the administrators' perceived urgency of the disciplinary action, the forum rules were not violated by the administrators.

 

 

There seems to be a bit of a trend with you guys dumping content that you don’t want to respond to or that you find distasteful. You went a week tolerating political bias on the JFKA forum and then suddenly picked at @Benjamin Cole’s posts. As if they were the first or anything other than a minority of off topic posts. IMO it all points to discriminatory moderation. 
 

The second paragraph is an abject mistruth or at best a half-truth. @Sandy Larsen changed the title of the thread and I then changed it to something more appropriate. @Mark Knight you surely knew that as it was printed at the bottom of the page. 
 

You might consider that dumping someones content on an obscure part of the forum with little traffic is censorship. Its the same as google or youtube algorithms dumping content that the government finds distasteful way down the list of organic search results. 
 

As for your final paragraph. It doesn’t address the criticism’s outlined and you know this. You (moderators) gave a reason for suspending @Matthew Koch and it was ‘stalking’. Yet you did absolutely nothing when Matt Allison did this to Lori Spencer and when Jim Di Eugenio did it to Lance Payette. They are not suspended. @Mark Knight Can you explain clearly why two prominent Democrats got a pass, and you punished a prominent Conservative? 
 

Please explain the decision making process of why you chose to suspend with no warning in the case of @Matthew Koch, when you didn’t take this step with others? 
 

IMO the whole thing reeks of corruption and you owe an explanation. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Mark Knight]

Do you "live" on this forum? Because I and the other administrators don't. If the administrators "went a week [allegedly] tolerating political bias," it may just be because we haven't read the entire thread, or haven't visited the forum in days, or perhaps a week. The administrators all have lives elsewhere beyond this forum. We don't do this for profit. We don't derive any pleasure in getting several "Cleanup on Aisle Three!" notifications per day. 

Moving a discussion to its appropriate area of the forum is well within the purview of the administrators. It's NOT discriminatory to move a political discussion from the JFK DISCUSSION FORUM to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area. Or to move a thread questioning how the forum is run to an area of the forum where that discussion is more appropriate. It's merely something the administrators should have done sooner, and I apologize on behalf of all the administrators for not moving more quickly.

In the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area, there are now threads for discussing both Trump and Biden, so members of all political persuasions can discuss whatever political axe they have to grind. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals are all welcome to post in the appropriate forum areas. And not a single post was deleted during or after the move to the appropriate area of the forum. But please do go on about discrimination.

As far as the discipline of other forum members goes, you're not privy to the private messages between administrators and forum members, with the possible exception of Matthew Koch. So with the exception of Matthew Koch, you have no idea who has been warned, restricted to a certain number of posts per day, briefly suspended, or dealt with in other ways. But please do go on about discrimination.

You seem to be trying to make this a personal battle between me and Matthew Koch. I assure you it is not. 

I have spent a highly inordinate amount of my time on this forum working to see whose profiles lack bio information, so that there is no accidental "discrimination" against those who flaunt that rule, for whatever purpose. I have contacted many members about this, not knowing or caring about their political persuasion. Most have responded politely and have corrected the situation. NONE of them have claimed that this is some personal vendetta. And those who have not corrected the situation are subject to finding their posting privileges suspended until the situation is corrected...including one or more "heavy hitters" on the forum. It doesn't matter their politics, despite what you may believe.

 

 

[John Cotter]

19 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Do you "live" on this forum? Because I and the other administrators don't. If the administrators "went a week [allegedly] tolerating political bias," it may just be because we haven't read the entire thread, or haven't visited the forum in days, or perhaps a week. The administrators all have lives elsewhere beyond this forum. We don't do this for profit. We don't derive any pleasure in getting several "Cleanup on Aisle Three!" notifications per day. 

Moving a discussion to its appropriate area of the forum is well within the purview of the administrators. It's NOT discriminatory to move a political discussion from the JFK DISCUSSION FORUM to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area. Or to move a thread questioning how the forum is run to an area of the forum where that discussion is more appropriate. It's merely something the administrators should have done sooner, and I apologize on behalf of all the administrators for not moving more quickly.

In the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area, there are now threads for discussing both Trump and Biden, so members of all political persuasions can discuss whatever political axe they have to grind. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals are all welcome to post in the appropriate forum areas. And not a single post was deleted during or after the move to the appropriate area of the forum. But please do go on about discrimination.

As far as the discipline of other forum members goes, you're not privy to the private messages between administrators and forum members, with the possible exception of Matthew Koch. So with the exception of Matthew Koch, you have no idea who has been warned, restricted to a certain number of posts per day, briefly suspended, or dealt with in other ways. But please do go on about discrimination.

You seem to be trying to make this a personal battle between me and Matthew Koch. I assure you it is not. 

I have spent a highly inordinate amount of my time on this forum working to see whose profiles lack bio information, so that there is no accidental "discrimination" against those who flaunt that rule, for whatever purpose. I have contacted many members about this, not knowing or caring about their political persuasion. Most have responded politely and have corrected the situation. NONE of them have claimed that this is some personal vendetta. And those who have not corrected the situation are subject to finding their posting privileges suspended until the situation is corrected...including one or more "heavy hitters" on the forum. It doesn't matter their politics, despite what you may believe.

 

 

Mark,

What is @Matthew Koch's current status in this forum?

You said information in that respect could be found in his forum profile. I’ve told you that I looked there and couldn’t find it. You didn’t reply.

Could you please at least address this single issue?

[Guest]

On 3/27/2023 at 2:10 PM, John Cotter said:

Mark,

What is @Matthew Koch's current status in this forum?

You said information in that respect could be found in his forum profile. I’ve told you that I looked there and couldn’t find it. You didn’t reply.

Could you please at least address this single issue?

Could you clarify this, please, @Mark Knight ? 

[John Cotter]

9 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Could you clarify this, please, @Mark Knight ? 

@Mark Knight’s stonewalling on this issue clearly indicates that the moderators’ treatment of @Matthew Koch is indefensible.

They were quite happy to have the 56 Years thread in the main JFK section of the forum when it was dominated by “liberals”. There was no problem with political discussion in that section then.

Matthew Koch’s arrival disrupted that cosy situation. His highly informed, entertaining and iconoclastic posts exposed the farcical nature of the prevailing liberal consensus, and so he had to be “cancelled” by hook or by crook.

As Joseph Stalin said, “No man, no problem”.

That seems the only plausible explanation for Mark Knight’s silence.