MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Guest]

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, 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. 

 

Oh, well, I am able to answer straight questions with candour. Something you are not capable of lately, Mark, IMO. No, I do not live on this forum. You’re eluding to not having time to read / respond. Yet, at the bottom of the home screen it shows when you are online. You’re finding plenty of time to be here just not to address reasonable questions. I do note that you are playing the virtue card in this paragraph. It’s a little like JD Rockefeller giving dimes to kids in front of a well organised gallery of journalists. Virtuous in my definition would be someone who is fair, exhibits equality and deplores discrimination, all of the time. You have categorically discriminated against @Matthew Koch, as have other moderators, I have proven this by quoting your own posts, there is a clear trail of evidence. All I asked for was equality for ALL forum members, regardless of race, religion, political persuasion and whatever else. This is what you are NOT doing. 
 

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, Mark Knight said:

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.

I know you can do whatever you like. You’re playing god on some authoritarian high horse. You were against totalitarian regimes doing that in WW2, you are pro JFK defending the rights of minorities but, in this case, you’re the authoritarian picking on a minority, a catholic conservative. Do you see the hypocrisy?

I agree with you that your negligence has in part caused this conflict or exacerbated it, things should have been done sooner. Your idea of making amends is titling your watercooler threads with words that are biased. You stigmatise Republicans with being alternates. Had it occurred to you that the JFKA is a non-MSM belief? Therefore the JFKA conspiracy would belong more appropriately in the MAGA cooler as opposed to the mainstream cooler, by your linguistic definitions. Where should a rational Republican post in the coolers? I am a liberal, libertarian, just nowhere near the extremes of some, where should I post? 

 “MAGA COOLER - For those who believe alternative (e.g. MAGA) facts“

That’s your view. Not a fact. It can be that in some cases that your biases are unconscious. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. Its plain to see the biases. As moderators you should be NEUTRAL unless of course you have some logical counter argument, which I’d love to hear. 
 

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, Mark Knight said:

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.

I have addressed the water cooler bias in my previous paragraph. Your sarcastic (my interpretation) of your final line, telling us to please go on about discrimination, sounds like the attitude of an anti-civil rights politician of the 1950’s/60’s. The values of your very party used to be anti-discrinination. Here you are practicing discrimination. Isn’t it funny how you give small men a tiny bit of power and they become what they protest they hate. I have only asked for fairness, equality and for you to abandon this double standard. 
 

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, Mark Knight said:

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.

@Matthew Koch has been incredibly transparent with me about what he has and hasn’t received. As for the others; I am not privy to their private communications but, none have vanished from the forum for as long as Matthew K. How do I know that? I can see Matt Allison and Jim Di Eugenio commenting. Logic dictates that an equal infringement (well, a rule you made up on the spot) required equal punishment. Unless there is prejudice. Jim Di Eugenio and Matt Allison (in the case of Lance Payette and Lori Spencer) also retrieved publicly available information from google searches to post content / citations from outside of the forum. It doesn’t take a judge and jury to understand that you have disproportionately punished @Matthew Koch here. 
 

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, Mark Knight said:

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

I am a libertarian. I detest people playing authoritarian. I detest inequality. Why don’t you prove this isn’t discrimination by reinstating @Matthew Koch. And applying rules even handedly, as well as the warning process going forward? Isn’t that a fair thing to do? 
 

On 3/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, Mark Knight said:

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 Knight I have cited quotations of you implying prejudice toward Matthew. Sandy has also displayed a lack of neutrality. This is something which you repeatedly fail to address, as IMO you know you are WRONG, and that you shouldn’t have done that. You suggested Matthew’s last name connects him with the Koch brothers. Would you say Teddy Roosevelt is the same as FDR based on surname? Would you like me to reproduce the quotes and any others that are relevant? I’d love to hear you defend your position. 
 

What is it that you are omitting from this situation, @Mark Knight ? Lets talk about the post that you deleted moments before suspending @Matthew Koch. Matthew directly pointed the finger at moderators for not acting quickly enough in the 58 years thread and he stated that the only reason that moderators are doing something now is because their own conduct has been scrutinised. You also said to @Matthew Koch that he “should consider the source of his honesty”.
Is that implying he is dishonest? Don’t we have a rule for that? @Matthew Koch also said that for the longest time moderators had tolerated liberals attacking conservatives. The only reason the thread is being deleted is because the moderators have not been doing their jobs. 
@Mark Knight You deleted this post, seconds before suspending @Matthew Koch. He was directly pointing out moderator bias and discrimination. There are witnesses to this. Please don’t tell me this didn’t happen. 
 

All I have asked is, that in the sense of fairness, equality, and cohesive forum, that rules are applied even handedly, whether people are liberal, conservative, libertarian or authoritarian. And that @Matthew Koch’s suspension is removed, and that he has a fair shake going forward. 

 

@Paul Rigby @Benjamin Cole @John Cotter

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Chris Barnard
Typo

[Benjamin Cole]

I do not know who was booted off EF-JFKA years back.

In my time, only two people, and they were both "right wing." 

In truth what does "right-wing" mean anymore, when it is the "right wing" that has become more skeptical of foreign wars, state repression or manipulation of free speech, and government prosecutorial excess---and even what really happened in the JFKA!

For whatever reason, the "right wing," and related or independent media, are interested in the JFK Records and CIA connections to the JFK, while the  "left-wing" media only ignores or ridicules such issues. Perhaps there are cynical and shallow reasons for this--on both sides? Possibly.  

When the left wing cared about such JFK-related issues, where they cynical and shallow? 

I think the re-formatted EF-JFK is an improvement, and does not slap newcomers in the face as actually being an anti-Trump forum, posing in drag as the independent EF-JFKA. I hope this leads to a broader reading audience, in which participants people are not denigrated or stigmatized for their political beliefs. If I never read the word "racist" again, that will be too soon. 

Within the new, improved format, it seems to me Matthew Koch should be brought back. There is inherent "damage control" in the new format, a brilliant innovation by Sandy and Mark. 

Koch will lock horns in battle, insults will fly--all confined to the proper venues, as designed by Mark and Sandy. 

[Guest]

On 3/30/2023 at 1:02 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Within the new, improved format, it seems to me Matthew Koch should be brought back.

He certainly should be, Ben. I think its an absolute disgrace that moderators like @Mark Knight are in hiding, unwilling to address their errors and biases regarding the @Matthew Koch situation.
 

We all want a dialogue as to why Biden, Trump and others continue to avoid a free and open dialogue regarding the hidden JFK files. Here on the JFKA forum we have moderators unwilling to have a free and open dialogue on the most simple of things. It’s obvious they are in the wrong, just like Biden and Trump. 
 

@Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James R Gordon @Paul Rigby @John Cotter 

 

I’ll always detest corruption and stand up for the marginalised. 

[Benjamin Cole]

37 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

He certainly should be, Ben. I think its an absolute disgrace that moderators like @Mark Knight are in hiding, unwilling to address their errors and biases regarding the @Matthew Koch situation.
 

We all want a dialogue as to why Biden, Trump and others continue to avoid a free and open dialogue regarding the hidden JFK files. Here on the JFKA forum we have moderators unwilling to have a free and open dialogue on the most simple of things. It’s obvious they are in the wrong, just like Biden and Trump. 
 

@Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James R Gordon @Paul Rigby @John Cotter 

 

I’ll always detest corruption and stand up for the marginalised. 

Koch certainly added some balance to the EF. 

[John Cotter]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:44 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Koch certainly added some balance to the EF. 

@Mark Knight seems to have posted misleading information about @Matthew Koch's forum status being shown on his (Matthew Koch's) profile, and he has ignored my raising this issue repeatedly. Likewise, he still hasn’t answered the simple question as to Matthew Koch’s status vis-à-vis the forum.

There are shades of the Lubyanka about the secrecy in these respects, as there is about the “56 Years” thread being consigned to the oubliette.

It’s a microcosm of the “cancel culture” travesty of western so-called democracy which the 56 Years thread was exposing.

@Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James R Gordon @Paul Rigby @Chris Barnard

[Benjamin Cole]

29 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

@Mark Knight seems to have posted misleading information about @Matthew Koch's forum status being shown on his (Matthew Koch's) profile, and he has ignored my raising this issue repeatedly. Likewise, he still hasn’t answered the simple question as to Matthew Koch’s status vis-à-vis the forum.

There are shades of the Lubyanka about the secrecy in these respects, as there is about the “56 Years” thread being consigned to the oubliette.

It’s a microcosm of the “cancel culture” travesty of western so-called democracy which the 56 Years thread was exposing.

@Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James R Gordon @Paul Rigby @Chris Barnard

I think the moderators did the right thing in re-formatting the EF-JFK so that the focus is on the JFKA, not current politics.

Up until recently, a casual newcomer might have thought he landed in a permanent anti-Trump stomp-fest. 

The EF-JFK needs members, and to welcome people from across the political spectrum. A hardcore Trump supporter should feel very welcome at the EF-JFK, just like the strong Bidenite. 

Indeed, I encourage participants, when you see a new participant, to engage that participant in civil conversation. Make them feel welcome. 

The EF-JFK should not be a small, windowless club. It should be a big tent. 

As for Koch, I think if he pays his dues, perhaps the moderators should relent and let him back in.

The new EF-JFK format is a form of damage control, containing Koch and his adversaries. 

[Leslie Sharp]

What thinking historian, credentialed or amateur, would pose the absurd argument that current politics should be excluded from examination of major historical events?

Which prompts the questions ... Is an active, ongoing effort to dissemble John Simkin's original mission in process? Are the rumors I've heard over the past some months being confirmed? Are the moderators under persistent fire from those who would prefer the JFKA forum be dissolved?

for the record, @Benjamin Cole I posted the following on Facebook, and thus far, I've had 42 researchers weigh in with anger and frustration related to the lavish hospitality of the son of the developer of Kennedy's final destination - the Dallas Trade Mart  - showered over a Supreme Court Justice (sitting on the court in real time — i.e., current events) and his wife who was actively involved in attempts to impede the peaceful transfer of presidential power, a.k.a. the 1963 coup in Dallas.

Son of Dallas Trade Mart developer hosts Ginni and Clarence Thomas on $500k vaca. The rolling coup.

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:37 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

I think the moderators did the right thing in re-formatting the EF-JFK so that the focus is on the JFKA, not current politics.

Up until recently, a casual newcomer might have thought he landed in a permanent anti-Trump stomp-fest. 

The EF-JFK needs members, and to welcome people from across the political spectrum. A hardcore Trump supporter should feel very welcome at the EF-JFK, just like the strong Bidenite. 

Indeed, I encourage participants, when you see a new participant, to engage that participant in civil conversation. Make them feel welcome. 

The EF-JFK should not be a small, windowless club. It should be a big tent. 

As for Koch, I think if he pays his dues, perhaps the moderators should relent and let him back in.

The new EF-JFK format is a form of damage control, containing Koch and his adversaries. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Sandy Larsen Sandy, under what circumstances does this kick in?

Oops!

You do not have permission to view this topic.

[Guest]

@Mark Knight I do hope this doesn’t break a rule and that my message will be taken on face value and in the way that is in intended.

@Matthew Koch has asked me to communicate with you, as he has received a ‘private message’ from you which requires a response. The problem is that Matthew can’t respond to the message because of whatever ‘block’ or ‘censoring mechanism’ the forum currently has in place which prohibits him messaging you back. He has made it abundantly clear that he would like to respond to libellous allegations. May I forward him your direct email address which you wrote to me on, or could you permit him to reply on the site, by lifting whatever blocking mechanisms you have in place. 
 

Thank you. 
 

@James R Gordon @Kathy Beckett @Sandy Larsen 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

The problem is that Matthew can’t respond to the message because of whatever ‘block’ or ‘censoring mechanism’ the forum currently has in place which prohibits him messaging you back.

 

Chris,

That's an unfortunate design flaw in the forum software.

I've contacted Kathy in order to bring this to her attention as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Matthew might want to send his message to edforumbusiness@proton.me , which is the e-mail address used to request new membership. Or he can wait for Kathy to decide how best to communicate with him.

Thanks.

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

That's an unfortunate design flaw in the forum software.

I've contacted Kathy in order to bring this to her attention as quickly as possible. In the meantime, Matthew might want to send his message to edforumbusiness@proton.me , which is the e-mail address used to request new membership. Or he can wait for Kathy to decide how best to communicate with him.

Thanks.

 

 

Thank you. 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Mark Knight I do hope this doesn’t break a rule and that my message will be taken on face value and in the way that is in intended.

@Matthew Koch has asked me to communicate with you, as he has received a ‘private message’ from you which requires a response. The problem is that Matthew can’t respond to the message because of whatever ‘block’ or ‘censoring mechanism’ the forum currently has in place which prohibits him messaging you back. He has made it abundantly clear that he would like to respond to libellous allegations. May I forward him your direct email address which you wrote to me on, or could you permit him to reply on the site, by lifting whatever blocking mechanisms you have in place. 
 

Thank you. 
 

@James R Gordon @Kathy Beckett @Sandy Larsen 

 

@Chris Barnard You're well aware that I've messaged you privately regarding the possibility Matthew Koch left a menacing voicemail because you responded several times.

You are welcome to provide Koch with my personal gmail, lesliemsharp17@gmail.com.


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

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Chris Barnard You're well aware that I've messaged you privately regarding the possibility Matthew Koch left a menacing voicemail because you responded several times.

You are welcome to provide Koch with my personal gmail, lesliemsharp17@gmail.com.


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

Leslie,

You tried mither @Benjamin Cole and I via private message regarding this. Your usual tiresome tack meant that both of us requested that you cease and desist, ie stop messaging us. You continued to harass. At which point I reported you. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Leslie,

You tried mither @Benjamin Cole and I via private message regarding this. Your usual tiresome tack meant that both of us requested that you cease and desist, ie stop messaging us. You continued to harass. At which point I reported you. 

 

 

I disengaged when you requested.

You remarked that you were "indulging" me. I asked three more times if you would be willing to ask Koch about the matter since I don't have direct access to him. You asked me to take your word that he wouldn't leave a menacing call. Why, precisely, would I do that?

This could have been avoided had you suspended your mind games, which I've learned to expect in lieu of productive exchange of information.