MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

You're stating opinion when you allege that an error occurred related to Matthew Koch.

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

19 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Kennedy knew Nut Country when he arrived in it. It is my informed opinion that had Koch been in a Texas crowd at the time and shouted his vitriol, Kennedy would have recognized him as representative of that nut country.  Would he have him arrested? NO. Would he have challenged him? Maybe. Would he have indulged him? Not likely.

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

23 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Apparently some on the thread felt that Koch posed a danger.  Having been there, I respect the concern, and I think the moderators would feel responsible if they allowed the behavior to continue on this forum.

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

[Guest]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:18 AM, John Cotter said:

Lance,

Do you mean that, like Matthew Koch, you’re a Trump supporter?

I would hesitate to claim being "like Matthew" in any respect, but I did indeed vote for The Donald twice (as I did for Obama, twice, which I mention lest anyone think I'm as politically one-dimensional as many folks here seem to be). I am entirely able to distinguish between "the policies" and "the man." In terms of the policies, I remain a firm Trump supporter. The man, however, has revealed that his crazy side is more scary-crazy than I had realized and has become such a walking cartoon that it would be impossible for me to vote for him again. The country needs someone far more Presidential than either Trump or Biden, and I can't fathom why the ever-increasing hordes of people age 50 and under keep allowing these dinosaurs to be nominated and elected.

On 3/20/2023 at 4:35 AM, Chris Barnard said:

@Lance Payette
Thanks for your input; diverse opinions should be welcome. I am pleased to see you posting again. Why did you feel the need to delete all of your posts? 

I'm "posting again" only in the sense that I asked Kathy yesterday to delete my account and discovered she hadn't when I logged on just now to see if she had. I deleted my posts as a preliminary to having my account deleted. To be honest, Matthew struck me as so weird that I wanted to remove any and all evidence of my association with this forum before he decided to do something dangerous. I am astonished that anyone would think the banning of Matthew was inappropriate or that he was banned for his political views. I am likewise astonished that anyone would think that Ben or Jeremy, both of whom strike me as among the more rational participants, are problems.

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for Ben Cole's utterly ludicrous claim that the 56 Years thread was an "anti-Trump sewer," I would encourage interested parties to peruse that excellent, erudite thread from the beginning.

I thought the 56 Years thread was not merely an embarrassment to the forum but to the human race. "Anti-Trump sewer" is entirely accurate but far too gentle. It was worthwhile only because it illustrated, in spades, an issue that I raised in one of my early posts here several years ago - i.e., the curiously Leftist orientation of the JFKA conspiracy community. At the time, I just noted this in passing. As I recall, my point was that this might explain why much of the conspiracy community leans toward dark, elaborate conspiracies whereby JFK's death supposedly explains much of the subsequent history of the U.S. Now, it seems, the "Leftist orientation" of the forum has exploded into full-fledged "Leftist intolerance" of contrasting views. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Koch was a repeat offender Chris. I’m not with you on this argument. 

@Paul Brancato You’ve always struck me as someone with a strong sense of morality here and the ability to mediate when needed. 
 

In this case, because its personal, it feels like you are willing to forsake values to vanquish an enemy. 

The reason given by @Mark Knight for @Matthew Koch being suspended was for “stalking”, the referencing publicly available information. Others have done this on the forum including perhaps the most respected posted who happens to be a Democrat. That isn’t fair. 
 

The rules cited also require a warning from a moderator, @Matthew Koch has received zero communication. Matthew has also received prejudiced comments casting aspersion about his character from moderators, a couple of which I referenced. That is a double standard. 
 

If you are comfortable with Mods behaving as authoritarians, without equality or fairness, then just say, as I won’t waste my breath. I have always thought you were different. I am a libertarian. I am against this behaviour. 
 

What is interesting is that some of you guys think its cool calling people fascists, racists, Third Reichers, off the cuff, which is about as malicious as anything that could be done. It could damage people’s work when new employers search them. It’s incredibly poor etiquette and a disaster for public discourse. 
 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

10 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

In my instances, online threat to "come kill me", and another to "send Corsicans to my house to teach me a lesson."

I believe the term "stalking" was introduced in context of Matthew's being banned.  Correct me if I'm wrong because gossip and rumor is corrosive.  

[Leslie Sharp]

14 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Chris, I'm not okay with equating the goose — fact-based comments related to the subject of the thread — with the gander — inflammatory, baseless propaganda.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here?

Both Paul and I, at least, experienced stalking behavior unrelated to the JFKA or anything to do with this forum. When I tried to deal with it gently and humorously, it only intensified. I don't know what "danger" it did or didn't represent, but when it appeared the problem was not going to be addressed at all I deleted all my posts and asked Kathy to delete my account because I wasn't interested in finding out what danger it might represent. The stalking of Paul was apparently the last straw, although for all I know others had complained as well.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I'm "posting again" only in the sense that I asked Kathy yesterday to delete my account and discovered she hadn't when I logged on just now to see if she had. I deleted my posts as a preliminary to having my account deleted. To be honest, Matthew struck me as so weird that I wanted to remove any and all evidence of my association with this forum before he decided to do something dangerous. I am astonished that anyone would think the banning of Matthew was inappropriate or that he was banned for his political views. I am likewise astonished that anyone would think that Ben or Jeremy, both of whom strike me as among the more rational participants, are problems.

I guess the bar is low in 2023. 
There is a contradiction here. You claim he is ‘dangerous’ but, then you continue to disparage him. Wouldn’t that put you more at risk? 🙂  

It’s a bit like you implying I am a Russian paid agent or something similar. Wouldn’t that put you in danger? 

I am also astonished that @W. Niederhut thinks @Benjamin Cole is a problem. He is a nice guy who speaks his mind politely. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

In my instances, online threat to "come kill me", and another to "send Corsicans to my house to teach me a lesson."

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 
 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Both Paul and I, at least, experienced stalking behavior unrelated to the JFKA or anything to do with this forum. When I tried to deal with it gently and humorously, it only intensified. I don't know what "danger" it did or didn't represent, but when it appeared the problem was not going to be addressed at all I deleted all my posts and asked Kathy to delete my account because I wasn't interested in finding out what danger it might represent. The stalking of Paul was apparently the last straw, although for all I know others had complained as well.

Ok, so what you are saying is; anything could be dangerous in your interpretation. And that you find someone using a google search to see who they are debating as ‘dangerous’. Its funny, as many would also deem that as a safety precaution. 

[Leslie Sharp]

19 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 

Chris, Our evidence establishes that the far-right ideology that drove Matthew's posts (Posobiec, Yiannopolis among others) fueled the decision to assassinate the president of the United States. My initial posts on the end result of the 56 years thread — a discussion directly related to what we present in Coup in Dallas (thus my reason for joining the thread) —  included excerpts of that evidence.  Rather than challenge the facts presented with a reasonable rebuttal that should logically include facts, Matthew opted to attack my gender, suggested I was drug addled, and somehow scorned.  

If he has read 250 books on the assassination, and admired Kennedy as you purport, would you not require him to be a reasoned, mature commenter on an assassination forum?   

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Chris, I'm not okay with equating the goose — fact-based comments related to the subject of the thread — with the gander — inflammatory, baseless propaganda.

Let me ease your concerns by clarifying that it was bot directed at you. It’s figure of speech. 

[Paul Brancato]

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ok, so what you are saying is; anything could be dangerous in your interpretation. And that you find someone using a google search to see who they are debating as ‘dangerous’. Its funny, as many would also deem that as a safety precaution. 

It was more than Google searching Chris. His behavior was way out of line. You make your good arguments based on free speech and fair play, and it’s hard to disagree in principle. But in fact he was disruptive and more. 
 

[W. Niederhut]

35 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Just a reminder for you of how party and policy, as well as values are often a fluid thing. We should all question ours periodically. As opposed to blindly following confirmation bias materials. 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/amp/

Chris,

     I'm fully aware of the admirable role northern Republicans played in helping to pass the Civil Rights Act.

     Nothing new here.

     As for fluidity, the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican Party en masse after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

     They are now the hardcore, white supremacist base of Trumpism.

     Regarding Lance Payette's critique of the 56 Years thread, I agree that the thread BECAME an embarrassment after the MAGA spammers joined the forum.  But it didn't start out as such.

      People can read it and judge for themselves.

[Leslie Sharp]

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 
 

 

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 

Chris, Are you asking who threatened me? Or who claimed that Koch stalked them?

Every lawyer knows never ask a question you don't know the answer.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 

Chris, Our evidence establishes that the far-right ideology that drove Matthew's posts (Posobiec, Yiannopolis among others) fueled the decision to assassinate the president of the United States. My initial posts on the end result of the 56 years thread — a discussion directly related to what we present in Coup in Dallas (thus my reason for joining the thread) —  included excerpts of that evidence.  Rather than challenge the facts presented with a reasonable rebuttal that should logically include facts, Matthew opted to attack my gender, suggested I was drug addled, and somehow scorned.  

If he has read 250 books on the assassination, and admired Kennedy as you purport, would you not require him to be a reasoned, mature commenter on an assassination forum?   

Respectfully, that’s nonsense. In my opinion you can’t get over the fact that you felt humiliated, for days in debate. You hold @Matthew Koch partly responsible for retorts. Isn’t it time you got over it, moved on? Just a week ago, you said you weren’t sure if you could. I even reached out with an olive branch. You and @Matthew Koch both slighted eachother.