MODERATOR CLARIFICATION

[Sandy Larsen]

A few days ago I announced the addition of QUICK LINKS, posted at the very top of the first page of the JFK Assassination Debate forum. I said that members could quickly jump to other popular, related forums from there. For example, the Political Discussions forum.

I should have pointed out that QUICK LINKS include only links to forums that are a member forum of the Education Forum. I think that most forum members here know that the Education Forum consists of numerous forums.

The Political Discussions forum is a place where admin and moderators move threads created on the JFKA Debates forum, but really belong with other political discussions about people who are only tangentially related to the JFK assassination. People like RFK, Jr.

 

[Roger Odisio]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The Political Discussions forum is a place where admin and moderators move threads created on the JFKA Debates forum, but really belong with other political discussions about people who are only tangentially related to the JFK assassination. People like RFK, Jr.

 

 

Tangentially related, huh?  Like in "slightly connected"? I suppose this is a small step up from your previous claim that what Junior was saying and doing had *nothing* to do with the discussion here of the JFKA.  It seems to admit that Junior has some sort of relevance, though apparently not enough in your view to permit discussion of his actions to remain here.

 

Whatever you meant to say, this claim is refuted by what Junior is actually saying and doing.

 

Junior has told anyone who would listen that he thinks the CIA was involved in the murder of JFK.  And that his father never believed the Warren Report. This has caused some alternative media to take another look at the JFKA.  The power of screaming conspiracy theorist at anyone who questions the official lies is gradually waning, opening space for reconsideration. That alone is really important to JFKA research.

 

He said the autopsy of his father proved that Sirhan could not have killed him. The fatal bullet was fired from behind RFK and the gun was only an inch or two away. .

 

Junior did about a 10 minute segment on his father's murder with Bill Mahr.  Mahr came prepared as a skeptic of Junior's claim. By the end he was convinced, muttering this is all seems so cut and dried. How could anyone believe otherwise? The official lie must be a terrible burden for you.

 

At one point Mahr interjects that the Sirhan story is similar to Oswald as the murderer, connecting the two murders. 

In the Kim Iverson interview of Lisa Pease from yesterday (already with221 comments) Iverson begins with tying the murder of the two brothers together which Pease explains.

 

Junior's speech discussing the importance of JFK's peace speech was planned for New Hampshire because that state has always been an important Democratic primary at the beginning of the nomination process (though Biden's DNC is trying to change that).  He's hoping to recall what McCarthy did to LBJ in '68.  Junior is a decided long shot, 20but not in New Hampshire, and Biden knows it.  Sure, there are major differences between 1968 and 2024, but no one, at a similar point in '67, ever thought LBJ would decline to run further after the New Hampshire vote (which he actually won by a few percentage points).

 

Suppose in the MFF lawsuit Bill and Larry succeed in getting the court to order NBC Universal to turn over the camera originals of the Darnell and Wiegman films to NARA for the public to see.  And enhancement shows the figure on the steps was Oswald, destroying the Warren Report. There remains a major problem. The media will try to ignore it.  Someone needs to lead the fight to make this known to the public.  Junior will do it. In that case, he would prove once and for all his value to the discussion of the JFKA. But we really don't need to wait for that do we?

 

Fourth time.  Are you and Mark still pondering an answer? If you want discussions you deem to be political, but are relevant to this forum, to be included at politics, why don't you cut and paste them there while leaving the original thread here?

 

The important thing is to stop removing relevant threads from this forum that people need to see.

[Mark Knight]

When RFK Jr. is SPECIFICALLY discussing the JFK assassination, that would be relevant to this forum.

When he mentions it peripherally in a general political speech, that speech is only peripherally connected to this forum and is better suited to the Political Discussions forum. Just because JFK was his uncle, that doesn't make HIS political speeches any more relevant to this forum than speeches by Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Christie, Haley, or any other politician. 

It's really a simple concept. It truly is.

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

When RFK Jr. is SPECIFICALLY discussing the JFK assassination, that would be relevant to this forum.

When he mentions it peripherally in a general political speech, that speech is only peripherally connected to this forum and is better suited to the Political Discussions forum. Just because JFK was his uncle, that doesn't make HIS political speeches any more relevant to this forum than speeches by Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Christie, Haley, or any other politician. 

It's really a simple concept. It truly is.

Mark:  When RFK Jr. is SPECIFICALLY discussing the JFK assassination, that would be relevant to this forum.

 

When he mentions it peripherally in a general political speech, that speech is only peripherally connected to this forum and is better suited to the Political Discussions forum.

 

RO: Junior can't bring back his father and uncle.  He can only invoke the memory of what they were trying to do, and discuss the results of their murders that he sees today.   He has been undeniably successful at doing that.  As the influence of the corporate media has declined, the  blackout of the JFKA is breaking up. Junior is everywhere on alternative media making his case.  That's important and we need to follow what happens, recognizing that he doesn't need to make it to the White House to be a big help to JFKA research

 

It follows that your approach of permitting on this forum only posts where Junior specifically and directly (your words) discusses some aspect of the JFKA itself makes no sense, to put it mildly. More than that, it damages the purpose of this forum which is to foster all kinds of discussions in the hope of understanding more about what happened.

 

Back in June you removed from this forum my thread entitled The Relevance of JFK's peace speech to the JFKA and to where we are today.  To spark discussion, I  included an assertion that anyone who doesn't understand the conflict within Kennedy's administration over the US's role in the world doesn't understand the murder.

 

The mods had already been removing threads.  Jim Di, Jeff Carter, Paul Brancato,  Ben Cole, John Cotter and Ron Bullman, all agreed the thread was relevant and should remain here.  No one spoke up to disagree.

 

But the mods knew better.  They moved it to Politics where it has languished since. Discussion of the thread abruptly ended.  This has often been the practical result of your approach.   Which anyone should recognize as anathema to the purpose of encouraging discussions.

 

If you are not going to permit discussion of the contemporary effects of the murder-- by calling them political discussions---effectively what you are doing is severing the link between the past and present.  In your view, threads that specifically talk about the historical event--the murders--are OK.  But those that talk about the current situation that resulted from those murders--how it came about *because of the murders* and what can be done about it--are about politics and must be moved to politics. To say this approach is damaging to this forum seems self evident.

 

Moreover, for the fifth time I ask, why must you choose which forum a thread is better suited for?  Why can't some threads appear in more than one?  How about answering the question this time.

 

Mark: Just because JFK was his uncle, that doesn't make HIS political speeches any more relevant to this forum than speeches by Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Christie, Haley, or any other politician. 

 

What Junior says and does is relevant to this forum not because JFK is his uncle.  That's obvious, isn't it?  It's because with his candidacy he is trying to  pick up where his uncle and father left off.  He sees that a version of the "Pax America" JFK had so forcefully and publicly rejected has become today's disaster after he was murdered .  In doing so Junior has focused attention back on the Kennedy murders in an important way.

 

That's an important point to explore on this forum.