Implementation of the JFK Records Act

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The evisceration of the JFK Act by Biden is the most important thing happening in this case right now and everyone should be talking about it for the 60th.

 

And yet nobody is willing to go to the Political Discussion forum to do so.

 

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The article is dated July 1, 2023.... more than two months old. It is about what Ben likes to call "Biden's snuff job."

Ben has posted on this very topic numerous times. I penalized him for spamming.

I gave Ben 10 penalty points, which as a first offense would be a one-day loss of posting privileges. I just checked Ben's penalty history and found that another moderator had earlier given Ben 30 points for a different offense. The penalty system is more severe on repeat offenders. And so my 10 point penalty was the straw that resulted in Ben getting an 8-day suspension of posting privileges. Not the 30 days that others have surmised.

 

 

We give warnings and penalties nearly every day. It is none of the other forum members' business who is penalized. It is the penalized member's prerogative whether or not to share that information with other members.

 

  13 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

If he was banned for posting the notice of the article, which, as you say goes to heart of the task of this forum, that is beyond ludicrous.

 

 

SL:  The article is dated July 1, 2023.... more than two months old. It is about what Ben likes to call "Biden's snuff job."

 

RO: Morley was reminding readers what Biden has tried to do--to gut the JFK Act as a vehicle for forcing the release of further information about the murder, including designating as JFK records for public release all the things we have learned in the last 25 years since the ARRB closed.  What Ben calls Biden's actions doesn't matter.  What Biden is obviously trying to do does matter, and he needs to be opposed by anyone cares about the murder. That can only be done by following what is happening.  Morley and Ben have been providing that service.

 

Biden's actions are an important subject of the MFF lawsuit, where briefs are currently being exchanged in the next phase of the case.  Have you followed the case?  Do you understand the importance of  the fight over Biden's "transparency plan"?  

 

SL:  Ben has posted on this very topic numerous times. I penalized him for spamming.

 

RO:  So what. It's an ongoing topic that requires following.  It will surely be a subject during the numerous gatherings on the 60th anniversary. Jim Di has already mentioned that.  Here you simply point to the number of posts on the topic and conclude that Ben is  spamming.   That doesn't make your case.  You haven't even tried to claim that the posts were redundant--which presumably you must do to claim spamming.  Because Ben's post is not redundant. 

 

SL:  I gave Ben 10 penalty points, which as a first offense would be a one-day loss of posting privileges. I just checked Ben's penalty history and found that another moderator had earlier given Ben 30 points for a different offense. The penalty system is more severe on repeat offenders. And so my 10 point penalty was the straw that resulted in Ben getting an 8-day suspension of posting privileges. Not the 30 days that others have surmised.

 

RO:  That's a relief!  Only 8 days for wrongly ruling the post was spam instead of 30 days.

 

  13 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The whole idea of mods banning members without notice to the group or explanation of the reasons is distasteful.

 

 

SL:  We give warnings and penalties nearly every day. It is none of the other forum members' business who is penalized. It is the penalized member's prerogative whether or not to share that information with other members.

 

RO:  You have made this argument before--you are suspending people in private without telling anyone in order to protect their privacy.  It's no one else's business.  It's the suspendee's prerogative whether to tell other members, not yours.  You conveniently leave out the fact that when a person is suspended he not only can't post about his fate (say, if he disagrees with your ruling) or anything else, but he is also unable to use the email contact system on site to tell others. You have created an empty "prerogative".

 

More importantly, your secrecy is dangerous to the health of the forum. It allows you to do whatever you want without scrutiny from others.  You don't seem to understand that the right to make such decisions carries with it the responsibility to do so openly and to defend the decision to others who may suffer the same fate as Ben. 

 

Please ponder JFK's words about the dangers of secret proceedings:  "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."

 

It's time to end your secret proceedings.  If you think someone deserves a suspension, say so openly to the group and give your reasons for doing so. Respond to criticism, if any, before a final decision is reached.

 

Suspensions are serious.  They are an act of censorship in what is supposed to be a forum created to openly seek answers to serious questions from all who can contribute  The right to suspend should not be given to you as mods, or anyone else, to be carried out in the dark.

 

It's also time to end Ben's suspension that you have wrongly invoked.

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And yet nobody is willing to go to the Political Discussion forum to do so.

 

No, if a post is relevant to this forum, as Ben's was, that's the reason people don't want to have to go to Politics to read and respond to it.

To repeat, with regard to moving Ben's post, your claim of redundancy is false. 

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm done with this continual bickering.

 

[James DiEugenio]

If Ben did not know about the Morley article, then what does it matter if it was from July?

I don't think anyone else posted a link or an alert did they?

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If Ben did not know about the Morley article, then what does it matter if it was from July?

 

Because then it becomes just another of Ben's numerous anti-Biden political threads.

Back when Trump was president, the mods wouldn't allow anti-trump threads on the main board, and we still don't. Likewise, we don't allow anti-Biden threads on the main board.