Jean Ceulemans Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) What happened to Mark Knight´s post? Dont tell me Sandy has deleted those as well ??? Edited June 2 by Jean Ceulemans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 I saw the post on which the one below is based. It has apparently been deleted. Let's be clear here. Pat has not been banned, for the benefit of any others who saw it. He was warned twice, for two separate violations of forum rules which both carry 20 point penalties on the established forum rules. Which carry a 10 day each suspension of posting privileges. He should be back in a little less than three weeks now if he chooses to rejoin this milieu. As he started this thread I think it appropriate to lock this thread until he can speak for himself. Sandy or Mark can unlock it if they choose to do so. We don't discuss everything or have time to read every post (impossible). But sometimes we do confer. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Mr. @Greg Doudna, I have no information with which to assess the veracity of your factual claim about any disciplinary action that has been taken against Mr. Speer by the Administrators of this forum, but the following factual claims that you have made about me could have been fact checked and determined to be false with a minimal amount of due diligence on your part using the information and links that are on my forum profile alone, and as such are blatant factual misrepresentations on your part that are false, either deliberately, or as the result of your willful negligence: "For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed." "Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him." "Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things." "But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks." "The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic." "Shows up out of nowhere." "Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own." "Has published nothing on the JFK assassination." "Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory." "Repetition of talking points and memes and personal attacks." "Just took him out. (Victory.)" "Those are the facts." It is a violation of the rules of this forum to disseminate false information. This post constitutes a warning that if you fail to make the needed corrections to the factual record, as set forth above, within twelve (12) hours of the time of this post, I will report these violations to the forum administrators, and you may be more severely sanctioned for failing to self-correct at the time of this warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: I suppose Pat Speer, probably one of the top ten most productive researchers in America challenging the Warren Commission's version of the JFK assassination of long-time standing, won't be talking much more on this forum about any tangential shot interpretation. Last night Sandy deleted him from this forum. What makes you say I "deleted" Pat from the forum? I did no such thing. Rather, I penalized him. 14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: For holding views which the same moderator who deleted him determined on his sole sayso had been "shown wrong" and therefore could not permissably continue to be be expressed. Pat insisted that James Jenkins placed the large hole on the top of the head. That is not true. As any honest person can see by reading Jenkins' statements, he placed the large hole on the back of the head. I might penalize you, Greg, for making the above false statement. 14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: In some old days I realized early on that in groups or movements which challenge fundamental status quos, there are ways and means by which those status quos can neutralize anyone who is effective. Pat Speer has been effective. Someone came on this forum with a vendetta and neutralized him. Not content to show Pat wrong through posted or published argument, the traditional manner of doing things. But crush him, blacken his name, silence him from saying what he thinks. The newcomer had no known previous history with the JFK assassination topic. Shows up out of nowhere. Offers no known original argument or analysis of his own. Has published nothing on the JFK assassination. OMG, cut the drama would ya? 14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Just advocacy of a certain existing interpretation used as a club and to bludgeon in the service of the only apparent discernible objective: a massive sustained attack on targeted Pat Speer with no letup or pause, over and over and over and over, until victory. Keven didn't "bludgeon" Pat for holding interpretations different from his own. He demonstrated that Pat intentionally lied by saying Jenkins said something that in fact he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 9 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said: What happened to Mark Knight´s post? Dont tell me Sandy has deleted those as well ??? I haven't deleted ANY posts! All of Mark Knight's posts are to be found on the thread titled "WHY PAT SPEER OWES PUBLIC APOLOGIES TO FORMER BETHESDA AUTOPSY TECH JAMES JENKINS AND TO THE JFKA RESEARCH COMMUNITY AT LARGE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: I saw the post on which the one below is based. It has apparently been deleted. The post hasn't been deleted, Ron. It is still there. And in fact I just responded to it myself. 8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said: Let's be clear here. Pat has not been banned, for the benefit of any others who saw it. He was warned twice, for two separate violations of forum rules which both carry 20 point penalties on the established forum rules. Which carry a 10 day each suspension of posting privileges. He should be back in a little less than three weeks now if he chooses to rejoin this milieu. Actually, the length of the penalty for 40 points is eight days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts