The Present state of the EF and how it can be improved

[Matt Allison]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Probably time for a fresh start, a new set of moderators, if any can be found. 

Total nonsense.

I haven't spoken/emailed with James Gordon, so I can only speculate, but this thread reeks of the forum's MAGAs lobbying him to change things up, because their efforts at subverting the forum have been deftly foiled by the current moderators.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

17 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Total nonsense.

I haven't spoken/emailed with James Gordon, so I can only speculate, but this thread reeks of the forum's MAGAs lobbying him to change things up, because their efforts at subverting the forum have been deftly foiled by the current moderators.

 

MA-

I have not e-mailed James Gordon, and I never have. I am not a MAGA supporter, or even Trump supporter, or even a Republican, despite the many, many statements made by others that I am. 

BTW, within EF-JFKA, MAGA supporters should treated in the same gracious, collegial and civil manner that Biden supporters, or RFK1 supporters, or independents, should receive. 

The EF-JFKA, and its participants should try to be inclusive., and not stigmatize those with other perspectives. 

We are on different pages on this issue of the need for fresh moderators, and that is fine. 

IMHO, with emotions so ragged, then probably a fresh start, and new moderation, is needed. 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

We DO allow mixed-topic threads on the JFKA Debate board! As long as one of the topics is the JFKA. In fact, I think we have one on here right now.

The exception has been if one of the topics is contemporary politics in nature. We've had a lot of heated discussions in those.

However, we have become more tolerant of those now that the admins added a rule that, on the JFKA Debate forum, it is a violation to say anything bad about a contemporary politician or political party. With that rule built into the automated warning/penalty system, it is now a breeze to give warnings to people who violate the rule.

This is a new policy that is under beta testing. So far it has worked well!

 

A blanket prohibition on discussing contemporary politics, as if the JFKA did not pave the way for the killers to gain control of the system that has lasted until today, is simply wrong.  It stands in the way of important discussion of the current implications of the murder.  The JFKA is not just some historical curiosity.  The US has changed so markedly since the JFKA.  Find me an antiwar politician at present, or name any who could or would deliver Kennedy's peace speech that he wanted to define his administration.

 

These are important implications of the JFKA.  They can help us better understand who were the powerful figures who could have accomplished all that we now see.

 

Saying we have had a lot of heated discussions about contemporary politics is no justification for something that by its nature weakens the usefulness of the forum. Heated discussions can and should be dealt with on their own terms, without prohibiting important topics. 

 

Far from a solution, preventing folks from saying anything bad about a current politician or even a political party may be even a worse idea.

 

When Biden adopts the comically named "transparency plan", written for him by the CIA, in order to essentially render the JFK Records Act defunct, it's important for everyone on the board to know that and discuss it. 

 

The basic topic limiting approach of the mods leads to treating the JFKA as an isolated incident, without connections, for instance, to the other political murders of the sixties, or implications to today. In this thread we have Matt Allison asserting that my saying the murders of the Kennedy brothers are connected  and we can learn things from the RFK murder that can help understanding the JFKA is an "unsupported assertion"! 

 

Real research into what happened and by whom demands the freedom to make such connections.

[Ron Bulman]

53 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, with emotions so ragged, then probably a fresh start, and new moderation, is needed. 

Maybe so, Matt would be a good candidate imho.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Maybe so, Matt would be a good candidate imho.

I like Matt. I think he is an earnest and deeply intelligent JFKA'er. 

Matt does wear his politics on his sleeve, and would have to bend over backwards to accommodate people with different points of view than his.  

Roger Odisio perhaps is another candidate. 

It is odd that there were lengthy and extended threads on the RFK1A in the EF-JFKA mainbar (Eastabrooks, Dr Brown etc.) until I started do do some original research on the topic, and a few posts.

Then the RFK1A topics were moved off the mainbar. 

Hitherto, the RFK1A has always been considered part and parcel of the EF-JFKA for abundant and obvious reasons. 

Examples like that raise questions about the need for fresh moderation. 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

15 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

1 Pat Speer was a JFK researcher before David Butler, Mark Knight, Kathy Becket and I took this site over. I believe he is seriously ill at the moment

And he has been banned!!! According to the Moderarors Reminders Rules a member needs to infringe 50 points he or she is banned. Where are Pat’s 50 point infringements listed.

I didn’t know that he was banned and I don’t want to see him banned. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, but he has done a great deal of research into the assassination and has freely shared his work with others. He has only ever said one thing to me that was MILDLY snarky (not flag worthy)—others have said much worse—but perhaps his illness gives him a reason to be a little “off.” I would like to see him reinstated as well as thank him for his past work. I hope he recovers from his illness and I wish him all the best.

[Denise Hazelwood]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

First, nobody has been banned. And the forum is running fine. There are just a few members who are disgruntled because I gave Pat Speer a penalty.

I’m glad to hear that he is not permanently banned.

That said, when I say something that I absolutely know is true but I also know others will disagree with me, I usually use the phrase “I contend that…” (instead of “I think that…” or “I believe that…” which I used to say until someone pointed out that it weakened my assertions) but even that seems somewhat weak to me. The problem is that I don’t want my conclusions to sound weak, because I know that they are not, but when trying to break through myths that have been established, it is extremely difficult. In the case of someone posting (false) information that they believe to be true, I think that the best way to handle it is to post the correct information (which was done in the James Jenkins thread) but without accusing the original poster of “lying” or saying that they owe everyone an apology or something that would automatically make them feel defensive (and perhaps double down on their original statement) when it’s not entirely clear whether the person is actually lying or is just mistaken. For example, the myth of the “front of the head blow-out” and other myths are so well ingrained into the minds of many that it is almost impossible to overcome. After all, Zapruder seemed to indicate a front of the head blowout in his same day interview and the “leaked” autopsy images seem to show it, but the overwhelming evidence otherwise indicates that the blowout was at the BACK of the head. So we get a lot of argument between the “alterationists” and the “non-alterationists” and both sides accuse the other of “lying” or whatever. The difficulty in breaking down preconceived mindsets is extremely daunting. I don’t have the answers for how to do that quickly and effectively, but saying “I contend that…” was the best thing I could think of. Still seems somewhat weak to me, but I don’t want people to ignore what I have to say and become resistant because they feel like I’ve insulted them.

Of course, there are times when it is absolutely clear that someone is lying, and those should be called out (especially when politicians do it, and in the case of the JFKA, I “contend” [read “know”] has been done) but in the case of Pat Speer and the James Jenkins wound location, I don’t know that there was any deliberate intent to deceive. Can’t it just be said that he was mistaken, and give the contrary evidence, but without saying that he was lying or demanding that he apologize to everyone, or penalizing him by banning him (even temporarily)?

My 2 cents.

[Benjamin Cole]

22 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I’m glad to hear that he is not permanently banned.

That said, when I say something that I absolutely know is true but I also know others will disagree with me, I usually use the phrase “I contend that…” (instead of “I think that…” or “I believe that…” which I used to say until someone pointed out that it weakened my assertions) but even that seems somewhat weak to me. The problem is that I don’t want my conclusions to sound weak, because I know that they are not, but when trying to break through myths that have been established, it is extremely difficult. In the case of someone posting (false) information that they believe to be true, I think that the best way to handle it is to post the correct information (which was done in the James Jenkins thread) but without accusing the original poster of “lying” or saying that they owe everyone an apology or something that would automatically make them feel defensive (and perhaps double down on their original statement) when it’s not entirely clear whether the person is actually lying or is just mistaken. For example, the myth of the “front of the head blow-out” and other myths are so well ingrained into the minds of many that it is almost impossible to overcome. After all, Zapruder seemed to indicate a front of the head blowout in his same day interview and the “leaked” autopsy images seem to show it, but the overwhelming evidence otherwise indicates that the blowout was at the BACK of the head. So we get a lot of argument between the “alterationists” and the “non-alterationists” and both sides accuse the other of “lying” or whatever. The difficulty in breaking down preconceived mindsets is extremely daunting. I don’t have the answers for how to do that quickly and effectively, but saying “I contend that…” was the best thing I could think of. Still seems somewhat weak to me, but I don’t want people to ignore what I have to say and become resistant because they feel like I’ve insulted them.

Of course, there are times when it is absolutely clear that someone is lying, and those should be called out (especially when politicians do it, and in the case of the JFKA, I “contend” [read “know”] has been done) but in the case of Pat Speer and the James Jenkins wound location, I don’t know that there was any deliberate intent to deceive. Can’t it just be said that he was mistaken, and give the contrary evidence, but without saying that he was lying or demanding that he apologize to everyone, or penalizing him by banning him (even temporarily)?

My 2 cents.

DH--

Ditto on Pat Speer. I might disagree with Pat Speer on gunshot residue on LHO cheek. So what?  Speer has done serious work. We might disagree on a particular issue. Big deal. Maybe I am wrong. 

My 2 cents on IMHOs: 

We should, all of us, try for collegial conversation. 

One way to disagree is to say something like, "Well, we are on different pages on this one. My take is....." 

In the EF-JFKA, most points of debate...well, there really is not one side that is "wrong." Sure, if I insist JFK was shot on 11.23....

In any event, sometimes forums just need a breath of fresh air, a new team, so old hard feelings are released. 

IMHO, a fresh moderation team at EF-JFKA is in order. 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

An addendum to my post above:

1) The difference between a “lie” and a “mistake” is intentionality. If an untrue statement is not intended to be untrue and was believed to be true, then it is a “mistake.” However, if the untrue statement is known to be false at the time when it is made, then it is a “lie.” Intention can be hard to discern. However, there are some clues to indicate the difference.

2) If there is a benefit to the speaker for the untruth to be said (e.g., remaining in power by claiming without evidence that an election was “stolen”), then it greatly increases the likelihood that the untrue statement is a lie. If there is no perceived benefit to the speaker for saying something untrue, then it is probably a “mistake” rather than a deliberate lie.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

A blanket prohibition on discussing contemporary politics, as if the JFKA did not pave the way for the killers to gain control of the system that has lasted until today, is simply wrong.  It stands in the way of important discussion of the current implications of the murder.  The JFKA is not just some historical curiosity.  The US has changed so markedly since the JFKA.  Find me an antiwar politician at present, or name any who could or would deliver Kennedy's peace speech that he wanted to define his administration.

 

These are important implications of the JFKA.  They can help us better understand who were the powerful figures who could have accomplished all that we now see.

 

Saying we have had a lot of heated discussions about contemporary politics is no justification for something that by its nature weakens the usefulness of the forum. Heated discussions can and should be dealt with on their own terms, without prohibiting important topics. 

 

Far from a solution, preventing folks from saying anything bad about a current politician or even a political party may be even a worse idea.

 

When Biden adopts the comically named "transparency plan", written for him by the CIA, in order to essentially render the JFK Records Act defunct, it's important for everyone on the board to know that and discuss it. 

 

The basic topic limiting approach of the mods leads to treating the JFKA as an isolated incident, without connections, for instance, to the other political murders of the sixties, or implications to today. In this thread we have Matt Allison asserting that my saying the murders of the Kennedy brothers are connected  and we can learn things from the RFK murder that can help understanding the JFKA is an "unsupported assertion"! 

 

Real research into what happened and by whom demands the freedom to make such connections.

RO-

I too am mystified that somehow the RFK1A topic is now being divorced from the EF-JFKA, when for decades anyone who posted of the RFK1A was accepted into the mainbar.

IMHO, the two topics are twinned, and have always been treated as twin topics.

The true perps behind the JFKA and the RFK1A may be the same people--that is, quoting Mickey Spillane, "not who pulled the trigger, but who paid for the bullets."  

IMHO, it may be time for a fresh start, new moderation. 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Hi Denise, I think you've dissected this very well. And it's not a grounds for kicking Pat out., or Greg D. or Jean Paul , if they in fact were. Or Sandy, Ron or Mark.

I don't know if Jonathan chooses not to come back, but he should be welcomed back.

It should be about someone's behavior. It's a delicate balancing act because it's human to get rattled occasionally but for example, if they habitually  become abusive, mean, or demeaning. If they come back over time and there's no improvement.

You have to know to take action.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Kirk Gallaway

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We should, all of us, try for collegial conversation. 

One way to disagree is to say something like, "Well, we are on different pages on this one. My take is....." 

Collegial conversation is important. 

I sometimes say “I disagree because…” which is another way to handle it. However, I have also found that when someone’s “take” is something that hasn’t typically been considered before, it is sometimes hard to break into the conversation—which has been one of my frustrations.

 

4 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It's a delicate balancing act because it's human to get rattled occasionally but for example, if they habitually  become abusive, mean, or demeaning. If they come back over time and there's no improvement.

The delicate balancing act is what makes the moderator’s job so difficult. Abusive, mean, and demeaning behavior should absolutely be called out, and specific posts at least flagged (with explanation?) When that abuse becomes habitual, then that is grounds for banning from the forum.

On the other hand, deliberate lying vs. saying something that is untrue but saying it in good faith is something a bit different. In the case of Speer’s post on Jenkins, while I agree that Speer was wrong, I am not sure that his statements were deliberate lies and deserving of penalties beyond corrections and criticisms in the comments. While I appreciate the delicacy of the moderator’s job, and the standard seems to be “untrue” posts causing penalties, rather than deliberate lies, there are a lot of posts on this forum that I consider to be “untrue” without their necessarily being deliberate lies. So I would argue against Speer being penalized. I’m not sure about the other two individuals who were penalized, as I can’t remember what the purported offenses were. I also don’t know if removing the moderator is the right response, because it IS a difficult balancing act, and it is often difficult to separate opinions and personalities and perspectives from good judgments. We are all human, after all, and prone to errors. But I would also like to see a more measured approach to posts that the moderators disagree with in the future. Starting a new post with a demand for an apology from Speer seems harsh. The new post could have been titled “James Jenkins’ Head Wound Location” with the body of the post saying, “Pat Speer interprets Jenkins’ head wound location as X, when it really should have been Y, because…” with the supporting evidence. The former is a conversation ended, whereas the latter is more inviting to conversation while still getting the message across.

That said, I have noticed a dearth of responses to my oh-so-polite posts, so I might not have the best answers, either.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I

Matt does wear his politics on his sleeve, and would have to bend over backwards to accommodate people with different points of view than his.  

 

 

That is not going to happen.

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

 

That said, I have noticed a dearth of responses to my oh-so-polite posts, so I might not have the best answers, either.

 

Denise

Your posts go into a lot of detail. As such readers have to set aside a lot of time to read them before even thinking of responding. So please don't take it personal if few of us have done so. 

[James R Gordon]

Denise,

Though that was not the case of late, I can assure you Pat Speer is a respected member of this community and will remain so.

I would be interested in how you feel the moderators should approach posts.What issues should moderators steer away from and what issues should they bring to situation.

I am adverse to starting wars within the community, but certain measures need to be taken. I am against expelling Sandy but there is a price he will pay for how he conducted himself during his term of tenure.

I want to see this comunity come together

James