Matt Allison Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 19 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: We, certainly, don't want people who think that January 6th was a mere "scrum," or a Deep State "Patriot Purge," moderating the Education Forum. Those guys belong on 4Chan or Truth Social. Exactly. The Education Forum is not the place for people that traffic in "alternative facts" that exist in alternate realities to be entrusted with something as important as moderation duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: Please provide an example of such a scenario working in any facet of current American life. MA- I cannot imagine a trio of moderators, all liberal Democrats, or all conservative Republicans, rendering fair decisions in any forum, including the EF-JFKA. The Federal Communications Commission is one example of a body that deliberately designed to have members of both political parties on it. "The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. No more than three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[3][8]" ---30--- Of course, I am sure FFC has bungled, or been corrupt at times, or biased at times. What would you think of an FCC with five commissioners all appointed by Republicans, and who are all members of the GOP? I suspect you would consider such an FCC to be biased, and I would assent. So, I cannot see any good reason to not also have a balanced EF-JFKA board of moderation. Sure, it may not be perfect. Odds on, a politically balanced board will do a better job than an imbalanced board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: You have used Pat Speer as a source to prove that Pat Speer didn't lie. The burden of proof is not on me. You and Keven made the accusations. Are the Jenkins quotes I posted from Pat’s website accurate quotes from High Treason 2 and that 1991 interview? If they are, it proves that Jenkins did place the wound on the back side of the top of the head, multiple times. Are you now accusing Pat of falsifying or misrepresenting direct quotes? If so, prove it. I honestly couldn’t care less about this back vs. top nonsense. As many others have pointed out, this entire argument over Jenkins is just semantics. Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? How exactly, in your subjective interpretation, do Jenkins’ inconsistent ambiguous statements and gestures 30 years after the fact suggest a wound at the back of the head to the complete exclusion of the top of the head? If we’re going with strictly literal definitions here, like in your attempt to defend the Pat Speer is-a-liar crusade, and assuming Pat didn’t misquote High Treason 2, Jenkins literally said the wound was above the occipital area i.e. above the back of the head. Call it whatever you want, but the fact is that you openly supported Keven flagrantly violating forum rules, repeatedly, and are justifying it by hiding behind nonsense that basically amounts to some variation of “I didn’t say the word liar. I only said and implied over the span of multiple threads that Pat was lying and perpetrating a fraud, so it’s fine. I also defended someone who did the same to the extreme, and suspended everyone who disagreed or protested, but it’s fine because I’m right and they deserved it.” In my opinion. Edited June 7 by Tom Gram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 33 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Exactly. The Education Forum is not the place for people that traffic in "alternative facts" that exist in alternate realities to be entrusted with something as important as moderation duties. Well said Matt. The main focus of the forum for me personally is that the debate focuses on a search for the Truth, or what may ever still be attainable of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: The Federal Communications Commission is one example of a body that deliberately designed to have members of both political parties on it. Ben- If you can find people equal to those currently serving on the FCC to moderate this forum, please let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 11 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: The burden of proof is not on me. You and Keven made the accusations. Are the Jenkins quotes I posted from Pat’s website accurate quotes from High Treason 2 and that 1991 interview? If they are, it proves that Jenkins did place the wound on the back side of the top of the head, multiple times. Are you now accusing Pat of falsifying or misrepresenting direct quotes? If so, prove it. I honestly couldn’t care less about this back vs. top nonsense. As many others have pointed out, this entire argument over Jenkins is just semantics. Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? How exactly, in your subjective interpretation, do Jenkins’ inconsistent ambiguous statements and gestures 30 years after the fact suggest a wound at the back of the head to the complete exclusion of the top of the head? If we’re going with strictly literal definitions here, like in your attempt to defend the Pat Speer is-a-liar crusade, and assuming Pat didn’t misquote High Treason 2, Jenkins literally said the wound was above the occipital area i.e. above the back of the head. Call it whatever you want, but the fact is that you openly supported Keven flagrantly violating forum rules, repeatedly, and are justifying it by hiding behind nonsense that basically amounts to some variation of “I didn’t say the word liar. I only said and implied over the span of multiple threads that Pat was lying and perpetrating a fraud, so it’s fine. I also defended someone who did the same to the extreme, and suspended everyone who disagreed or protested, but it’s fine because I’m right and they deserved it.” In my opinion. This exchange affirms my sentiments that an entire fresh slate of moderators is needed, so that EF-JFKA can exit free and clear of embittered baggage. This is not a criticism of anybody. Sometimes when one runs an organization, divisions and quarrels break out, and there is no solution, so a new crew is brought in, and the existing people re-assigned, without any judgement passed. It is not necessary to assign blame, or re-hash old arguments. It the vernacular of the street, sometimes it is just better "to move on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 minute ago, Matt Allison said: Ben- If you can find people equal to those currently serving on the FCC to moderate this forum, please let us know. MA- The people who sit on the FCC are only humans, and bring their shortcomings and biases with them. But they balance each other (it can be hoped). There are several intelligent commentators in the EF-JFKA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: This exchange affirms my sentiments that an entire fresh slate of moderators is needed, so that EF-JFKA can exit free and clear of embittered baggage. This is not a criticism of anybody. Sometimes when one runs an organization, divisions and quarrels break out, and there is no solution, so a new crew is brought in, and the existing people re-assigned, without any judgement passed. It is not necessary to assign blame, or re-hash old arguments. It the vernacular of the street, sometimes it is just better "to move on." I agree Ben. I usually just roll my eyes and ignore it, but at this point I think the forum really needs a change if it wants to retain, or rather regain, its credibility as a JFK research hub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: The burden of proof is not on me. When you make accusations, then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise your words are empty. 2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: You and Keven made the accusations. Are the Jenkins quotes I posted from Pat’s website accurate quotes from High Treason 2 and that 1991 interview? If they are, it proves that Jenkins did place the wound on the back side of the top of the head, multiple times. Are you now accusing Pat of falsifying or misrepresenting direct quotes? If so, prove it. Keven did prove it. You just didn't read the proof. 2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: Where exactly, in your interpretation of anatomy, does the back of the head end, and the top of the head begin? It doesn't matter one bit where the back of the head ends and the top begins. In fact, is doesn't even matter whether the hole was on the back, on the top, or nowhere at all. Because that is not what is being challenged. What is being challenged is WHERE JAMES JENKINS PLACED THE HOLE. And the truth is that he placed it on the back. Just like almost every other witness did. The very reason Mark Knight and I disagree on this matter is that he cannot see the distinction between "where the hole was" and "where did Jenkins say the hole was." Maybe you can't either. 2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: How exactly, in your subjective interpretation, do Jenkins’ inconsistent ambiguous statements and gestures 30 years after the fact not suggest a wound at the back of the top of the head? Jenkins statements are NOT inconsistent or ambiguous. I watched the video from which Pat's stills came from and I transcribed the portions where Jenkins spoke about the large hole on the head. Naturally Pat didn't include these on his website. There are actually two portions. In the first one, Jenkins describes the hole in the scalp that was left after the mortician had reconstructed the head. He said that the hole in the scalp was about the size of a silver dollar and it was located on the back of the head. In the other portion of the video, he goes back to the time when he first saw the wounds. He said that they removed the towels and he saw a wound the size of a fist. He said that it looked close to what the famous McClelland drawing shows. And that, of course, is with a very large wound on the back of the head. Speaking of drawings... have you even bothered to look at the drawing of the wound made by James Jenkins? Well the wound's clearly on the back there as well. Oh, the wound IS so large that it does extend up high near the top. But to thereby claim that the wound was at the top would still be a lie... a lie by omission. (Look it up.) An honest person would say it was on the back of the head, extending to the top. Something like that. 2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said: Call it whatever you want, but the fact is that you openly supported Keven flagrantly violating forum rules, You're alleging that Keven broke the rules. Prove it! Why didn't you report these alleged rules earlier? Why did nobody report them? Oh I know why... <light bulb!> it's because he didn't break the rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 38 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Well said Matt. The main focus of the forum for me personally is that the debate focuses on a search for the Truth, or what may ever still be attainable of that. Well, if Pat Speer states a lie... then that's okay. That's what I now know well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, Tom Gram said: suspended everyone who disagreed or protested Not everyone. But then, they let me get away with murder in this joint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: 4 hours ago, Tom Gram said: suspended everyone who disagreed or protested Not everyone. But then, they let me get away with murder in this joint. Tom, of course, is wrong regarding why I penalized those two members. I had good cause to penalize both. The reason you weren't penalized Cliff is because you didn't break any rules. Quite the contrary, you made some useful observations. Edited June 7 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Sandy Larsen writes: Quote I have never punished a person for disagreeing with me. Never! I accept that Sandy doesn't intentionally punish people simply for disagreeing with him, but his reply illustrates the point I made. The people whom Sandy has punished have been, more often than not, people who disagree with positions Sandy actively advocates. When this happens, the impression inevitably arises that the former might be a consequence of the latter, even if no conscious intention exists. This is especially the case when a member is punished for no obvious reason, as in the case of Greg Doudna and Jean Paul Ceulemans. I've read their posts in the ridiculous, all-caps, PAT SPEER IS A HERETIC AND MUST BE BURNED AT THE STAKE! thread. Unless the offensive comments were removed before I got there, neither Greg nor Jean Paul appears to have done anything worthy of suspension. The only remaining reason for punishing them would seem to be the fact that they disagreed with Sandy, who was thus tempted to zoom in on some form of words which, under microscopic examination, could be taken to contravene one of the forum's rules. Any moderator who actively promotes positions which are controversial and divisive will generate suspicions of unfairness when they act against those who disagree with them. That's why Sandy, and anyone else who actively promotes divisive positions, ought not to have the power to punish other members. At the very least, a mechanism should be in place to prevent a moderator sitting in judgement on others while that moderator is actively involved in the thread in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 A certain self-righteous animosity towards those with different perspectives.... May not be the best way to run or participate in a forum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Nee Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 I am a very new member of this forum and I’m guessing younger than most here. The Ed forum threads often came up in my searches for more information on specific jfk related topics and I found the older ones very insightful. I decided to join as I though participating in the forum would give me the opportunity to talk directly to many of the authors and researchers who’s work I have enjoyed and to people who have studied this case since before I was born. Unfortunately while I have gotten a lot of positives from browsing this forum I think it suffers from the same issues a lot of boards and subreddits do where there is less of a focus on the “education” part and things tend to devolve into bickering over closely held beliefs and theories with a bit too much zealotry. As a newbie I’d much rather there was more of a data over dogma approach and it does concern me that threads containing valuable insight discussions and info can be buried under long texts of arguments or wiped entirely. For example if I make a post asking about identifying a person in a photo with Oswald, it’s a little disappointing to see it become a thread largely dominated about people arguing wether Oswald was multiple people and which one was in the photo with the unidentified person. There is a lot of good and informative work done on this forum both in the past and presently. I would hope there is a way for it to be saved and an attempt made to build upon it for the sake of continued scholarship rather than have it live and die on an internet forum thread buried under pages of people accusing each other of wrongdoing and hurling insults. I hope to use this forum to - gain valuable information it is hard to learn elsewhere - acquire links to sources that might not be readily available - see updates and informed discussion between authors and researchers - see challenges to orthodoxy and long held assumptions not met with instant suppression. The way to test a theory is to attempt to falsify it. That’s my two cents anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts