Cory Santos Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) I have not said anything previously but I feel I must now. I noticed that the moderation here seems to be approaching a one sided “agree with me or peril” view of history. W and I rarely agree, yet I thought his post was deserving of discussion- and I agreed with him about the lack of merits of the book he was discussing. Yet it was moved. I noticed just recently a moderator has threatened Mr. Morrow over his post. While, I do not comment on whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Morrow’s views, the point is, I have seen people on this forum question the sexual habits of other actors such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Shaw, David Ferrie, Jim Garrison, Ruth Paine, etc., seemingly without any penalty or warning. I myself have brought up multiple times the alleged affairs of JFK and Marilyn Monroe and debated Jim D. (Which I think gives forum readers a great research and historical record of the arguments for and against such a proposition). So my question is: Is there a new standard where mention of alleged affairs are not allowed unless demonstratively provable? If that is the case what is required to prove it? Unlike many on here, I have studied at the graduate level in History so I wonder what standards will be applied? If any forum is notorious for not being able to agree on what evidences is, from a legal perspective, in my opinion, this certainly is the forum for that. As such, I doubt there will ever be a consensus here as to this historical issue. Thus, in my opinion, it seems like the moderation here now is more censorship than moderation. If we can’t debate like adults what is the point of this forum? To just follow a blind faith set forth by a few? That is neither academic nor educational. I hope forum leadership chooses otherwise. Edited June 18 by Cory Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Mark Knight Admin 2.4k Gender:Male Location:Southern Indiana, USA Interests:Old Hudson and AMC cars, old International pickup trucks, JFK assassination discussions, self-improvement leading toward peace. Posted 16 hours ago · IP (edited) Getting back on topic... The administrators are in the process of setting up a team of moderators. Ron Bulman is still a moderator. Evan Burton has agreed to resume his former moderator position. And we are currently seeking a few more moderators to add to the team. [Each administrator retains moderator authority as well.] Edited 16 hours ago by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) Yes, it is still a debate forum, not a bully pulpit for anyone, nor diatribes. The above is from Ben Cole's Who are the Moderators thread which Mark moved to the Questions, Comments and Criticism EF Topic. Where this one is about to be moved. Mark stated before I became a moderator this is not a democracy, for good reason. Edited June 18 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 47 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: I have not said anything previously but I feel I must now. I noticed that the moderation here seems to be approaching a one sided “agree with me or peril” view of history. W and I rarely agree, yet I thought his post was deserving of discussion- and I agreed with him about the lack of merits of the book he was discussing. Yet it was moved. I noticed just recently a moderator has threatened Mr. Morrow over his post. While, I do not comment on whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Morrow’s views, the point is, I have seen people on this forum question the sexual habits of other actors such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Shaw, David Ferrie, Jim Garrison, Ruth Paine, etc., seemingly without any penalty or warning. I myself have brought up multiple times the alleged affairs of JFK and Marilyn Monroe and debated Jim D. (Which I think gives forum readers a great research and historical record of the arguments for and against such a proposition). So my question is: Is there a new standard where mention of alleged affairs are not allowed unless demonstratively provable? If that is the case what is required to prove it? Unlike many on here, I have studied at the graduate level in History so I wonder what standards will be applied? If any forum is notorious for not being able to agree on what evidences is, from a legal perspective, in my opinion, this certainly is the forum for that. As such, I doubt there will ever be a consensus here as to this historical issue. Thus, in my opinion, it seems like the moderation here now is more censorship than moderation. If we can’t debate like adults what is the point of this forum? To just follow a blind faith set forth by a few? That is neither academic nor educational. I hope forum leadership chooses otherwise. I can offer some insight as to Morrow. While I like Robert he has in the past pushed the envelope so to speak when it comes to the sex lives of famous people. At one point there were probably 10 different threads which he'd sidelined by adding salacious rumors about the sex lives of famous people. Now to him it's all pertinent. But the moderators decided a long time ago that any discussion of sex lives is likely to turn into a discussion of sex and morality and, well, those coming to this forum don't come here to read about sex and morality , so let's cut that off. While I am not an active moderator I can only assume any criticism of Morrow has been for a similar reason. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss the sex lives of famous people. This should not be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Govus Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) Robert Morrow's predilections, or the lack of them, not being the point of this thread, per se, may I just say, from my reading of not only the author Abraham Bolden, but especially author @Vince Palamara, that a view toward Kennedy's perceived indiscretions could have also operated at a national security level, to the extent that, for example, due to action, or inaction, by certain Secret Service agents, coordinated rifle file from elevated positions could be successful in Dallas that day, where ordinarily, according to Secret Service protocol, it should not have been. Deliberately put themselves in the line of fire? They are supposed to do that every day! Edited June 18 by George Govus grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 14 hours ago, George Govus said: Robert Morrow's predilections, or the lack of them, not being the point of this thread, per se, may I just say, from my reading of not only the author Abraham Bolden, but especially author @Vince Palamara, that a view toward Kennedy's perceived indiscretions could have also operated at a national security level, to the extent that, for example, due to action, or inaction, by certain Secret Service agents, coordinated rifle file from elevated positions could be successful in Dallas that day, where ordinarily, according to Secret Service protocol, it should not have been. Deliberately put themselves in the line of fire? They are supposed to do that every day! You will definitely like my upcoming book. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now