Parliamentary Privilege & Libel Laws

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Thanks,Tim,

I know the difference between 'compliment' and and 'complement'.

I also the know the difference between chicken xxxx and chicken salad

- as I am sure you do too.

Libel and Internet:

Now, go to h...

://www.cyberlibel.com/liabilit.html

EBC

Edited July 26, 2005 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Tim Gratz]

A good article, Eugene. The implications extend far beyond the controversy on this Forum, of course, and they are important.

[John Simkin]

This may not be directly following this thread, but it does relate to the overall feel of it.

Several months ago, I was attacked by a whacko on the Lancer Forum. This individual was as far out in left field as one can get. He attacked me here on John's forum with such a vengence as to repeat his psychotic ramblings on everything I posted. He then e-mailed my chief and made rediculous accusations against me and accused me of threatening him with bodily harm, by mix-matching my posts in order to twist my words into sounding close to threats. I posted on Lancer asking Debra to remove this individual or I would walk. Debra replied with statements that I needed to grow up and I was too thinned skinned. I have presented at Lancer in 2001 and provided material to her sister's presentation later, when I was unable to attend. Besides that, I walked from Lancer and have not posted since, nor will I again. I then made a request to John to remove this whacko from this forum and he saw the need and did so. The individual I am referring to is back posting at Lancer, but is nowhere to be found on the education forum.

The short of it, if one does not like what is going on one forum, then walk away! Get a life if you are considering lawsuites on an education forum that is intended to further the investigation of such a miscarriage of justice as the JFK assassination. You are puting yourself above the cause!!!

I spent ten years researching without coming forward in the research community. I scoured over what was being printed and posted and weighed the material without interaction. I can't say I have gained a great deal by interacting, beyond what I was doing before, other than what I have gained in one-on-one interaction with select individuals that I have kept contact with since coming out into the research community.

I am not saying that I do not learn and put certain aspects into perspective on a regular basis by visiting the forum, but it is not neccessary to interact in order to gain from what is being posted. I am a serious researcher and am very open minded when it comes to weighing new evidence and angles of evidence and testimony. I have learned from new researchers as much as old as they have a new perspective in regards to what has been out their. I have contributed as much as possible in need of new perspectives, but it can be done without my direct input as the topics and issues will eventually come up.

For those of you who threaten lawsuites, shame on you for being so narrow minded and puting yourself on a pedestal above all else!!!

John should be free to run this forum as he sees fit! If you don't like it, then take a walk!!!

Thank you for your support Al, much appreciated.

The person you mentioned followed a similar pattern to Tim Gratz. Like Tim he was a former lawyer who appeared to have been debarred. When he first arrived on the Forum he made some excellent posts. In fact, I rarely disagreed with anything he said.

However, all of sudden, after a heated debate with Bob Vernon, his behaviour changed. Like Tim, he tried to hijack every thread. He also accused a whole range of members, including myself, of being CIA disinformation agents. Despite several warnings he continued doing this and eventually he had to have his members revoked. I later heard that his strange behaviour was linked to being blackmailed by another former member of the Forum.

Tim also started off by making sensible contributions. It was sometime before it became clear his intention was to hijack every thread with his “Castro/KGB” theory. He has gained no support for his mad ramblings but he continues to persevere in his quest. I suppose you have to admire his energy but it has become very tiresome.

[John Simkin]

Tim, I'm not sure if you've ever been a contributor to other forums, but I have.  Anyhow, to my undertstanding, when you go to a forum it's like visiting someone in their home.  The webmaster has the right to tell you to leave.  Knowing this, I've been amazed at the way you've treated John.  I've also been amazed at his level of tolerance.  I think you should acknowledge that if John was as a conservative he would have kicked you out long ago, as only a practicing liberal like John would tolerate so much.  NO WAY would a pro-Bush website tolerate someone taking over their forum and arguing with everyone, and then threatening to sue everyone who implies he might be a commie (or a murderer).  I believe you owe John an apology so we can move on.

Very well put. Running a forum is very much like inviting people into your home. At its best it is like having a very good dinner party. Disagreement is very much part of this process. Conversations are not very enjoyable when you spend all the time nodding in agreement. I therefore have no problem with Tim posting his theories about Castro. I am a believer in the Socrates school of education. Although I do not expect Tim to learn anything by the challenges made to his opinions, I do believe that those viewing these debates, especially young history students, will learn from these exchanges.

It is true that I have not defended Tim from the numerous verbal attacks he has received. The main reason is that I think members have made making accurate assessments of Tim and should be praised rather than criticised.

You are also right to suggest that I was deeply upset by Tim’s threats to sue me from providing a place for people to post their views on various political conspiracies. I came close to suspending his membership at this point. My main concern was that these bully-boy tactics would cause younger members to be careful about Tim’s postings.

The main reason I have not suspended him is for purely selfish reasons. I accept he has nothing useful to say about the JFK assassination. However, I do feel he has some important information concerning the Watergate Scandal. At the moment, he is refusing to answer questions about this period, but I hope I can eventually persuade him to change his mind. Anyway, the fact he refuses to answer these questions, is educational in itself.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

It is true that I have not defended Tim from the numerous verbal attacks he has received. The main reason is that I think members have made making accurate assessments of Tim and should be praised rather than criticised.

(From which comment I infer John means to praise, inter alia, Mark Stapleton's erudite characterization of me as a "cowardly charlatan".)

John also composed the Rules of the Forum which provide in pertinent part:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members.

Then again, as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

However, I would suggest the following amendment to the rule quoted above might be appropriate:[/color]

Members should not make personal attacks on other members unless the Forum Administrator concurs in the attacks, in which case personal attacks are to be praised rather than criticised.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Tim Gratz