David G. Healy Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Participation in a forum where the moderator lacks the integrity to enforce his own rules against ad hominem attacks is counter productive. I have better uses to make of my time. The coverup provocateurs win again! Jack Right, Jack ... your time seems better spent asking people to post pictures of themselves with beards or questioning why they should be viewing the forum at the same wee hour of the morning you were using it. Maybe you might feel more comfortable going back to the looney forum for there you can say two opposite things and no one will point out your mistake. Bill Miller So defensive... Must be tough not being the center of attention... of course that doesn't mean you won't try however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 I get the feeling that I've missed out by never being a member of the DellaRosa forum, and have doubly missed out by not being kicked out of it. But as JFK said, life is unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 But as JFK said, life is unfair. He probably thought the same about TIME and NEWSWEEK as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 People are basically good and they tend to seek out pleasant interactions with others. This is most easily accomplished by seeking out those with similar interests and belief systems. A sufficient number of people with similar interests and beliefs forms a culture. A new person entering an established culture that doesn't hold interests and beliefs that have become the norm of that culture may experience CONFLICT. It's my opinion that the longevity of a particular culture is determined by it's ability to handle CONFLICT which is, essentially, differences in interests and beliefs. A culture that is CLOSED means that it is highly resistive to differences in interests and beliefs and it will often utilize extreme means to force a sense of community via consensus. Conflict can be, at times, hysterically attacked by individuals or groups NEEDING consensus. An OPEN culture means that it is the relative consensus of the group that differences in interests and beliefs are signals of the overall health of that group. Consensus can occur but it is not the primary goal. If you're not snoring yet consider this...which culture experiences longevity? What groups last? Open cultures. When people are surrounded by others who believe, either genuinely or by coercion, mostly like they do the culture stagnates and people leave. It seems humans also hate a vacuum. We're just too curious. Sometimes I think these forums are like cultures. It seems the ones that start to close stagnate. JFKresearch JFK Lancer The John Simkin JFK Assassination Forum The Col. Fletcher Prouty Forum JFK Chat JFKMURDERSOLVED.com Look at those forums. How many would you consider "active" versus "dying". If you come up with and answer...look to see how the members act. Is it an "open" or "closed" culture? I don't know what this has to do with the original post but by the "Beard of Zeus".... I meant whatever I typed above.... Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 (edited) Participation in a forum where the moderator lacks the integrity to enforce his own rules against ad hominem attacks is counter productive. I have better uses to make of my time. The coverup provocateurs win again! Jack Right, Jack ... your time seems better spent asking people to post pictures of themselves with beards or questioning why they should be viewing the forum at the same wee hour of the morning you were using it. Maybe you might feel more comfortable going back to the looney forum for there you can say two opposite things and no one will point out your mistake. Bill Miller So defensive... Must be tough not being the center of attention... of course that doesn't mean you won't try however Not defensive, David ... just pointing out when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth. BTW, what I said about the looney forum catering to Jack with a separate set of rules from what others are told to abide by is only strengthened by your remarks. Bill Miller Edited June 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Participation in a forum where the moderator lacks the integrity to enforce his own rules against ad hominem attacks is counter productive. I have better uses to make of my time. The coverup provocateurs win again! Jack Right, Jack ... your time seems better spent asking people to post pictures of themselves with beards or questioning why they should be viewing the forum at the same wee hour of the morning you were using it. Maybe you might feel more comfortable going back to the looney forum for there you can say two opposite things and no one will point out your mistake. Bill Miller So defensive... Must be tough not being the center of attention... of course that doesn't mean you won't try however Not defensive, David ... just pointing out when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth. BTW, what I said about the looney forum catering to Jack with a separate set of rules from what others are told to abide by is only strengthened by your remarks. Bill Miller Bill, just a question. Why do you constantly provoke White and encourage Healey? Why not just let White's doubts about your identity speak for itself, and let Healey's caustic comments sit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' wrote:Looks like Jack is still comfortable attempting to make excuses. The Della Rossa forum is extremely intolerant of those daring to expose the truth about their pet theories. One would think that without a T&T windshield hole there was no conspiracy.o __________________ dgh: you need to stretch, Pamela -- those of us at the DellaRosa forum have ALWAYS been intolerant of THE (deleted) and those that insist on preservering questionable DP photo history -- the topic of the forum is RESEARCH which leads to ideas and original thought, that dear lady make some very uncomfortable... NO excuses at all, just struggling for truth in a already messed up field of play, for which you've provided no clarity... And I was there for ALL the nonsense that went on there -- You've a way to go in trumping Doug Weldon's research... David Healy I have deleted swearing. Please do not use this language on this forum. (John Simkin) Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) Pamela Brown and Mark Wilson are making unconscionable remarks. Jack was not making "excuses" and Rich was not after "his piece of the pie". These guys are the most altruistic and generous people I have ever met in assassination research. I don't know what has become of this forum, but it appears to have fallen a long way. For Simkin to tolerate trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago--as I understand the situation to be--is extremely unethical and procedurally offensive. In the past, I have had a high opinion of this forum, in general. I am sorry to say things appear to have stooped to a new low. The forum moderator is supposed to be impartial and even handed. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' wrote:Looks like Jack is still comfortable attempting to make excuses. The Della Rossa forum is extremely intolerant of those daring to expose the truth about their pet theories. One would think that without a T&T windshield hole there was no conspiracy.o __________________ dgh: you need to stretch, Pamela -- those of us at the DellaRosa forum have ALWAYS been intolerant of THE (deleted) and those that insist on preservering questionable DP photo history -- the topic of the forum is RESEARCH which leads to ideas and original thought, that dear lady make some very uncomfortable... NO excuses at all, just struggling for truth in a already messed up field of play, for which you've provided no clarity... And I was there for ALL the nonsense that went on there -- You've a way to go in trumping Doug Weldon's research... David Healy I have deleted swearing. Please do not use this language on this forum. (John Simkin) Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len Edited June 16, 2006 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. Time out ... there isn't room`for another 'Baghdad Bob' ... David has that job! Jim, there is a reason why you cannot speak at a Dallas conference anymore and you just provided it. As far as Jack's and David's contributions ... I'll let the forum archive speak about that. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. Time out ... there isn't room`for another 'Baghdad Bob' ... David has that job! Jim, there is a reason why you cannot speak at a Dallas conference anymore and you just provided it. As far as Jack's and David's contributions ... I'll let the forum archive speak about that. Bill Miller Same old crap. Let it go guys. Think of the new comers here. They come to learn and to contribute. There are 4-6 posters here who just do flaming....it's so tiring. I have been mainly pleased with Jack's level of scholorship, tho sometimes I don't "get" him on other matters (moon landing eg) but I don't see him resorting to the attacks that I see with David and Bill (mainly on each other) and also Colby does a lot of this as well. I agree that this just brings the forumn down. And I too stay away when I see this stuff, especially when posts get hijacked.... John and Andy do not have time to read thru each and every post and we have been told to behave like rational, intelligent adults. So let's agree to disagree and whern one MUST flame there's the PM function as the rest of us really don't care to read it. Thanks , Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Same old crap. Let it go guys. Think of the new comers here. They come to learn and to contribute. There are 4-6 posters here who just do flaming....it's so tiring. Yet amazingly enough those threads seem to get the most hits. So Dawn, have you ever considered just scrolling past those post or posters that you don't care to read ... that's what I do. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 [quote]Same old crap. Let it go guys. Think of the new comers here. They come to learn and to contribute. There are 4-6 posters here who just do flaming....it's so tiring. Yet amazingly enough those threads seem to get the most hits. So Dawn, have you ever considered just scrolling past those post or posters that you don't care to read ... that's what I do. Bill Bill, I do, but my complaint is when I see so many threads get hijacked by this crap and THEN the original post is just lost in this. Like the Press Conference a few weeks back, then more recently the American U speech observance, where a new poster -some PR dude- just insulted the posters. It's so much like obvious disinfo- to get the posts away FROM the initinal point- that it appears to be organized, and this was precisely what Jack White's point was. So I guess my main point is can we stay ON point? We all know you and David Healy have it in for each other and that is fine, all I am asking is that it not hijack so many threads. Because I know virtually nothing re alteration of Z film and I did try to learn by reading the posts but the anger far outweiged any meaningful discussion...so I am left to my own view. I would love to see a short and to the point list of the reasons for belief and against. I am "against" as why the hell would they leave in the headshot??? And I do not think they ever thought this film would see the light of day: Thank God for Groden and whoever assisted in his obtaining it from Time. (I was told about 30 years or so ago Bob actually stole it: if so GREAT. ) I remember seeing it - on Geraldo- on tv in 75 and thought "maybe this WILL go someplace"...Alas.... Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 People are basically good and they tend to seek out pleasant interactions with others. This is most easily accomplished by seeking out those with similar interests and belief systems. A sufficient number of people with similar interests and beliefs forms a culture. A new person entering an established culture that doesn't hold interests and beliefs that have become the norm of that culture may experience CONFLICT. It's my opinion that the longevity of a particular culture is determined by it's ability to handle CONFLICT which is, essentially, differences in interests and beliefs. A culture that is CLOSED means that it is highly resistive to differences in interests and beliefs and it will often utilize extreme means to force a sense of community via consensus. Conflict can be, at times, hysterically attacked by individuals or groups NEEDING consensus. An OPEN culture means that it is the relative consensus of the group that differences in interests and beliefs are signals of the overall health of that group. Consensus can occur but it is not the primary goal. If you're not snoring yet consider this...which culture experiences longevity? What groups last? Open cultures. When people are surrounded by others who believe, either genuinely or by coercion, mostly like they do the culture stagnates and people leave. It seems humans also hate a vacuum. We're just too curious. Sometimes I think these forums are like cultures. It seems the ones that start to close stagnate. JFKresearch JFK Lancer The John Simkin JFK Assassination Forum The Col. Fletcher Prouty Forum JFK Chat JFKMURDERSOLVED.com Look at those forums. How many would you consider "active" versus "dying". If you come up with and answer...look to see how the members act. Is it an "open" or "closed" culture? I don't know what this has to do with the original post but by the "Beard of Zeus".... I meant whatever I typed above.... Jason, a very perceptive post. I was class the problem as tribal rather than cultural. People become members of a group where they share a common view of the assassination. To maintain that solidarity they are keen to shut-out people who insist on questioning group beliefs. As a result the group is slow to grow. In fact, because of the failure to import new blood, it begins to wither. Intellectual debate also goes into decline. Communication ends up being people telling fellow members how clever they are. The problem is made worse by the fact that JFK researchers tend to be divergent thinkers and nonconformists. They function by asking awkward questions – even of their own theories. Therefore they are usually unwilling to commit intellectual suicide and accept any “dominant ideology” on the assassination or any subject for that matter. This forum is an attempt to bring together people with different views. It is by exchanging opinions with someone we disagree with, that gives us the best opportunity to get to the truth. It is also about collective intelligence. That what the internet makes possible. However, unless we are willing to communicate freely with each other, the full potential of this medium will not be realised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) Pamela Brown and Mark Wilson are making unconscionable remarks. Jack was not making "excuses" and Rich was not after "his piece of the pie". These guys are the most altruistic and generous people I have ever met in assassination research. I don't know what has become of this forum, but it appears to have fallen a long way. For Simkin to tolerate trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago--as I understand the situation to be--is extremely unethical and procedurally offensive. In the past, I have had a high opinion of this forum, in general. I am sorry to say things appear to have stooped to a new low. The forum moderator is supposed to be impartial and even handed. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' wrote:Looks like Jack is still comfortable attempting to make excuses. The Della Rossa forum is extremely intolerant of those daring to expose the truth about their pet theories. One would think that without a T&T windshield hole there was no conspiracy.o __________________ dgh: you need to stretch, Pamela -- those of us at the DellaRosa forum have ALWAYS been intolerant of THE (deleted) and those that insist on preservering questionable DP photo history -- the topic of the forum is RESEARCH which leads to ideas and original thought, that dear lady make some very uncomfortable... NO excuses at all, just struggling for truth in a already messed up field of play, for which you've provided no clarity... And I was there for ALL the nonsense that went on there -- You've a way to go in trumping Doug Weldon's research... David Healy I have deleted swearing. Please do not use this language on this forum. (John Simkin) Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len Maybe I should take Dawn's advise and let it drop but it's a lot easier to say "turn the other cheek" when it isn't yours getting slapped. Mr. Fetzer's comments would carry more weight if he and his buddies did have a tendency to lash out at people for having the sheer audacity to question their theories. I questioned Fetzer's theories on another forum and he labeled me a lying cognitively impaired lunatic who was probably a professional "'disinfo' agent". One only needs to look at the Wellstone thread to see two well respected members of this forum getting similar treatment. Fetzer is by his own admission a persona non grata at most JFK research events he claims it's because a clique of researchers has it in for him but his behavior (such as seen at a recent event) is the more likely cause. Jack and David have a similar tendency of hurling ad hominems at their critics rather than respond to the issues they raise. As I understand John's position he doesn't take action against Jack's critics not because he was booted from DellaRosa's 'walled garden' but rather due to (a) the reasons I spelled out above i.e. Jack dishes out as good as he gets and ( tempers due tend to flair on this and other forums and he and Andy only expel members or intervenes in 'dogfights' in extreme circumstances. I imagine managing this forum is already enough of a demand on their time and energy that we don't have to ask them to be judge, jury, executioner and babysitter as well. Len Edited June 16, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Len Colby wrote: Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len ************** perk up buckoo, the big fish are currently represented by *YOU* on this forum, speaking of which... when is the new and improved Zavada report going to be ready? You don't think those of us concerned about the Zapruder film forgot, do you? I've been ready for sometime now, what's taking your side so long? Or shall we continue to play the DELAY games 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