Behaviour of Members

[John Simkin]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

[Mark Stapleton]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

John,

FWIW, I'm against banning members. In the case of Tim Gratz, I agreed with your actions because Tim was threatening legal action which could have adversely effected the Forum's viability. Thus, he was threatening the Forum and its membership.

However, unless insults become grossly offensive (a subjective concept for sure, and who determines what is grossly offensive?), I don't think monitoring such complaints is worth the time and effort.

Actually, insults delivered with wit and guile have gone into history as some of the world's most quotable quotes. I would have hated to miss out on witnessing the great verbal jousts between Tim and Robert Charles-Dunne, with Robert providing much of the wit. The fact that much of Robert's wit passed silently over Tim's head made it much funnier, imo.

Maybe we should have 'cleverest insults in history' thread. Oafs might learn something.

[Kathleen Collins]

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

I agree or at least they should get a notice; and if it continues and someone complains, please have someone (Andy?) read the posts, determine who the aggressor is, and decide if it's offensive. Then you should think about banning. Personally, I don't like being called names. I think the nastiness of Bill Miller et al towards Jack White is cause for banning, though I always believe in a second chance. But that's something you should determine.

It's like a member who disagrees or dislikes someone and knows, say, that that person is a homosexual, and initiates an attack on him, addressing him as: "Queer bait" or "faggot" on the forum." That kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed. But in my opinion, people should be given a second chance.

Kathleen Collins

Edited January 31, 2007 by Kathleen Collins

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I agree Mark, Sharp tongues, sarcasm, wit, facetiousness - I can take as a means of hyperbole - to highlight points - and these tactics are often used effectively by a number of forum members including some of the best debaters. Take for example Pat & Tom Purvis and Ashton, RC-D, John Simkin and Tim Gratz - these are usually wonderful exchanges between literate, serious researchers, with respect, generally, for the views expressed.

However, I believe some of the obnoxious, irrelevant and downright insulting posts by some of the members recently have degraded the esteem of the forum. Something no one wants.

Wading through 3-4 pages of drivel, personal insult and regurgitation of useless personal attack histories to literally stumble upon an interesting Post/Picture by John Dolva, James Richards, Robin Unger amongst many many others, has become very trying.

Why any noted researcher would tread into the morass of sewage that exists in some recent threads is beyond me. Even if a well written & researched piece was posted it would get lost in the noise. If another thread was started by this researcher the same excruciatingly rude people trail in and wreck it. Freedom of speech surely has boundaries in the forum - is there an effective protection from this?

I am seriously frustrated by logging on and going to view recent post updates, only to read some of the most obnoxious insults and writings. I fear this deflects from serious research (whether I agree with the research is entirely moot), and could lead to the lack of participation of the researcher in the forum.

If John's warnings aren't adhered to I, unfortunately, agree that banning (perhaps, temporary initially) might be the best option. The option to let it continue in its current form is untenable and could ultimately lead to the forum's great reputation being diminished.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Dave Greer]

I think a warning system, followed by a temporary ban, followed by a permanent ban.

Other suggestions include a locked thread where any warnings/bans are notified by yourself, so we can find out why certain people were banned.

Another is having a system of moderators in place.

None of these is flawless, and all have their drawbacks, but I too have been targetted by unwarranted insulting behaviour and false accusations of lying, and agree something needs to be done for the integrity of the site. The last thing the internet community needs is another mud-slinging site.

Dave

[Jack White]

John...Rich DellaRosa was forced to banish about 8 persons from his JFK forum for constant personal

attacks and lack of meaningful research. I suggest that you contact Rich and get his perspective on

this. Without exception, every "banishee" had one thing in common...all had joined his forum in an

apparent attempt to disrupt the postings of Jack White. Ridicule, name calling, and other ad hominem

attacks made up 99 percent of their postings. After repeated warnings which were not heeded, he

reluctantly banished them. The first to go was a JFK researcher to go was Anthony Marsh, who was

particularly abusive about any of my postings. It became a running "joke" that others violating

forum rules would be banished to the MARSHLAND. The most abusive poster called himself

"BILL MILLER"; he became very abusive and was banished. When I started posting Apollo research,

it attracted a bunch of abusers from a website called BAD ASTRONOMY. The most abusive of these

was CRAIG LAMSON, who offered no research or counter research...just insults...and he was banished.

You may recognize the last two names, who are two of the worst abusers of your hospitality.

Lamson did not show up on your forum till I posted some Apollo research, and then he quickly

was joined by some of his Bad Astronomy mates...Burton, Ulman, Colby and Lewis, and a

few others who are less abusive. All seem to have some hidden agenda of pursing my research,

especially Apollo and 9-11. Burton at least is usually civil and polite, and Ulman and Lewis are

not too bad. The worst abusers are Miller, Lamson, and Colby...all lacking civility and specializing

in name calling; those three are intolerable. Check their postings...you will find that over 90 percent

of all their postings are aimed at taunting me.

I applaud your taking notice of this terrible trend. Anyone making unprovoked personal attacks

should be removed...or at the very least have their postings removed. I would certainly abide

by and favor such enforcement.

Please email Rich DellaRosa and ask his opinions about certain abusive persons. You will find

it revealing and helpful.

Thanks.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

I agree with the above posts. I would like to just add that since Ashton Gray has been put on probation the attacks on him by Charlie Black and Pat Spear have grown. Charlie seems to be downright obsessed. While everyone may not like Ashton's style, his efforts are sincere, and I totally believe his interest in arriving at the truth is equally sincere.

I feel that attacks by any member on another are repugnent and I am really sick of all the attacks on Jack White. Jack has given decades to the research community; he deserves our respect.

Dawn

[Craig Lamson]

John...Rich DellaRosa was forced to banish about 8 persons from his JFK forum for constant personal

attacks and lack of meaningful research. I suggest that you contact Rich and get his perspective on

this. Without exception, every "banishee" had one thing in common...all had joined his forum in an

apparent attempt to disrupt the postings of Jack White. Ridicule, name calling, and other ad hominem

attacks made up 99 percent of their postings. After repeated warnings which were not heeded, he

reluctantly banished them. The first to go was a JFK researcher to go was Anthony Marsh, who was

particularly abusive about any of my postings. It became a running "joke" that others violating

forum rules would be banished to the MARSHLAND. The most abusive poster called himself

"BILL MILLER"; he became very abusive and was banished. When I started posting Apollo research,

it attracted a bunch of abusers from a website called BAD ASTRONOMY. The most abusive of these

was CRAIG LAMSON, who offered no research or counter research...just insults...and he was banished.

You may recognize the last two names, who are two of the worst abusers of your hospitality.

Lamson did not show up on your forum till I posted some Apollo research, and then he quickly

was joined by some of his Bad Astronomy mates...Burton, Ulman, Colby and Lewis, and a

few others who are less abusive. All seem to have some hidden agenda of pursing my research,

especially Apollo and 9-11. Burton at least is usually civil and polite, and Ulman and Lewis are

not too bad. The worst abusers are Miller, Lamson, and Colby...all lacking civility and specializing

in name calling; those three are intolerable. Check their postings...you will find that over 90 percent

of all their postings are aimed at taunting me.

I applaud your taking notice of this terrible trend. Anyone making unprovoked personal attacks

should be removed...or at the very least have their postings removed. I would certainly abide

by and favor such enforcement.

Please email Rich DellaRosa and ask his opinions about certain abusive persons. You will find

it revealing and helpful.

Thanks.

Jack

Just for the record, and to clear up the misinformation posted here by White, I was not "banned" from JFKResearch for abusive behavior, DellaRosa "banned" me because he claimed I was cross posting, which was false.

White is also incorrect in his statement that I offered no research to JFKRESEARCH. He knows full well that debunked quite a few of his fradulant claims with solid emperical evidence. He also knows I played a big part in the research that was posted at JFKRESEARCH that trashed his claim of Moorman in the street.

Of course Jack making these false claims is a personal attack....

[Evan Marshall]

John...Rich DellaRosa was forced to banish about 8 persons from his JFK forum for constant personal

attacks and lack of meaningful research. I suggest that you contact Rich and get his perspective on

this. Without exception, every "banishee" had one thing in common...all had joined his forum in an

apparent attempt to disrupt the postings of Jack White. Ridicule, name calling, and other ad hominem

attacks made up 99 percent of their postings. After repeated warnings which were not heeded, he

reluctantly banished them. The first to go was a JFK researcher to go was Anthony Marsh, who was

particularly abusive about any of my postings. It became a running "joke" that others violating

forum rules would be banished to the MARSHLAND. The most abusive poster called himself

"BILL MILLER"; he became very abusive and was banished. When I started posting Apollo research,

it attracted a bunch of abusers from a website called BAD ASTRONOMY. The most abusive of these

was CRAIG LAMSON, who offered no research or counter research...just insults...and he was banished.

You may recognize the last two names, who are two of the worst abusers of your hospitality.

Lamson did not show up on your forum till I posted some Apollo research, and then he quickly

was joined by some of his Bad Astronomy mates...Burton, Ulman, Colby and Lewis, and a

few others who are less abusive. All seem to have some hidden agenda of pursing my research,

especially Apollo and 9-11. Burton at least is usually civil and polite, and Ulman and Lewis are

not too bad. The worst abusers are Miller, Lamson, and Colby...all lacking civility and specializing

in name calling; those three are intolerable. Check their postings...you will find that over 90 percent

of all their postings are aimed at taunting me.

I applaud your taking notice of this terrible trend. Anyone making unprovoked personal attacks

should be removed...or at the very least have their postings removed. I would certainly abide

by and favor such enforcement.

Please email Rich DellaRosa and ask his opinions about certain abusive persons. You will find

it revealing and helpful.

Thanks.

Jack

Just for the record, and to clear up the misinformation posted here by White, I was not "banned" from JFKResearch for abusive behavior, DellaRosa "banned" me because he claimed I was cross posting, which was false.

White is also incorrect in his statement that I offered no research to JFKRESEARCH. He knows full well that debunked quite a few of his fradulant claims with solid emperical evidence. He also knows I played a big part in the research that was posted at JFKRESEARCH that trashed his claim of Moorman in the street.

Of course Jack making these false claims is a personal attack....

having written three books on wound ballistics that have generated alot of angry and often vicious attacks I've always wondered why people can't just disagree without being disagreeable.

civility is an often ignored subject around the breakfast table-our 7 kids were taught better and it astounds me when people have to be so obnoxious, demeaning, and insulting in their feeble attempts to "prove" a point. My web page (www.stoppingpower.net) has discussion forums and our rules are clearly posted and I enforce them ruthlessly-unfortunately, it seems the only way to ensure sociable discussion.

most of us can agree that we have not been told the truth re:the politcal assassinations of the 60's and other events-I'm sure I would diagree significantly re: 9/11 with most people here because I had (have) a TS clearance and was aware of much of what was going on that day in federal circles, BUT we can discuss it without rancor or intellecually lazy attacks on people character and motives.

Because I think the death of certain individuals such as Che', etc, were a good thing it does not make me a contract employee of anyone.

maturity can be acquired at any age.

[Kathleen Collins]

John...Rich DellaRosa was forced to banish about 8 persons from his JFK forum for constant personal

attacks and lack of meaningful research. I suggest that you contact Rich and get his perspective on

this. Without exception, every "banishee" had one thing in common...all had joined his forum in an

apparent attempt to disrupt the postings of Jack White.

I was a banishee from Rich's site. We were very good friends. But he suffered catastrophic illness. I can't talk about it. But I thought he was my best friend. Nothing more than that.

I'm saying this because I like Jack White and always supported his work. I have a link to one of his sites on my blog. thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com. I just want to make sure I'm not included as one of the banishees who persecutes him. He has always been very professional in his responses to me and he keeps a reserved distance, which I respect.

Kathy

[Myra Bronstein]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

This makes me really uncomfortable. Banning people is a slippery slope.

I've always appreciated John's restraint in dealing with jerks. It's resulted, IMO, in a forum where I feel that I can police my own behavior, aided by the many people I respect. I don't feel muzzled. I think the result is an environment where conversations can evolve into some unexpected and interesting ways. I feel like I can ask anything without fear of censor. Also, swearing is one of my hobbies. I don't direct it at real people, just at faux-gov't nazis, but I wouldn't want free-range swearing to suddenly get policed.

I'm also concerned that John would end up spending an inordinate amount of time on moderation and on dealing with various online brats, and this would cut into his productivity and research. I really don't think he should have to babysit... Ideally.

However, in spite of my queasiness at the prospect of more moderation, I don't have much stomach for the ongoing attacks on--in particular--Jack White's work. He's targeting precisely because he's credible, knowledgeable, passionate, and productive--ergo a threat to the lies. I'm sick of a certain obvious person who hounds Jack relentlessly, who IMO is a out-and-out xxxxx.

So, I'm sorta all over the place on this subject. But the bottom line is that I'm concluding that only trolls should be banned if anybody is. I realize that fingering someone as a "xxxxx" is subjective and iffy. I'd define a xxxxx as someone who is here just to disrupt, and offers no research or outside sources or viewpoints aside from parroting the anti-conspiracy party line.

To be clear, if a contributing member becomes emotional or frustrated or lashes out from time to time, that does NOT make them a xxxxx, that just makes them human. If a member posts information and/or sincere thoughts and/or research material/graphics, and also happens to be a smartass, that does NOT make them a xxxxx, that just makes them a smartass.

By contrast, if someone merely mocks good research and/or sound opinion, or if they keep contaminating threads so that their bullxxxx posts are at the bottom making other members avoid the threads, I think they're a xxxxx.

If anyone is banned it should only be hard-core trolls.

Thanks for asking for our input John.

[Ashton Gray]

I think you should do whatever is necessary to eliminate the kinds of wholesale scurrilous and gratuitous personal attacks reflected in my sig below. And those are just a few examples.

I loathe every second I have to spend deflecting and dealing with such reprehensible tactics, but it came to a point early on where it was clear to me that just such sleaze was condoned and allowed here, and that I was on my own to attempt to deal with that kind of counterproductive noise at least enough to let the signal get through.

Even so, I never post only a response to such garbage: I always post pertinent and relevant facts, while dealing in any way I have to with these kinds of attempted personal smear campaigns.

It became clear to me just how much it was condoned as far back as 13 July 2006, when Pat Speer was allowed to post in the Watergate forum the muckraking topic Question for Ashton Gray; Let's Meet.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Watergate, starting in the first sentence with: "Ashton, since a lot of my problems with your assertions is that I think you're a fake..." and goes downhill from there. The man actually had the unspeakable gall to say the following, like some lightning-bolted goose-stepper guarding the gates of Prinz-Albrecht-Str-8: "You can show me an ID verifying that your name is really Ashton Gray, and we can be on our way." As though he has standing to use this public forum to stalk me and to attempt to invade my privacy, and demand me to "produce my papers" for him. <SPIT!>

I wrote you urgently, John, asking you to pull the leeches off of me, and to stop the ineffable personal attacks. You wrote back that you saw nothing wrong with it—this as Douglas Caddy chimed in to ramp up the fishwife gossip-mongering with statements like: "Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder why." In the Watergate forum. It's all still there in that thread.

It was then I knew that this kind of sewer-level personal attack—which wouldn't be allowed in even the yellowest tabloid rag—was considered business as usual here, and that if I was going to continue to use this forum to attempt to discuss actual facts and issues, I was going to have to deal with that kind of catty traducement and spiteful personal vilification myself, because no moderation was in effect.

So I have.

I now have what amounts to a personal entourage of Pat Speer, Charles Black, and Thomas Purvis following me around like a pack into almost every thread I start, posting direct or cowardly oblique cat-calls and personal insults at me—such as the ones I now have memorialized in my sig. For a while it included Bill Miller, but I finally had enough and took care of that. And got a public warning for it.

My supreme preference is to deal with and stick to on-topic facts at issue. Every minute spent discussing anything else is a minute wasted, and I only have so much time I can devote to the forum at all. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by mutely and be used as a whipping boy for these kinds of insupportable, indefensible, off-topic, debased personal attacks.

Because I don't just lie there and learn to enjoy getting kicked in a virtual alleyway gang-bang, I now have my own reputation for being ascerbic, sarcastic, rude, abrasive and (fill in the blank). And I can be—real good—when being jerked around, lied to, or insulted.

It's not my preference. And it doesn't happen at all with other members who honor and respect the purpose and function and topics of the forum, and are trying in good faith to get at and discuss the facts, not launching sanctimonious personal attacks.

I think anything that will focus the purposes of the forums, and will keep topics on-topic, and will move the distractions and sideshows off the line will elevate and enhance the value of the forums, and will entirely validate and vindicate all of your good work and expense in making such an invaluable resource available.

Ashton

[Mark Wilson]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

John,You're a class act.I'm in favor of banishments for whatever reasons you see fit.As you stated,You have time,money,and your credibility tied up in the forums.I would actually take it a step further,as others have suggested, and ban members that have not so hidden agendas that constantly disrupt topic after topic.The guilty parties know what theyre doing and want to create an environment of chaos.It's in your best interest to neutralize those that detract from what this place is, The Education Forum.

[Brian Smith]

I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. They are nearly always about posts on threads about the photographic evidence concerning the JFK assassination, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.

I spend a considerable amount of money on this forum. We recently upgraded to a much more expensive package. I also spend a great deal of time on this forum. This is in itself an expensive business as I am self-employed. I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.

This makes me really uncomfortable. Banning people is a slippery slope.

I've always appreciated John's restraint in dealing with jerks. It's resulted, IMO, in a forum where I feel that I can police my own behavior, aided by the many people I respect. I don't feel muzzled. I think the result is an environment where conversations can evolve into some unexpected and interesting ways. I feel like I can ask anything without fear of censor. Also, swearing is one of my hobbies. I don't direct it at real people, just at faux-gov't nazis, but I wouldn't want free-range swearing to suddenly get policed.

I'm also concerned that John would end up spending an inordinate amount of time on moderation and on dealing with various online brats, and this would cut into his productivity and research. I really don't think he should have to babysit... Ideally.

However, in spite of my queasiness at the prospect of more moderation, I don't have much stomach for the ongoing attacks on--in particular--Jack White's work. He's targeting precisely because he's credible, knowledgeable, passionate, and productive--ergo a threat to the lies. I'm sick of a certain obvious person who hounds Jack relentlessly, who IMO is a out-and-out xxxxx.

So, I'm sorta all over the place on this subject. But the bottom line is that I'm concluding that only trolls should be banned if anybody is. I realize that fingering someone as a "xxxxx" is subjective and iffy. I'd define a xxxxx as someone who is here just to disrupt, and offers no research or outside sources or viewpoints aside from parroting the anti-conspiracy party line.

To be clear, if a contributing member becomes emotional or frustrated or lashes out from time to time, that does NOT make them a xxxxx, that just makes them human. If a member posts information and/or sincere thoughts and/or research material/graphics, and also happens to be a smartass, that does NOT make them a xxxxx, that just makes them a smartass.

By contrast, if someone merely mocks good research and/or sound opinion, or if they keep contaminating threads so that their bullxxxx posts are at the bottom making other members avoid the threads, I think they're a xxxxx.

If anyone is banned it should only be hard-core trolls.

Thanks for asking for our input John.

Certain members of this forum repeatedly engage in ad hominem attacks. In any debate of opposing viewpoints there will always be a degree of tension, but some members cross over the line into outright antagonism and personal insults. The vast majority of these kinds of posts come from the defenders of official government pronouncements. There is no doubt that certain posters have a clear agenda to attack and discredit Jack White in particular. It is both inappropriate and uncalled for to engage in such mean-spirited tactics, and I think repeat offenders should be removed from the forum after they ignore warnings to cease their offensive behaviour. There is nothing wrong with expressing your disagreement with someone, but it is not acceptable to start fights and arguments that serve no other purpose than to disrupt intelligent, productive discussion. I have the uneasy suspicion that that is the deliberate intention of certain people on this forum.

[Charles Black]

Hello John

I was quite surprised to hear that Ashton had been administered any type of comment or warning.

Dawn Meredith, even after I questioned her motivation in a post of "my attacks" on Ashton Gray

seems to be continuing with her attacks upon my motives.

It is true that I have inferred that Ashton was not of right mind when he continued to promise and not deliver substantiation of some of his very far out theories. His right to his theories, I strongly will defend. His inability to substantiate the same, after assuring that he would do so, I have and will continue to believe, that it is a deliberate attempt to mislead forum members....in particular those who may not in depth have yet studied this case. I have repeatedly and openly stated this because I absolutely believe it, and I have imbedded myself so deeply in this case, and for so long, that I absolutely know that what he refers to as forthcoming truths....can never appear. Dawn feels that I have abused Asthon, with what I feel is well founded criticism, yet she censures me for honest personal criticism and seems perfectly willing to forgive his responses to me which include verbage which includes "Filthy Fiction"..."Dipped in Sewage" and "Fling their dung".

In regard to your comments about Americans, I really don't feel that we on the other side of the Pond find it any more acceptable than you.

I do however very strongly believe that if something is stated in no uncertain terms, that a view or theory is "a personal opinion only", that there is no justice in censoring, removing, or attempting to prevent it. On this type of forum, we deal to a great extent on theory or personal opinion based upon that which "some of us consider fact".

In writing this, a thought travelled thru my mind.

I would think that we colonists are probably more impassioned by some of the issues which you mentioned than those in other lands might be.

After all, these are United States derived issues !

Why should we not feel more fiery and more determined to find TRUTH than should you.

I am certain that there are many more viscious confrontations in the U.K. concerning the death of Dianna, than there are in my country, which no longer enjoys a Monarchy .

Regarding your specific question, I feel that if you think that I or anyone, does not make substantial contribution to this forum, while at the same time is bringing to it disgrace, the

answer should be that those who are degrading the forum should leave.

Charlie Black