Robert Charles-Dunne Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 *An aside, how do you, or this forum moderators determine truth, character and knowledge by reading and interpreting this (or any) forum postings? Seems a bit naive.Nothing against John.G of course.... Of course.... There are ways to determine those attributes. One can begin by noting those who do not possess them. Nothing against David H. of course.... How do those JFK assassination related facts (you've been interested in for many years) color your postings here, Mr. Hogan? Further praytell, how do they lead you in determining a researchers "attributes"? How do you Mr. Hogan know who does or does NOT possess certain attributes? Please show us your crystal ball! David, I doubt that it requires a crystal ball to divine the attributes cited above, as they are most obvious by their absence. Re: "truth" - anyone who trafficks exclusively in demonstrably insupportable inferences, or cites references that are actually contrary to the points they seek to make [The Warren Commission Report being the first of many such examples], clearly isn't interested in discerning the "truth" of the matter. Re: "character" - anyone who chooses to selectively address only those issues which suit them and their purpose - eschewing any discussion of those points or issues that don't support their own pet biases - clearly lacks character. Again, this is not the hallmark of a truthseeker, but the sign of a propagandist. [There is no shortage of examples to draw from here, so it is unnecessary for me to name names.] "Re: "knowledge" - I believe this is the most self-evident quality we can perceive from Forum members' posts. Those who haven't bothered to plumb the various issues demonstrate this in their own posts, and will be instantly recognizable to all those who have bothered to do their homework prior to posting. Have you Mr. Hogan posted/performed ANY JFK assassination related research one can review, if so, WHERE? Were it a requirement to post here that one must have prior peer-reviewed works to their credit, we'd be able to count Forum members on one hand. While I don't read all posts here [some subjects don't interest me, some are beyond my understanding, while others generate more heat than light], of the Michael Hogan-penned posts I've read since his arrival here, Michael is one of the most generous in providing background information for those seeking it. When a member cannot recall where they read a certain fact, and seeks help in locating it, Michael is often among the first to reply. Perhaps this doesn't constitute "original" research, but is a valuable contriibution nonetheless, to my mind at least. I'm sure that others whom Michael has aided in this fashion in the past would agree. Do you have the credentials to peer comment on specific areas of JFK assassination research, (in particular 11/22/63 films/photos of Dealey Plaza) and if so, please tell me and the lurkers those areas of expertise? Am I correct to infer from the above sentence that Mr. Hogan has commented on photo research, and you disagree with those comments? And for the record, it's perfectly fine to post armchair opinions re ANY phase of JFK assassination related research, here AND other places! Just tell us its opinion! Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems plain to me that any and all comments posted here are speculative and opinion, unless they are accompanied by footnotes and references, and sometimes even when accompanied by them. David, this seems a particularly thin-skinned reply to Michael Hogan's point, one I'm at a loss to understand, particularly considering how long you've demonstrated you can hold your own in far more contentious exchanges over matters of far greater import. Perhaps you and Michael Hogan have a past animus of which I'm unaware, but this seems a peculiar contribution to a thread dealing specifically with the behaviour of Forum members in how they deal with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 ...David, this seems a particularly thin-skinned reply to Michael Hogan's point, one I'm at a loss to understand, particularly considering how long you've demonstrated you can hold your own in far more contentious exchanges over matters of far greater import. Perhaps you and Michael Hogan have a past animus of which I'm unaware, but this seems a peculiar contribution to a thread dealing specifically with the behaviour of Forum members in how they deal with each other.[/color] Amen. When someone as nice as Michael Hogan gets attacked I know we're living Lord of the Flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 The more I read these ANTI-American slurs by John and Andy in reference to American agressiveness, I feel it very necessary to say that they and many others around the world, more than once gave thanks to their God for this agressiveness, and no doubt prayed that it not be stopped.Perhaps I was born in the wrong century, seriously lack culture, am immature and probably thought to be quite ignorant by you.....however in "my" neolithic culture, it has never been seen as an unmanly or inhuman trait for a man to be agressive. Frankly, I have personally thanked God that I was given the agressiveness that perhaps kept myself and others alive. It is nothing that I would care to sell at any price, and I feel that there are others who are glad that I wouldn't. Do what ever you wish with your "good manners". I am very grateful to have the attributes that I feel that I was Blessed with ! Frankly, I feel that the worst slurs that I have suffered on this forum are those inferences of John and Andy. In reality, they are very damned nasty and were meant to be quite degrading ! But I am certain that you two self proclaimed gentlemanly intellects, who are already legends in your own minds, are quite aware of this. How could you not be ? Please remember that the agressive mistakes that my country has made during the past six years was certainly in concert with those of YOUR government. Are you REALLY IMPLYING that the Brits have been less agressive than Americans ? Charlie Black This forum is full of attacks on the British government past and present. I, like the majority of my fellow citizens, completely rejected British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, British politicians ignored our views. I am against all forms of imperialism whether it is British, Russian, Chinese or American. During the days of the British Empire it was argued that it was in the best interests of the masses (the idea that people in the colonies were being exploited more than those back home and that some of this wealth was being used to improve the average standard of living). There was a certain truth to this. Although in times of crisis, the British people were expected to leave their homes to defend the empire. Our empire came to an end because of the wishes of the British people, reflected in the result of the 1945 election, and the resistance of the people living in the colonies. The Americans are currently going through a similar experience. A growing number of people are expressing doubts about the economic benefits of imperialism. There are others, like in Britain during the post-war period, who are questioning the morality of having an empire. The American people should have learnt their lesson with Vietnam. It seems that it needed another example of how it is impossible to control another country unless it wishes to be controlled. Previous empires survived as long as they did not because of military might but by controlling the way people saw the world. America has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq in the same way that they did in Vietnam. The same thing happened to the Romans and the British. Let us hope that the Chinese learn these lessons before they attempt to develop an empire to replace the one vacated by the Americans. The US is a totalitarian democracy by proxy, having outsourced a major portion of its psychological/political warfare against its own citizens to the private sector. Unfortunately, it is dragging other western democracies down the same path, whilst combining psyops with conventional military means to enforce its will in other parts of the world. I'll pre-empt complaints about this analysis by saying the majority of Americans I've met have been terrific individuals, and those I consider friends (though never met personally) through assassination research, are without doubt, the friendliest, most helpful people imaginable. The amount of help and sharing of information (sometimes at some expense) on their part, has at times, almost choked me up. The British Empire came to end because of the resistance from within and without. Hopefully, the same thing will happen to the American Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Hello John I agree with you in general amd most so in the context of the American and British empires. Like you, I and many of my countrymen, openly expressed much displeasure with our "second" and unprovocated invasion of Iraq, a sovereign country. Since it has been proven to the world, that Iraq posed no immediate threat to world peace, I can see no way that ANY reasonable person can support this slaughter. It certainly is against both all natural and international law, that ANY nation attempt, in any fashion, to force their chosen form of government on any other nation..... paticularly those who are nearly defenseless. To further inflame this, this issue was carried out by an administration, whose legitimacy of election is in considerable doubt by many of my countrymen. My complaint with you and Andy was certainly not in defense of my nations and yours egregious action in Iraq, but in reference to an attack on the culture and character of U.S. citizens in general. I feel that it is unsubstantiated, and degrading. These words and similar past references are not claimed by you and Andy to have been accidental, nor has there been any effort toward an apology. This is my complaint ! I will of course abide by any decision to make the forum more responsible and less combative. However should I remain a forum member, I don't see how that I, or any other person with any degree of self respect, can voluntarily remain a member of any forum in which the character and culture of their country and countrymen is under repeated attack. For those who would remain, why would any civilized "body", wish inclusion in their ranks of of an overly agressive, uncharactered and uncultured group of foreigners? Charlie Black Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 John, I'm hoping you're just joining the the fun and kidding along with us in this sub-thread, which is intentionally silly and frisky. If not, please take the time to read back over the sub-thread I think you'd see that a few members are sharing a laugh. The respect you show for the forum in your comments is laudable. Now if you could couple that with a sense of humor and awareness of context, we'd make even more progress on improving communication in the forum. Respectfully, Myra Point well taken Myra, I misinterpreted Marks post, I had not seen the earlier ones and thought that Mark was engaging in a dispute. I deleted it when I realised my mistake just before reading your post. Apologies to Mark, no offence intended my friend. I berated you for something you did not do. Its so bloody hard to read sarcasm out of context! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 John,I have to agree with Myra here. My comments to Myra and about Ron were firmly tongue in cheek (and you'll notice Myra promptly returned serve). Ron is one of my favorite posters on the Forum. I'm joking around. Get a sense of humor--that's what the Irish are famous for aren't they? Mark, as I said in my previous post, I read your comment completely out of context while rushing through this topic. I offer my sincerest of apologies for my misreading of the conversation. Sorry mate, John Geraghty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 *An aside, how do you, or this forum moderators determine truth, character and knowledge by reading and interpreting this (or any) forum postings? Seems a bit naive.Nothing against John.G of course.... Of course.... There are ways to determine those attributes. One can begin by noting those who do not possess them. Nothing against David H. of course.... How do those JFK assassination related facts (you've been interested in for many years) color your postings here, Mr. Hogan? Further praytell, how do they lead you in determining a researchers "attributes"? How do you Mr. Hogan know who does or does NOT possess certain attributes? Please show us your crystal ball! David, I doubt that it requires a crystal ball to divine the attributes cited above, as they are most obvious by their absence. Re: "truth" - anyone who trafficks exclusively in demonstrably insupportable inferences, or cites references that are actually contrary to the points they seek to make [The Warren Commission Report being the first of many such examples], clearly isn't interested in discerning the "truth" of the matter. Re: "character" - anyone who chooses to selectively address only those issues which suit them and their purpose - eschewing any discussion of those points or issues that don't support their own pet biases - clearly lacks character. Again, this is not the hallmark of a truthseeker, but the sign of a propagandist. [There is no shortage of examples to draw from here, so it is unnecessary for me to name names.] "Re: "knowledge" - I believe this is the most self-evident quality we can perceive from Forum members' posts. Those who haven't bothered to plumb the various issues demonstrate this in their own posts, and will be instantly recognizable to all those who have bothered to do their homework prior to posting. Have you Mr. Hogan posted/performed ANY JFK assassination related research one can review, if so, WHERE? Were it a requirement to post here that one must have prior peer-reviewed works to their credit, we'd be able to count Forum members on one hand. While I don't read all posts here [some subjects don't interest me, some are beyond my understanding, while others generate more heat than light], of the Michael Hogan-penned posts I've read since his arrival here, Michael is one of the most generous in providing background information for those seeking it. When a member cannot recall where they read a certain fact, and seeks help in locating it, Michael is often among the first to reply. Perhaps this doesn't constitute "original" research, but is a valuable contriibution nonetheless, to my mind at least. I'm sure that others whom Michael has aided in this fashion in the past would agree. Do you have the credentials to peer comment on specific areas of JFK assassination research, (in particular 11/22/63 films/photos of Dealey Plaza) and if so, please tell me and the lurkers those areas of expertise? Am I correct to infer from the above sentence that Mr. Hogan has commented on photo research, and you disagree with those comments? And for the record, it's perfectly fine to post armchair opinions re ANY phase of JFK assassination related research, here AND other places! Just tell us its opinion! Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems plain to me that any and all comments posted here are speculative and opinion, unless they are accompanied by footnotes and references, and sometimes even when accompanied by them. David, this seems a particularly thin-skinned reply to Michael Hogan's point, one I'm at a loss to understand, particularly considering how long you've demonstrated you can hold your own in far more contentious exchanges over matters of far greater import. Perhaps you and Michael Hogan have a past animus of which I'm unaware, but this seems a peculiar contribution to a thread dealing specifically with the behaviour of Forum members in how they deal with each other. I'll stick my neck out here and state in the most unadversarial nature I can muster, that I have some sympathy with David's original point that a modicum of caution should be exercised when the job of moderator is bestowed. If I have misinterpreted your post, David, I stand corrected. I too applaud John Gerahty's offer to fill the role. Despite a recent exchange with John, I have no problem with him whatsoever. However, I think he might find it a thankless task. There's obviously some animosity among certain members which runs quite deep. In his role of moderating disputes and complaints, parties on both sides of the argument can often feel aggrieved, resulting in some animosity being directed toward the moderator. Being younger than most of the members on the Forum may indeed prove to be a handicap, imo. Members who are older may take issue with having their behaviour scrutinised by a student. It's not really right or fair, but it's the way it is, imo. Also, people both young and old have a tendency to suspect that the judge has it in for them, that the judge favors the other side. This is not meant to discourage John from accepting the role, as John Simkin certainly needs a break from these squabbles. I'm just saying that the role of moderator on the JFK and political conspiracies forum will be a difficult one under these circumstances. A balancing act which I would certainly not want to perform. But to John and/or whoever else consents to the role, you have my best wishes. I'm taking a break for a few weeks (only partially for the sake of my sanity), so I cannot reply to any posts for a time. In the meantime, if any members wish to exercise their democratic right to disagree with these sentiments, feel free to scowl at my avatar. It's highly scowlworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 John G has my vote. He is very mature, intelligent and I think would do an excellent job. I think we all need to be mindful that John is going through a very difficult time right now; as would anyone with a very ill wife. Can't people just moniter themselves? Type something, then walk away for a bit, then come back and look at it and imagine what you have typed directed against you. Some posters here can certainly dish it out but when the least bit of critical comment is directed in said person's way he or she screams "unfair". We already have rules. People just need to follow them. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I have a question, however I would like to preface it with a short statement so that what follows will not be misinterpreted. It is perfectly acceptable to me that John, Mike or nearly anyone (with the exception of myself and perhaps a handful of others) be appointed as moderators. I will absolutely accept and attempt my best to follow their suggestions. There is a very powerful "however" ! Does a spy look like and speak similarly to the motion picture portrait of the various James Bond actors? Does a "cat burglar have "claws" ? How do we really know what a fine young man with an apparently bright future truly is? Have double agents who have penetrated the highest levels of the most wary and cognizant of intelligence agencies ( complete with psychological testing, polygraph, voice stress analysis)...... Were they most likely on many occasions to have been judged in this same manner? Bright..devoted.. honest..having a bright future. This is "sincerely" not a desire on my part to undermine the legitimacy of "anyone" whom might be appointed a moderator. This is an attempt to infer that the success of such an appointment is "hit or miss" ! It was suggested that "prior forum deportment" would be a good measure.....but once again how would an "intelligently planted bad guy" act to not be recognized ? I mean an "intelligent plant", not an obvious forum xxxxx ! I realize that we are not recruitng to fill a spot in an intelligence agency. I am merely saying that if there are those who truly have "covert" motives, there is not a way in hell to recognize them. As long as persons similar to myself are not appointed, I would think that there should not be very many members thought to be unacceptible. There is no perfect way to choose. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I have a question, however I would like to preface it with a short statement so that what follows will not be misinterpreted. It is perfectly acceptable to me that John, Mike or nearly anyone (with the exception of myself and perhaps a handful of others) be appointed as moderators. I will absolutely accept and attempt my best to follow their suggestions. There is a very powerful "however" ! Does a spy look like and speak similarly to the motion picture portrait of the various James Bond actors? Does a "cat burglar have "claws" ? How do we really know what a fine young man with an apparently bright future truly is? Have double agents who have penetrated the highest levels of the most wary and cognizant of intelligence agencies ( complete with psychological testing, polygraph, voice stress analysis)...... Were they most likely on many occasions to have been judged in this same manner? Bright..devoted.. honest..having a bright future. This is "sincerely" not a desire on my part to undermine the legitimacy of "anyone" whom might be appointed a moderator. This is an attempt to infer that the success of such an appointment is "hit or miss" ! It was suggested that "prior forum deportment" would be a good measure.....but once again how would an "intelligently planted bad guy" act to not be recognized ? I mean an "intelligent plant", not an obvious forum xxxxx ! I realize that we are not recruitng to fill a spot in an intelligence agency. I am merely saying that if there are those who truly have "covert" motives, there is not a way in hell to recognize them. As long as persons similar to myself are not appointed, I would think that there should not be very many members thought to be unacceptible. There is no perfect way to choose. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 John, I'm hoping you're just joining the the fun and kidding along with us in this sub-thread, which is intentionally silly and frisky. If not, please take the time to read back over the sub-thread I think you'd see that a few members are sharing a laugh. The respect you show for the forum in your comments is laudable. Now if you could couple that with a sense of humor and awareness of context, we'd make even more progress on improving communication in the forum. Respectfully, Myra Point well taken Myra, I misinterpreted Marks post, I had not seen the earlier ones and thought that Mark was engaging in a dispute. I deleted it when I realised my mistake just before reading your post. Apologies to Mark, no offence intended my friend. I berated you for something you did not do. Its so bloody hard to read sarcasm out of context! John Woo hoo! We're all in synch. (John you'll have plenty of valid reasons to berate soon enough. So hold that thought... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. 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. John: Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture? Steve It is indeed true that a large percentage of members of this forum are Americans. It is also true that the majority behave in an exemplary way. However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American member. I do think it is partly cultural. For example, the films that you make often include people being very aggressive to each other. In fact, it seems as the aggression is part of some sort of formula that the American public like. Of course the “baddies” are portrayed in this way, but so are the “goodies”. Take the example of the crime movie. The detectives attempting to solve the case are invariable unpleasant to each other for most of the time. However, by the end of the film, they are the best of friends, and in many cases, lovers. American movies are not only aggressive and violent, they are also extremely sentimental. I have visited the United States many times and have not found the American people to be particularly aggressive or violent. They are just as polite and courteous as members of any country I have visited. In fact, on average, I would say they are better behaved that the British. However, on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach. My complaint with you and Andy was certainly not in defense of my nations and yours egregious action in Iraq, but in reference to an attack on the culture and character of U.S. citizens in general.I feel that it is unsubstantiated, and degrading. These words and similar past references are not claimed by you and Andy to have been accidental, nor has there been any effort toward an apology. This is my complaint ! I will of course abide by any decision to make the forum more responsible and less combative. However should I remain a forum member, I don't see how that I, or any other person with any degree of self respect, can voluntarily remain a member of any forum in which the character and culture of their country and countrymen is under repeated attack. I made it as clear as I could that I was not talking about all Americans (see quote above). I know right-wing politicians often accuse their critics as being “anti-American” but it is just not true. As I said before, I have visited the United States many times and have not found the American people to be particularly aggressive or violent. They are just as polite and courteous as members of any country I have visited. This is reflected on this forum. You could not get anyone more polite and courteous than Michael Hogan. However, it has not stopped him being attacked on this thread by another American. I do believe that aggression and violence is a more prominent aspect of your culture than other advanced industrialized countries. This is supported by a considerable amount of statistical data. For example, you have had for many years the highest murder-rate in the advanced world. You also imprison the highest percentage of your population than any other country. The state also carries out more acts of extreme violence on its citizens. The United States, alone amongst the Western World, retains the death penalty. It seems to me that the culture (I say this is the widest sense of the word) of the US is distinctly different from the rest of the advanced world. For example, in Europe we talk about America’s “gun culture”. It is true that a high percentage of members of the forum are American. However, last time we did a study it was only around 20%. Yet Americans are responsible for virtually 100% of all complaints. From these figures it is possible to conclude that this is an "American problem". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 John, if you feel it would help I will offer my services as a moderator. I feel as most of the disputes occur in three catagories, Moon landings, 911 and JFK photo evidence any Mod should refrain from either, offering personal beliefs, or starting threads on these topics. If yuo wish to discuss this matter further I will send you my home phone number in a P/M. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I do believe that aggression and violence is a more prominent aspect of your culture than other advanced industrialized countries. I Have lived in the New York area for a quarter century, and the only physical violence I ever witnessed was an altercation between two ladies on Madison Avenue. When the ladies began swinging their handbags at each other I could not resist cheering along with the gathering crowd. The actual crime statistics of course tell a very different story. I do not know what percentage of murders remain unsolved from year to year, but I suspect it is many thousands of murders every year. Opinion polls on the JFK assassination suggest that many Americans believe that it is possible to get away with murder, even with the murder of the President. In fact, rates of violent crime soared in the decades following the assassination, and have only stabilized in the last few years. There are more people in prison than at any previous time in history, but there are also more undetected murderers walking the streets. The level of violence in the news and in movies and TV may be desensitizing. Todays New York Times reports that violence is now becoming common even in advertising: The New York Times February 5, 2007 Advertising Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War By STUART ELLIOTT No commercial that appeared last night during Super Bowl XLI directly addressed Iraq, unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago. But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials. More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous. For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent’s head. In another Bud Light spot, face-slapping replaced fist-bumping as the cool way for people to show affection for one another. In a FedEx commercial, set on the moon, an astronaut was wiped out by a meteor. In a spot for Snickers candy, sold by Mars, two co-workers sought to prove their masculinity by tearing off patches of chest hair. There was also a bank robbery (E*Trade Financial), fierce battles among office workers trapped in a jungle (CareerBuilder), menacing hitchhikers (Bud Light again) and a clash between a monster and a superhero reminiscent of a horror movie (Garmin). http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/business...ia/05adcol.html [Edit] P.S. I just received an email from Ticketmaster inviting me to buy tickets for a concert by: The Killers Madison Square Garden New York, NY Sat, 04/28/07 On Sale Sat, 02/03/07 Edited February 5, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I Have lived in the New York area for a quarter century, and the only physical violence I ever witnessed was an altercation between two ladies on Madison Avenue. The worst I ever saw on a New York City street was when a man was heckling (with some sexual innuendo as I recall) some uniformed Salvation Army workers who were singing Christmas carols. He was targeting one SA lady in particular, who finally stopped singing to tell him "Go to hell!" Disillusioning to say the least. Edited February 5, 2007 by Ron Ecker 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