Behaviour of Members

[Cliff Varnell]

Thank you, John Simkin! Thank you, Andy Walker!

This Forum is educating and entertaining and I appreciate all your

efforts, gentlemen!

I don't think I've written anything yet that wouldn't pass muster

with the mods, so I don't think they'll have any trouble from me...

[Michael Hogan]

In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.

However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.

If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.

Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.

Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.

If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?

If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.

Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence....

I am relieved that this thread shows sign of reaching the end. There are no two members of this Forum that I respect more than Robert Charles-Dunne and John Simkin. However, I also have come to like and respect Myra Bronstein for her views and I feel she has not quite gotten a fair shake. Although Myra has demonstrated that she is more than capable of defending herself here, I feel obliged to offer a small measure of support. I'm going to endeavor to keep my comments brief.

The background to this dispute that spawned this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Myra. John, I thought many members gave you a vote of confidence, either explicitly or implicitly. I don't believe it was fair to lump Charles and Myra together; Their responses and reactions in this thread were quite different from each other's. Nothing about Myra's conduct would lead me to believe that she would target someone for attack, unless they attacked her first. In fact, I found most of Myra's comments fair and reasonable. That's just my opinion.

I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

I specifically avoided mentioning names in order not to stir the pot any further. It was my hope that a mild general rebuke from me - someone who is neither an administrator nor a moderator here, and [hopefully] not known for raising my voice - would cause the guilty parties to reflect on their own behaviour and thus scale back on the unwarranted vitriol directed at the gentlemen who run this establishment.

When I invite people into my home, any topic is fair game for open - but respectful and polite - debate. But, if after having eaten the food and quaffed the beverages, one or more of my guests become abusive toward others, there is a good chance they will ruin the occasion. As a host, it becomes my responsibility to see to it that they mind their manners. If they cannot, then it becomes my awkward responsibility to usher them toward the door.

This is precisely what has transpired here. John S. simply noted in his initiating post that the majority of troubles seem to originate with members from one country, and asked them - and all of us - politely to police ourselves. Unable to abide by the host's wishes, we now have appointed moderators to do the policing. It is a sad reflection upon those who couldn't simply take John's hint, and depicts us all poorly to the "guests" who happen by to glean details about the Kennedy assassination. Since every single member among us has, at one time or another, encountered derisive comments from the general population about "tinfoil hats" and "moonbats" and what-have-you because we are somehow mentally challenged "conspiracy buffs," I would have thought our membership would seek to go the extra distance to explicitly put such characterizations to rest. Petty squabbling over relative trifles only cements in the public's mind that those who research this topic are in some way imbalanced. I only wish that we could eschew posting things that encourage such erroneous conclusions.

There are very few posters here who have not made a contribution of some kind in their various posts, and I need not agree with their personal philosophies or the contents of their posts to applaud their efforts. [When Tim Gratz was criticized for being a Republican, of all things, I rose to his defense, despite being his polar opposite in all things JFK-related.] Consequently, I have great respect for the vast majority of Forum members who freely give of their time and generously support each other in our mutual endeavour. These truly are people who ask not what their country can do for them, but instead seek to do what they can for their country, and its history. They seek to redress a most fundamental wrong, at a great personal cost of time, energy and money.

When that noble pursuit becomes tainted by needlessly snide invective directed toward the very men who make this Forum possible, it goes beyond the pale and must be challenged. That has nothing to do with the quality of their contributions, and everything to do with the manner in which they comport themselves in public, which is a reflection upon us all.

Now, if we could only quit wasting our precious energies on such diversionary issues as this and refocus instead upon the assassination, would we not all be better served?

Edited February 12, 2007 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[J. Raymond Carroll]

An open minded friend of mine has long alleged that he didn't believe in evolution, and it's led to some pretty lively debates. Maybe these links can explain it better than him. And offer an explanation of why such a hoax would be perpetrated.

Myra: Your friend might be interested to know that JFK fell for this "hoax" (and I think he may be the only president thus far to publicly admit it):

I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it is because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...Cup09141962.htm

[Terry Mauro]

I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

I specifically avoided mentioning names in order not to stir the pot any further. It was my hope that a mild general rebuke from me - someone who is neither an administrator nor a moderator here, and [hopefully] not known for raising my voice - would cause the guilty parties to reflect on their own behaviour and thus scale back on the unwarranted vitriol directed at the gentlemen who run this establishment.

When I invite people into my home, any topic is fair game for open - but respectful and polite - debate. But, if after having eaten the food and quaffed the beverages, one or more of my guests become abusive toward others, there is a good chance they will ruin the occasion. As a host, it becomes my responsibility to see to it that they mind their manners. If they cannot, then it becomes my awkward responsibility to usher them toward the door.

This is precisely what has transpired here. John S. simply noted in his initiating post that the majority of troubles seem to originate with members from one country, and asked them - and all of us - politely to police ourselves. Unable to abide by the host's wishes, we now have appointed moderators to do the policing. It is a sad reflection upon those who couldn't simply take John's hint, and depicts us all poorly to the "guests" who happen by to glean details about the Kennedy assassination. Since every single member among us has, at one time or another, encountered derisive comments from the general population about "tinfoil hats" and "moonbats" and what-have-you because we are somehow mentally challenged "conspiracy buffs," I would have thought our membership would seek to go the extra distance to explicitly put such characterizations to rest. Petty squabbling over relative trifles only cements in the public's mind that those who research this topic are in some way imbalanced. I only wish that we could eschew posting things that encourage such erroneous conclusions.

There are very few posters here who have not made a contribution of some kind in their various posts, and I need not agree with their personal philosophies or the contents of their posts to applaud their efforts. [When Tim Gratz was criticized for being a Republican, of all things, I rose to his defense, despite being his polar opposite in all things JFK-related.] Consequently, I have great respect for the vast majority of Forum members who freely give of their time and generously support each other in our mutual endeavour. These truly are people who ask not what their country can do for them, but instead seek to do what they can for their country, and its history. They seek to redress a most fundamental wrong, at a great personal cost of time, energy and money.

When that noble pursuit becomes tainted by needlessly snide invective directed toward the very men who make this Forum possible, it goes beyond the pale and must be challenged. That has nothing to do with the quality of their contributions, and everything to do with the manner in which they comport themselves in public, which is a reflection upon us all.

Now, if we could only quit wasting our precious energies on such diversionary issues as this and refocus instead upon the assassination, would be not all be better served?

************************************************************

Thank you, R.C.D. May I just add one more small comment on the word, meaning, and worth of the word, "pride?"

I believe the only place the word "pride" has in the realm of life, or where its meaning reflects any worth, is when it is placed in the context of a job, or a task, having been assigned, performed, and accomplished, to the very best of one's ability. If, and when, that accomplishment is acknowledged and rewarded in accordance to the quality with which is was performed, and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Only in that instance, can the word "pride" be said to have reached the pinnacle of its meaning. As in the adage, "Pride in a job, well done." Or, "Taking pride in one's work." Such as, the work of an artisan, or a virtuoso. Things accomplished with one's hands, however creative, that of a tailor, or a shoemaker, or in a labor intensive menial aspect, as in the preparation of food, or the caretaker of a property or a garden.

Otherwise, use of the word "pride" can easily become associated, at best, or bastardized, at worse, with less than virtuous connotations. As mentioned in the thread above, false pride, blind pride, or pride of an avarice nature. I believe national pride falls under the sector of blind pride, when it is promoted, or propagandized as a way of eliciting a "knee-jerk" response from the masses, or as a way of manipulating its citizenry.

There are certain instances where "pride in one's race" can be beneficial, as in organizing and bringing people together, as a whole. This is especially true in the case of the oppression of people of color: black, brown, yellow, and red. But, I also believe this to be one case where "white" has no basis from which to lay claim, since they have been the "known" oppressors of those of color, for centuries.

Thank you,

Ter

[Myra Bronstein]

I am relieved that this thread shows sign of reaching the end. There are no two members of this Forum that I respect more than Robert Charles-Dunne and John Simkin. However, I also have come to like and respect Myra Bronstein for her views and I feel she has not quite gotten a fair shake. Although Myra has demonstrated that she is more than capable of defending herself here, I feel obliged to offer a small measure of support. I'm going to endeavor to keep my comments brief.

The background to this dispute that spawned this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Myra. John, I thought many members gave you a vote of confidence, either explicitly or implicitly. I don't believe it was fair to lump Charles and Myra together; Their responses and reactions in this thread were quite different from each other's. Nothing about Myra's conduct would lead me to believe that she would target someone for attack, unless they attacked her first. In fact, I found most of Myra's comments fair and reasonable. That's just my opinion.

I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

Thank you Mike. I appreciate your comments and assure you the respect is mutual.

Myra

[Charles Black]

Myra

I offer you a very sincere apology. It was not until I had read your post #236 and subsequent comments by such prideless stalwarts such as John, Robert Charles and Mike that I noticed that we were being referred to being linked as if we were two peas in a pod.

Though many of our thoughts seem to be in agreement, I would feel very bad if because of this, it was thought that you alone were supporting such a derelict as I.

I am quite sincere when I say "I am truly sorry." My own "self respect" would suffer were I not serious.

You know, it must be either a symptom or a result of my perceived mental unbalance, but what I hear these "stalwarts" exclaiming is a great amount of PRIDE in their attack and disclaimer of the human benefit brought about by pride and self respect.

Their "self pride in their rightousness" does not allow them to withdraw. It is they, not I, who have kept these flames burning. It is as if these "prideless persons" will not be satisfied until I sink with my ship. If my posts are re read, you will see several attempts that I have made to bail out.

Regardless, I am satisfied with myself except for the discomfort which I may have caused you. I also have a great deal of faith in my prior exclamations, and I do take pride in being exactly what I am and in the beliefs which I hold. I have defended them before !

Charlie Black

[Sid Walker]

I was involuntarily absent from the forum while this thread developed. Consequently I read through it all in one go, yesterday afternoon my time.

As the rest of my comments shall be flippant, I'll start by saying that my appreciation for John and this forum only grow with time.

IMO, it is primarily John's commitment to free and fair speech about important topics that make this forum a special place. I'm sure he has the overwhelming appreciation of forum participants at a difficult time.

Now for the rest...

The forum reminds me of my schooldays. Teacher comes into class and tells class it has been behaving very badly and there have been complaints. We are all invited to discuss our behaviour, while teacher marks homework and occasionally interjects.

The ensuing squabbles, of course, proves that teacher is correct. Some of the cheekiest members of class delight in helping him make his point, again and again and again.

Meanwhile there are several subplots, some off-topic bickering, occasional flirting and further interjections by an apparently exasperated teacher. Many kids just stare out of the window. Paper aeroplanes are exchanged. There are a few rude noises and a couple of smelly farts.

Yet in the end, an outside observer can perceive the underlying rationality in the strategy employed by John Simkin – an avowed anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist - who subverts the dominant paradigm in plain sight while the rest of us aren't even noticing.

This thread has succeeded where successive generations of peace movements on both sides of the puddle have failed.

It has split the 'Atlantic Alliance' - causing resumption of the mutual distrust and acrimony between Britain and America that was the natural state of affairs before the loathsome Winston Churchill wheedled his way into Downing Street.

Brits accuse Americans of being crass, boorish yobbos. Americans accuse Brits of being slimy, lying hypocrites. Both are essentially correct.

As a self-hating English-speaking Australian with strong anti-American tendencies, I find this very encouraging.

There may yet be a way we can rid ourselves of the American bases and spy facilities that make a mockery of our own 'independence'.

I shall ask Her Majesty the Queen, through His Excellency the Governor General in Canberra, to order the arrest of our quisling Prime Minister and directly instruct occupying Yanks to b+++++ off and return Pine Gap to its original inhabitants.

It would be fun to watch Brits and Americans duke it out, assaulting each other with their vile armaments on their own home turf while giving the Iraqis, Afghanis and Germans a well-deserved rest from their evil doing.

I’ve aleady picked my side in World War Five.

I stand 100% behind the Aboriginals and shall be happy slinging spears at both these uncivilized self-styled 'races'.

The sooner they both 'race' off to Mars, the better for the rest of us.

It will take a few million years for the pre-1788 biodiversity of the Australian continent to recover. The priceless cultural heritage of hundreds of language groups and many millennia of practical experience has been eradicated for ever.

Nevertheless, taking a very long-term view, Australia may eventually recover from Anglo-Saxon invaders and their so-called ‘civilization’.

Looking on the bright side, as far as I'm aware, these paragons of virtue have yet to spray depleted uranium around this land.

One of the benefits of staying inside the protection racket?

Edited February 13, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra

I offer you a very sincere apology. It was not until I had read your post #236 and subsequent comments by such prideless stalwarts such as John, Robert Charles and Mike that I noticed that we were being referred to being linked as if we were two peas in a pod.

Though many of our thoughts seem to be in agreement, I would feel very bad if because of this, it was thought that you alone were supporting such a derelict as I.

I am quite sincere when I say "I am truly sorry." My own "self respect" would suffer were I not serious.

You know, it must be either a symptom or a result of my perceived mental unbalance, but what I hear these "stalwarts" exclaiming is a great amount of PRIDE in their attack and disclaimer of the human benefit brought about by pride and self respect.

Their "self pride in their rightousness" does not allow them to withdraw. It is they, not I, who have kept these flames burning. It is as if these "prideless persons" will not be satisfied until I sink with my ship. If my posts are re read, you will see several attempts that I have made to bail out.

Regardless, I am satisfied with myself except for the discomfort which I may have caused you. I also have a great deal of faith in my prior exclamations, and I do take pride in being exactly what I am and in the beliefs which I hold. I have defended them before !

Charlie Black

Charlie! No no please understand. I was saying that lumping two people together in such a specious context did a disservice to both people. I wouldn't have appreciated it no matter who the other person was. If I was willing to be assimilated into the Borg collective with anyone, you'd be a fine choice.

I share your faith in your prior exclamations, I understand your pride in being overt and genuine in your beliefs, and I am determined to remain up-front in my own communication--because I respect that from others.

As this thread reaches an end (as Mike so skilfully said ) I'd like you to know that I appreciate the self-respect you've demonstrated in this thread. I never came out and said so before merely because I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to encourage anyone to post statements in alignment with me.

Respectfully,

Myra

[Myra Bronstein]

I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

I specifically avoided mentioning names in order not to stir the pot any further. It was my hope that a mild general rebuke from me - someone who is neither an administrator nor a moderator here, and [hopefully] not known for raising my voice - would cause the guilty parties to reflect on their own behaviour and thus scale back on the unwarranted vitriol directed at the gentlemen who run this establishment.

When I invite people into my home, any topic is fair game for open - but respectful and polite - debate. But, if after having eaten the food and quaffed the beverages, one or more of my guests become abusive toward others, there is a good chance they will ruin the occasion. As a host, it becomes my responsibility to see to it that they mind their manners. If they cannot, then it becomes my awkward responsibility to usher them toward the door.

...

Good metaphor Robert. It's very useful to put things into that context. I can envision being one of many guests from various countries in the home of two co-hosts and sitting around having lively discussions and debates. It could be a social gathering or a meeting of political activists. Whatever; we’re guests.

I further imagine that a host suddenly makes an announcement to the chattering guests:

“I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some guests. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. 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.

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’m stunned and sort of embarrassed as an American. I turn a little red and stare at my toes. I sense unease among some other Americans. But I try not to be thin-skinned so shake it off and promptly make supportive statements of the hosts:

“I've always appreciated Host1’s restraint in dealing with jerks. It's resulted, IMO, in a home 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.”

I then offer my insights and suggestions on the issue Host1 asked us about, and complete remarks by saying:

“Thanks for asking for our input Host1.”

Other members are also giving thoughtful and polite input when Host2 chimes in:

“Host1’s original statement amounted to an appeal for an end to bad language and gratuitous insults. I agree with him incidentally that many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively without recourse to either.”

Now I’m rather mortified at the finger pointing by both of my hosts towards their American guests. I feel humiliated and embarrassed on behalf of the American guests. I don’t expect to be talked to with such disrespect. And I know the hosts could have chosen to make a general announcement, without attacks on any one nationality, requested input, and put a process into place to remedy the problem without ever pointing fingers and hurting feelings. Instead they made the choice to point fingers. I feel strongly that the host’s statements are inflammatory and uncalled for. So I make the following rebuttal:

“Telling a large diverse group—in this case Americans--that their culture is abusive and that they’re unable to express themselves well is about as rude and mean-spirited as any remark could possibly be. And the very people spewing such statements are telling other people that they have behavior problems…?

Actually it’s way beyond ironic, though it’s certainly that. It’s downright hypocritical.

By contrast, and in spite of significant provocation, not one American here has made a comparable comment such as:

“Good god those Brits have an attitude even bigger than their heads!” or

"My goodness the English are masters at claiming the high road while taking the low road."

Not one…”

I expect that my point is made that guests deserve to be treated with respect by hosts, and I join in the resumed discussion about the stated problem. At that point Host2 again chimes in:

“Good Lord this is like being at school. Naughty pupils when pulled up immediately cast around trying to project blame onto someone else. GK Chesterton could perhaps teach you all a lesson or two about what is wrong here - "The problem with this country is me"

Just take the message please guests that if you continue to swear at each other and abuse each other your posts and perhaps even your membership will be deleted. This is a place for 'friendly discussions between teachers and educators' after all” he concludes while rolling his eyes.

So now we’re “naughty pupils trying to project blame onto someone else” and I feel sure that the statement, with the accompanying eye-roll, clearly communicates Host2’s contempt for some or all of his guests. I further feel—as I stated explicitly—that the Hosts are mistreating their guests, being disrespectful and rude. I don’t think good Hosts treat guests this way. I don’t think guests with self-respect tolerate it.

I imply, using a quaint American idiom, that the Hosts, who are demanding good behavior from their guests, are pots calling the kettle black.

I then do what many Americans do in awkward situations to make people more comfortable. I make jokes to lighten the mood (and which I’m certain are friggen hilarious ). Multiple guests join in the joking. We’re having fun, being all silly and playful, with the only victims of the humor being noses, and even then only certain noses.

Meanwhile Guest2 speaks up:

“I, although I realize the possible consequences, cannot live with myself if I do not express what follows.

For a number of hours, I have both bitten my tongue and taped my fingers in a "sincere effort to not respond" to what I feel to be Host2’s unhidden antagonism toward "Americans", which he expressed in his statement and has so done in the past.

I refer to the entire sentiment of his statement, and in particular to his statement that "....many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively.."

Although I cannot call this truly "racist"....in my opinion, it could even be something much worse.

Host2...Am I at this moment "particularly poor at expressing" myself "effectively" ?

As it seems that your true "problem" seems more to be U.S. citizens rather than "guest misbehaviour",

I feel that the solution, which you might inwardly seek, has a most easy solution. Your inferences and rhetoric, seem more in agreement with the direct references to racial superiority, expressed by your Euro neighbors who frequently "dropped in on you" during the "forties".

Since I realize that I am one of those backward unfortunates, who has only recently emerged from the dregs of the swamplands of Florida, here in the New World, I hope that you wont find it necessary to find an interpreter for this post !”

And then Guest3 inquires:

“Host1:

Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture?”

And yet another, Guest4, pipes up:

“I also find his apparent animosity towards us disconcerting but note that he said “many” and not “all” or even “most Americans.”

Meanwhile general chatter and joking continues. The tone of the gathering is, remarkably, convivial when Host1 replies to the question posed by Guest3, and says, in part:

“It is indeed true that a large percentage of members of this gathering 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 guest. I do think it is partly cultural.”

Host 1 gives an example of how aggressive, unpleasant, violent, and sentimental characters are in American movies and concludes:

“However, in gatherings, 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.”

Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length.

At that point the gathering turns ugly, deteriorating into direct confrontations and causing much resentment. And so it remains, with a few scenic side trips thrown in, though this particular metaphorical gathering is definitely winding down. I, as a metaphorical guest, am personally astounded that our metaphorical hosts would repeatedly insult the nationality of many of their guests, and just as bad or worse, complain about certain guests—by name—in front of everybody.

I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.

Just now a guest tried to calm the waters and offer perspective by making a metaphorical comparison of the gathering incident. And it’s a fine metaphor, most illuminating. I now clearly see that both guests and hosts must be respectful of others in order to have a successful, pleasant and productive gathering.

Real world reference posts: 1, 11, 22, 26, 28, 31, 33, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 67, 70>

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length......

I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.

I assume that the guest in question is Ashton Gray. I personally did not see the post in which Ashton accused John Simkin of being CIA, but I have no doubt it happened, and that John's beef was legitimate, and deserved to be publicly addressed. Ashton Gray might as well have been an Eskimo, for all the difference his nationality made, either to John, or to the others Mr. Gray has accused of being CIA. I think it was before you joined the forum, but Mr. Gray had previously accused at least three other members of being CIA before he decided to sink his claws into John.

As for the one and only Mr. Andy Walker, remember what a great American -- Mark Twain -- said about Wagner: His music is not as bad as it sounds.

Just now a guest tried to calm the waters and offer perspective by making a metaphorical comparison of the gathering incident. And it’s a fine metaphor, most illuminating. I now clearly see that both guests and hosts must be respectful of others in order to have a successful, pleasant and productive gathering.

Edited February 13, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Charles Black]

Excellent posts Myra

It recently struck me while I was reading of the self proclaimed "absence of pride" shared among three or four of the forum elite....how monstrously absurd are some of these posts. ABSENCE OF PRIDE ?

How can there be absence of pride in posts that are overflowing with ARROGANCE.

My question is arrogance of what ? It is as if some seem to think that I should be foolish enough to wish to MIMIC them !

Instead of a JFK research debate, this daily sounds more like a lecture from MRS. MANNERS... a long ago TV hostess.

I also feel a little differently regarding what "I Owe" the hosts of this forum. I feel that I owe them no more or no less than I owe any other individual on this forum or that which they owe me.

Am I really expected to be so culturally well mannered that I am to accept SLANDER....and told that I am to accept it because the slanderers are "picking up the tab?" I am expected to prostitute myself to prove that I am one of the jolly good old chaps ?

My only SIN is one of Omission ! I refuse to pretend to agree with statements that hold no truth, and are meant to enrage thru malicious slander, that is every bit as venomous as abuse of race or gender.

I wouldn't submit to this if you were going to boot me off the face of the earth....much less this forum ! I realize that I have entered a gunfight armed with a pen knife. I have well understood the not so muffled threats.

Charlie Black

[John Dolva]

Pride is a luvely ole thing...as long as it's not challenged. Then it shows its impermanence and fragility. It's simply a seductive illusion.

As such it becomes a tool used to control, manipulate, divide.

A nation made up of truly independent and free people has no need for this pride. Rather it becomes a beacon for those in need of pride. This needed pride is often declared as a fact, and because it is false it leads to the inevitable fall.

It's how the weak and defenseless are treated in ones own back yard that defines the strength of a nation or a people. It's not the size of its arsenal or the roar of tribal approbation that defines its strength.

Culture ultimately is a thing of love and compassion. It's strength and lasting power is really the ONLY thing that has helped humanity to survive thus far.

Something like 300.000.000 people died of armed conflict in the 20th century. Something like 100 trillion dollars were spent on things to kill people with.

I think John F. Kennedy had a solid grasp on this and saw the need for all people, not just any particular tribe, to be able to live in peace and freedom, as the only sane path to take. His assassination was by those who could not stomach this paradigm.

It is far more courageous and a sign of strength to choose peace and love. This can ultimately mean self sacrifice. When pride of self becomes the label for what is really cowardice, then this seems such a powerful self delusion that one will stop at nothing to defend that lie. Isn't it really the weak that kill and destroy.

The fact that it has taken 44 years to not find the assassins of Kennedy is (IMO) a result of the inability of humanity to accept its own failings and to always seek an outside force to blame.

Presidents and wars come and go.

The dramatic change that the proposed Civil Rights act of 1963 which Kennedy was prepared to go to the polls with would have marked the end of an era that once in place could not be reversed. The wide ranging changes in the domestic economic relations within the USofA would have spelled the end of centuries old social structures. That new America would have meant a new world. A new set of doctrines and policies that would level the global economic playing field. Far more economically devastating to the status quo than a lesser war here or there.

The smoke screens that have ensured the failure to find the assassins are welcomed by the researchers because the implications of accepting the need to look within ones own society for the assassins are so brilliantly demonstrated by the 'behaviour' thread.

_____________

those who take the time to plow through these long documents will find the blueprints for the dogma behind the forces that were able to engineer the event.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|7|1|1|1|85865|

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|5|1|1|1|85438|

Edited February 13, 2007 by John Dolva

[Myra Bronstein]

Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length......

I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.

I assume that the guest in question is Ashton Gray. I personally did not see the post in which Ashton accused John Simkin of being CIA, but I have no doubt it happened, and that John's beef was legitimate, and deserved to be publicly addressed. ...

I don't believe that's the case. In the thread where John is discussing a person he says accused him of being a CIA agent

("John Simkin: CIA Agent?" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...james+richards) he explicitly rules out Ashton Gray:

"I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA. As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed. However, the person who has been named does not fall into this category. We never clash and I virtually agree with everything he says. I also do not believe he is himself CIA. He is also extremely intelligent. Therefore, he has obviously been told a very convincing story by someone he trusts. Maybe he will be willing to post this story."

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Pride is a luvely ole thing...as long as it's not challenged. Then it shows its impermanence and fragility. It's simply a seductive illusion.

As such it becomes a tool used to control, manipulate, divide.

A nation made up of truly independent and free people has no need for this pride. Rather it becomes a beacon for those in need of pride. This needed pride is often declared as a fact, and because it is false it leads to the inevitable fall.

It's how the weak and defenseless are treated in ones own back yard that defines the strength of a nation or a people. It's not the size of its arsenal or the roar of tribal approbation that defines its strength.

Culture ultimately is a thing of love and compassion. It's strength and lasting power is really the ONLY thing that has helped humanity to survive thus far.

Something like 300.000.000 people died of armed conflict in the 20th century. Something like 100 trillion dollars were spent on things to kill people with.

I think John F. Kennedy had a solid grasp on this and saw the need for all people, not just any particular tribe, to be able to live in peace and freedom, as the only sane path to take. His assassination was by those who could not stomach this paradigm.

It is far more courageous and a sign of strength to choose peace and love. This can ultimately mean self sacrifice. When pride of self becomes the label for what is really cowardice, then this seems such a powerful self delusion that one will stop at nothing to defend that lie. Isn't it really the weak that kill and destroy.

The fact that it has taken 44 years to not find the assassins of Kennedy is (IMO) a result of the inability of humanity to accept its own failings and to always seek an outside force to blame.

Presidents and wars come and go.

The dramatic change that the proposed Civil Rights act of 1963 which Kennedy was prepared to go to the polls with would have marked the end of an era that once in place could not be reversed. The wide ranging changes in the domestic economic relations within the USofA would have spelled the end of centuries old social structures. That new America would have meant a new world. A new set of doctrines and policies that would level the global economic playing field. Far more economically devastating to the status quo than a lesser war here or there.

The smoke screens that have ensured the failure to find the assassins are welcomed by the researchers because the implications of accepting the need to look within ones own society for the assassins are so brilliantly demonstrated by the 'behaviour' thread.

_____________

those who take the time to plow through these long documents will find the blueprints for the dogma behind the forces that were able to engineer the event.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|7|1|1|1|85865|

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|5|1|1|1|85438|

If one will search the American Bar Association, as well as a few seperate State Bar Association, they just may find many "associations" which have remained somewhat obscurred.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...39124-1,00.html

His unaccustomed ally was John C. Satterfield of Mississippi, the most prominent segregationist lawyer in the country.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/section/cons...onsultants.html

1937-1939 R.G. STOREY

Dallas, Texas

1939-1940 CHARLES E. DUNBAR, JR.

New Orleans, Louisiana