Behaviour of Members

[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

[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.

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

Kathy has always been nice to me (and vice versa)...and I want to stress that if she was banished

from Rich's forum (which I was not aware of) it certainly was NOT for abusive personal attacks but

strictly a personality clash with certain other persons. She has done some good research that I know

about, for instance regarding Donald Norton.

Jack

Jack

[Guest]

John's original post in this thread 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.

In no way should this be interpreted as favouring one partial view or protagonist on any topic over another.

In short if you regularly swear and insult others in your posts please stop. If you are incapable of recognising that you do we will stop you.

[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

Another member here who was banished by DellaRosa is Wim Dankbaar, whose disruption

was not so much personal attacks on members but an ongoing "battle" with member

Bob Vernon regarding the stories of James Files and Judyth Baker. In effect, Vernon and

Wim were using the forum to conduct a bitter private argument, so Rich banned both

after repeated warnings. Just for the record....

Jack

[Pat Speer]

My take: telling someone they are incorrect or way off base is fine; telling someone they're an idiot is not fine. Telling Jack White he is wrong about something is fine; telling Jack White he is senile is not fine. Saying you can't understand why someone holds a particular viewpoint is fine; accusing them of being a "CIA sockpuppet" or a "resident CIA disinformationist" is not fine. That some think my questioning whether or not someone is who he says he or she is abhorrent and worse than this person's repeatedly calling me a puppet of those he or she proposes killed Kennedy, is beyond my comprehension. In the name of civility, however, I'll try and abstain from questioning the motives of such people in the future. This type of behavior spreads like an infection. I don't think it's a coincidence that the input of many of the most respected members of the forum has slowed to a trickle in recent months.

[Myra Bronstein]

John's original post in this thread 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.

In no way should this be interpreted as favouring one partial view or protagonist on any topic over another.

In short if you regularly swear and insult others in your posts please stop. If you are incapable of recognising that you do we will stop you.

John>”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.”

Adam>”I agree with him incidentally that many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively without recourse to either.”

What’s surprising about these statements is not that they’re so nasty. Certain sources can’t surprise in that way anymore. The amazing part is that these statements are made with no apparent sense of irony.

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…

[Myra Bronstein]

My take: telling someone they are incorrect or way off base is fine; telling someone they're an idiot is not fine. Telling Jack White he is wrong about something is fine; telling Jack White he is senile is not fine. Saying you can't understand why someone holds a particular viewpoint is fine; accusing them of being a "CIA sockpuppet" or a "resident CIA disinformationist" is not fine. That some think my questioning whether or not someone is who he says he or she is abhorrent and worse than this person's repeatedly calling me a puppet of those he or she proposes killed Kennedy, is beyond my comprehension. In the name of civility, however, I'll try and abstain from questioning the motives of such people in the future. This type of behavior spreads like an infection. I don't think it's a coincidence that the input of many of the most respected members of the forum has slowed to a trickle in recent months.

I think this is a really good description of what's over the line versus what's not. Ad hominem attacks of the kind in Pat's examples are over the line IMO.

[Len Colby]

I think it up to John and Andy to decide whether to ban or suspend members for impolite behavior. As I think Dave suggested a warning system would be good. Some forums allow administrators to set “warning levels” (in percent – 100% = ban or suspension) for members I don’t know if that can be done with this forum’s software but would be good because it minimizes moderator bias or the appearance of moderator bias.

Without naming names to throw fuel on the fire it is interesting to note that the two members who most complain about personal attacks are also two of the worst offenders.

[Greg Parker]

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.

I do not have the time to monitor these people. Especially as they tend to post on threads that I have little interest in.

John, a simple solution may be to make "Photographic Evidence" a subforum under Controversial Issues in History. This could pertain to anything... JFK, moon landing, 9/11 etc thus removing most of the problems from other forums. The two small groups who love to use those topics as attack launch-pads against each other could then go for it among themselves to their hearts content. You wouldn't have to monitor it - just put in some type of warning "label" so that anyone venturing in to view or make posts will know what to expect, and therefore have no right to complain.

I know this is not ideal, in that certain individuals would feel vulnerable, but then, there does not appear to be any ideal solution, and the vulnerability issue would at least not be any worse than it is currently. If they ignore the attacks, stay on topic and post only actual research, the attacks will probably start to abate. If the fish aren't biting, what's the point of fishing?

The main thing is to remove and isolate the problem from other forums. I believe your lack of interest in the areas you mention also applies to the majority of posters.

[Guest]

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 members 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

Myra, (or may I call you Mary?) who is "Adam"?

[Bill Grote]

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.

Hi John,

While I would find it hard to ban certain people, it does appear as though personal issues, put-downs and innuendo certainly tend to get in the way of research into the JFK assasination. I'm sorry that it is the Americans that tend to be the most distracting. But then, they did re-elect a great team like Bush and Cheney -- So please don't set the bar too high.

I agree that it is really distracting to see really interesting research get misled in a thread by put downs. It also seems that some people tend to re-direct the threads into their own forum expressing their own superiority of thought by ridiculing another idea or theory rather than encouraging independent thought that may not agree with their own.

I think a warning system, rather than a banning, would help some individuals realize when they've stepped over the line. In that way the offenders can learn that their behavior is wrong. Then if they continue perhaps a temporary ban. It's really to bad that this has to happen at all. I apologize for my countrypeople, but hopefully we aren't all like that.

[Myra Bronstein]

Good Lord this is like being at school. Naughty pupils when pulled up immediately cast around trying to project blame onto someone else.

Myra, (or may I call you Mary?) who is "Adam"?

Oh, heh heh, it was meant to say "Andy." "ANDY." "A-N-D-Y." But since I tend to skip Andy's posts without reading them I apparently blocked out that name. Not a surprising misnomer from this source considering Americans reportedly can't express themselves well...

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 members 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

In the heartwarming spirit of "friendly" schoolin', one may suggest that Wikipedia could perhaps teach some a lesson or two about what is wrong here, and at the same time educate some about American idioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

[Bernice Moore]

John and Andy

Do what you must.

Enforce your Forums rules.....add some, delete some, whatever....is needed..

....if and when you see a problem, use your own judgement,

you are the administrators....and that is a period.

If any complain, with their excuses, so what....you do control such.

and before this turns into an argument thread about not arguing....

Humans being what they are, do need control and rules, or anarchy prevails..

That is the nature of their beast.

B

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Good grief. Has it really come to this?

Free speech is a guaranteed human right among civilized societies, but any right is accompanied by corresponding responsibilities. Not least among these responsibilites is the one that people have to well represent themselves and their "cause;" to comport themselves in a way that doesn't depict them in an unflattering light.

A few thoughts directed toward those who have trouble policing their own behaviour:

Rather than dash off a hastily composed nasty reply to somebody who has provoked your ire, re-read your reply prior to sending it. If you would be offended to receive such a reply, then perhaps you could and should revise it prior to pressing the "add reply" button.

When in doubt, leave your reply overnight and sleep on it. If you feel differently about it in the morning, revise it prior to posting.

Try to focus on the content of another person's post, rather than the underlying behaviour you infer from it. Attacking somebody's argument is to be encouraged; it's why we're here. Attacking the person is a low-rent move and diminishes the respect that other Forum members may have for you. It's a "debate" over points of view. Simply disagreeing is allowed. Trashing one's opponent as somehow unworthy of the debate only raises the question of why you bother to respond.

Rather than paraphrase somebody's argument, deal with it directly by citing the passages that you find untenable. That way you avoid concocting your own strawman argument, simply to knock it down. And avoid being accused of same.

The "remove" and "anonymity" of posting to each other encourages people to be more direct in words than they would be were they in the same room with the recipient of their posts. Imagine yourself sitting at the same table with your intended target, over a beer or cup of tea. If you wouldn't say it to their face, leave it out of your posts.

Please let it be understood that I have sniped at others in the past and grew to regret the tone upon re-reading it later. [Tim Gratz and Gerry Hemming were the targets, and I'm sure had I better taken my own advice listed above, I could have made the intended points without causing myself to wince at my own vehemence at a later date.] I mention this to ensure that others don't think I'm lecturing them from a pinnacle of condescension, but instead understand that I've tried to modify my own past excesses by using the tips listed above.

As always, my free advice is worth precisely what one has paid to hear it.

[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.

Andy, Please ban John.

John, Please ban Andy (and Adam too--just to be safe).