Behaviour of Members

[John Simkin]

Any actual and honest address to the record will demonstrate conclusively that my initial questions to both Alfred Baldwin and Douglas Caddy were polite and not remotely sarcastic. Both uniformly evaded the questions and refused to answer them. In fact, Douglas Caddy started a campaign to get me banned from these forums before I had asked him any questions at all, so the statement above is false on its face, as is proven by the record if anybody wanted to deal with actual fact.

Then Caddy jumped in on the tag-team with Pat Speer to smear me personally—which you condoned.

Alfred Baldwin joined the forum in December, 2005. Doug Caddy joined in January 2006. For the next six months they answered questions on the forum about their knowledge of Watergate. Alfred made it clear there were certain questions he could not answer because of the deal that he made that prevented him answering some of these questions. Doug was an especially valued member. He had been one of the founders of the Young Americans for Freedom, an organization that I have been doing research on. Not only was he involved in the legal defence of people like E. Howard Hunt, he had also represented Billie Sol Estes when he claimed that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JFK. He also knew a great deal about Mac Wallace, another figure who was at the centre of my research. Alfred and Doug did not tell us everything the knew about Watergate. There were legal reasons for this. Members of the forum recognized this problem but continued to treat these two men with respect.

Ashton Gray joined on 26th May, 2006. His aggressive style of questioning understandably upset Alfred and Doug. This included his insistence that Doug was a CIA agent. This put me in a difficult situation. I knew this behaviour would result in Alfred and Doug refusing to answer questions. However, because of my belief in freedom of speech, I did not delete Ashton’s questions or his membership. This upset Alfred and Doug and so they stopped providing me with information (both on and off the forum).

Pat Speer, who had also been questioning Alfred and Doug, understandably became upset by Ashton's behaviour. He tried to defend Doug and Alfred from your strident accusations and he then became a victim of your attacks. Once again, I defended you right to make these comments. In doing so, I risked losing Pat’s friendship. Luckily, Pat is a reasonable man and has forgiven me for my actions. You on the other hand, have continued in your attempts to upset other members with your rude and sarcastic comments.

I have suffered a great deal for preserving your freedom of speech. In return, you have accused me of defending the CIA. In fact, it seems to me, that you are in fact doing the work of the CIA by frightening off people from talking about their past. experiences.

[John Simkin]

I may not be your first choice, but if I can help out in any way I would be most obliged. I am a student and have a good deal of free time on my hands. I realise that my youth may be an issue. If you are stuck for someone to help out, even in a minor role, I am certainly available.

In fact, you would be one of my first choices. I will contact you about this by email.

Do we have any other volunteers? It might be a good idea to have a panel of 3 moderators. If we only use one they might be accused of having a "secret agenda". It is important the other two volunteers have not been involved in any previous disputes.

[John Dolva]

Certainly not me,

_____________

but (and I hope to be forgiven if unappreciated) I'd nominate Robin as probably one of the least confromtational and most helpful of members. I suspect he would never volunteer but perhaps with a push.

Edited February 3, 2007 by John Dolva

[Len Colby]

Len ... I already apologized for my unkind behavior and insulting comments to some of the members who have insulted me ever since I joined this forum .... Too bad you are not big enough of a man to do the same thing ... Your treatment of Jack White and now me is completely out of line .... And I stand behind what I posted yesterday on the political Conspircies forum .... If anyone should be banned for insulting conduct it should be you and Lamson ... Not only for your constant insults to Jack and me but now for your outright lies .. No one ever "politely" rebutted my Apollo evidence posted here ... but if you consider being called a crackpot , ignoramous, delusional , stupid , etc ., mostly by Craig Lamson as being "polite" , then you really do need a reality check ....

None of you will let up .... Your posts to me today on the Political Conspiracies prove that ... But I will not be dragged into another brawl by you , Lamson , or anyone else on this forum who defend Apollo with the most dispicable of tactics .

I didn't realize that you and Lamson and Ulman and Burton had come here from the Bad Astronomy forum until I read Jack's post here last night .... Now it all makes perfect sense why you are all so rude and insulting .... everyone on that pathetic forum acts the same way the four of you do when it comes to trying to debunk the hoax evidence ....

Sorry to dissapoint you but I will no longer play your game by answering your dishonest comments or your personal attacks .

Duane I have yet to see you apologize and there was nothing incorrect in my post I don't remember saying anything to Jack that merits an apology if you or anyone else would point out when I have done so I will. As for you you've been here less time i have never said anything to you that calls for an apology. I never insulted you (the converse isn't true though). Craig didn't insult you in the thread you said he remided you of what you had to scrape off your shoe after walking your dog. I note that you continue to insult Craig without provocation (calling him a "2nd rate nobody photographer"). I furthur replied to you here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=92417 Edited February 3, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

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.

This is simply a formula used in movies for conflict and resolution. Every movie has to have conflict (in the sense of tension, not necessarily violence), preferrably some conflict in every scene, to hold interest. No one wants to hear one detective tell another throughout the movie "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie." For a good movie, you've got to have the detectives or the main characters arguing, disagreeing, or fighting about something all the time as they are trying to reach whatever their goal is in the story. So I think this has less to do with culture than with good movie-making.

Some of the best British films I've ever seen are full of conflict, whether serious or hilarious, e.g., "This Sporting Life," "The Wrong Box," "Lawrence of Arabia." Conflict is what movies are about.

A prime example of an English movie with lots of conflict and aggressive behavior is Sexy Beast (a gangster film, not sure why they gave it that title) where Ben Kingsley plays (as one critic put it) an "anti-Gandhi' one of the most aggressive movie characters in recent memory. The Long Good Friday is another example.

[Len Colby]

Do we have any other volunteers? It might be a good idea to have a panel of 3 moderators. If we only use one they might be accused of having a "secret agenda". It is important the other two volunteers have not been involved in any previous disputes.

I nominate myself!

Just kidding

[Charles Black]

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.

I may have to review, but I don't believe that the British Empire became at one time the largest empire in the world by winning cricket matches and sipping pints in pubs.

I agree entirely. See my comments on the Empire of Disorder thread. I am no defender of the British Empire.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7751

I am sure that individual Britons were also extremely aggressive when they thought they ruled the world but I was not around then. The current problem concerns the American Empire. As a country the United States thinks it can use its power and technology to bully the rest of the world to do what it wants. It should have discovered from its experiences in Vietnam that this was not the case. Unfortunately, your political leaders (and a large percentage of the electorate) were unable to grasp the truth that the US had been defeated in Vietnam and are therefore having to learn the same lesson all over again in Iraq.

John

Not to belabor a point, but was it ONLY my government that chose to forget the lessons of our "defeat" in Viet Nam ? I'm certain that you don't need to again hear Mr. Blair's comments during this period prior to the current Iraq debacle regurgitated !

And on the matter of culture, realizing that we are a "new" nation.....other than your old established nation / empire, where should we the most "newborn" turn in our search of a greater understanding of culture? We somewhat are not too in favor of Neville Chamberlain's cultural approach !

Italy? Greece? Persia? Their culture serves them well in the world today !

I realize that I am asking for culture to be somewhat "defined"....I also realize, unless you wish to refer to Webster, that you can say that it is one of those intangibles, which if you are not already blessed with it...there is no way that it can be explained to you.

I suppose this makes as much sense as the other sentiments that I am hearing.

Charlie Black

[John Dolva]

A disciplined and powerful British empire utimately could not defeat the guerilla on home ground. This was about two and a half centuries ago. And then the treaty of Paris recognised the United States.

In Chile the cry of the people was not only 'a people united will never be defeated' but as the crisis approached the cry was 'a people armed will never be defeated'. Allende misread the situation and the people were defenseless as the Army attacked.

"Ho Ho Ho Ci Minh - Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win" "Hey Hey LBJ how many kids have you killed today", and win the VC did.

An attack on Cuba today, as in 1962 but more so, is doomed to fail.

The US interference in the sovereignty of countries around the world is often the impulse that leads to so much misery. This warlike approach is very outdated in much of the global community. The complicity of the defeated in the US contributes to it by not educating themselves and not swinging in behind the right presidential candidate, and participating in, and promoting voter registration and comprehensive scrutiny of the voting process, and, of course, voting.

The world that aspires to TRUE freedom looks forward to the day that the US form of 'democracy' matures beyond interest group politics. Basically it's picking up the thread that was cut 44 years ago.

[Michael Hogan]

I may not be your first choice, but if I can help out in any way I would be most obliged. I am a student and have a good deal of free time on my hands. I realise that my youth may be an issue. If you are stuck for someone to help out, even in a minor role, I am certainly available.

In fact, you would be one of my first choices. I will contact you about this by email.

Do we have any other volunteers? It might be a good idea to have a panel of 3 moderators. If we only use one they might be accused of having a "secret agenda". It is important the other two volunteers have not been involved in any previous disputes.

I think John Geraghty is an excellent choice and I thank him for offering. John's passion for truth and his ability to seek and find knowledge has always been evident from his posts, in my opinion.

John Geraghty's youth is a non-issue, except that it is heartening to see that there are a few good young people out there willing to take the torch when it is passed.

John Geraghty has an extremely bright future in whatever endeavors he chooses to pursue. As I have told John before, I look forward to reading his first book.

[David G. Healy]

I may not be your first choice, but if I can help out in any way I would be most obliged. I am a student and have a good deal of free time on my hands. I realise that my youth may be an issue. If you are stuck for someone to help out, even in a minor role, I am certainly available.

In fact, you would be one of my first choices. I will contact you about this by email.

Do we have any other volunteers? It might be a good idea to have a panel of 3 moderators. If we only use one they might be accused of having a "secret agenda". It is important the other two volunteers have not been involved in any previous disputes.

I think John Geraghty is an excellent choice and I thank him for offering. John's passion for truth and his ability to seek and find knowledge has always been evident from his posts, in my opinion.

John Geraghty's youth is a non-issue, except that it is heartening to see that there are a few good young people out there willing to take the torch when it is passed.

John Geraghty has an extremely bright future in whatever endeavors he chooses to pursue. As I have told John before, I look forward to reading his first book.

*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....

How do you provide unbiased E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, when you have "mod's" interrupting "possible" PROPOGANDA and lies?

I suspect JFK is still the biggest attraction on this site (based on posting totals, I have no idea broad lurker visits). If, say the JFK portion of this site goes to a moderated forum, most CTer's will cease posting here. I certainly will, which I'm sure will delight many. Will JFK related traffic decrease? Over the short-term, I doubt it -- Long term, of course it will! Why would this forum be different? Wanna close off spirited JFK assassination related debate, go private -- impose a fee, then you can hear what you and other Lone Nutter's want to HEAR/DISCUSS.

Wanna do something constructive with the Dealey Plaza photo and film aspects of the JFK assassination? Find a source for verifiable original source imagery, which will get all these johnny-come-lately film photo experts on the same page, provide bandwidth for downloading same and space for interpretation-debate concerning same... bet 90% of the nonesense disappears.... as well as the johhny-come-lately's... (especially when they have to confirm their film/photo expertise)

Based on what I see, the ONLYbehaviour problem on this forum surfaces with; JFK-Dealey Plaza related film/photos... way to many theories and careers ride on the subject status quo...

as author David Mantik M.D., Ph.D. is known to of said [when it comes to the JFK debate]: "the hisorians have FAILED us, miserably....".

I'll add; so has the media, public and privately held -- and that now appears to include internet-USNET based outlets.... free speech is ILLUSION, nothing is FREE!

[Ashton Gray]

Any actual and honest address to the record will demonstrate conclusively that my initial questions to both Alfred Baldwin and Douglas Caddy were polite and not remotely sarcastic. Both uniformly evaded the questions and refused to answer them. In fact, Douglas Caddy started a campaign to get me banned from these forums before I had asked him any questions at all, so the statement above is false on its face, as is proven by the record if anybody wanted to deal with actual fact.

Then Caddy jumped in on the tag-team with Pat Speer to smear me personally—which you condoned.

Alfred Baldwin joined the forum in December, 2005. Doug Caddy joined in January 2006. For the next six months they answered questions on the forum about their knowledge of Watergate.

Okay. They had never answered the questions I raised, or I wouldn't have asked those questions.

So to the point:

Do you have or know of any valid reason why the relevant questions I've asked them should not be answered by them—if, in fact, their purpose here is to candidly and truthfully answer questions?

So now there's a question for you.

Alfred made it clear there were certain questions he could not answer because of the deal that he made that prevented him answering some of these questions.

Okay. If someone will identify the specific questions I've asked that encroached on any such deal, and specify why it encroaches on any such deal, I will entirely set aside my native contempt for such "deals," and will withdraw and eradicate from existence those question. I assure you there will be plenty of perfectly polite, non-hostile, non-sarcastic questions I asked still outstanding. So if we could get some specifics brought to bear on this, rather than sweeping generalities, perhaps some actual progress could be made.

And if the issue actually is my gratingly abrasive personality and "style," I will submit the remaining outstanding questions to you, and you can see if you can get the questions answered. I will withdraw entirely from the discussion. All I want is to get the relevant questions actually answered. So are they here to answer people's relevant questions, or not?

Doug was an especially valued member. He had been one of the founders of the Young Americans for Freedom, an organization that I have been doing research on. Not only was he involved in the legal defence of people like E. Howard Hunt, he had also represented Billie Sol Estes when he claimed that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JFK. He also knew a great deal about Mac Wallace, another figure who was at the centre of my research. Alfred and Doug did not tell us everything the knew about Watergate. There were legal reasons for this.

If there are legal reasons, put them in evidence, so the parameters of such actual "legal reasons" can be known, and so it also can be known that claims of "legal reasons" where no actual binding agreement exists aren't being used as a giant smokescreen.

If there actually are binding agreements, the dates of and parties to the binding agreements at the very least can be made of record. If they are made of record, fine. Otherwise: I don't buy it. Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

Ashton Gray joined on 26th May, 2006. His aggressive style of questioning understandably upset Alfred and Doug. This included his insistence that Doug was a CIA agent. This put me in a difficult situation. I knew this behaviour would result in Alfred and Doug refusing to answer questions. However, because of my belief in freedom of speech, I did not delete Ashton’s questions or his membership. This upset Alfred and Doug and so they stopped providing me with information (both on and off the forum).

Pat Speer, who had also been questioning Alfred and Doug, understandably became upset by Ashton's behaviour. He tried to defend Doug and Alfred from your strident accusations and he then became a victim of your attacks. Once again, I defended you right to make these comments. In doing so, I risked losing Pat’s friendship. Luckily, Pat is a reasonable man and has forgiven me for my actions.

Well, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speer, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Caddy for granting me this overwhelming amount of empowerment. I'd also like to point out that I never asked for it, and don't want it.

And here I've never even warmed up in these forums, much less thrown a fast ball. I have to admit that I had no idea that the ten little fingers of a simple country boy dancing lightly across a keyboard possibly could wreak such havoc on four grown men—two of them world famous celebrities; one of those a corporate lawyer, the other a veteran FBI agent. Perhaps I should only type with one hand, or only use half the aphabet or something.

I have suffered a great deal for preserving your freedom of speech.

While I genuinely and deeply appreciate what you do to provide a platform for airing important social issues with worldwide impact, and have said so repeatedly, and have meant every word, I don't make victims, victims make themselves victims. And I haven't granted you, or this forum, or anyone stewardship or control over my freedom of speech. When and if I have to do so, then I have abrogated my own freedom of speech. It is not something granted, as a license: it is sovereign and integral to the individual.

That's one reason I find all this whining about me so absurdly disingenuous. I haven't stopped anybody from communicating at all. That's the fundamental lie. If they've stopped themselves from communicating, and want to use me as an excuse, that's their problem, not mine. If they've stopped themselves from communicating by signing away their own freedom of speech in an oppressive "legal agreement" with a lying federal government that uses such suppressive mechanisms while braying about championing individual freedom, that's also their problem, not mine. If they got themselves into a legal situation where they had to sign over their personal liberties with such a ridiculously oppressive agreement, that's their problem, not mine.

And if they signed such an agreement collusively with the federal goverment to hide the facts (which I consider the most likely reason), that's still their problem, not mine.

In return, you have accused me of defending the CIA.

Will you ask them the questions they won't answer? What price needs to be extracted from me? I'll pay it. Do they want me banned before they'll answer the questions? If so: ban me, permanently, and then make sure they honor actually answering the questions. I didn't ask the questions as some personal crusade: my purpose in asking the questions is to get the truth known. If my removal from these forums will get the questions answered and the truth known, then do it!

In fact, it seems to me, that you are in fact doing the work of the CIA by frightening off people from talking about their past experiences.

Ashton

Edited February 3, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Douglas Caddy]

As an American who has traveled a bit, and lives in an international city, Los Angeles, with as large a percentage of immigrants as any city in the world, I feel I can comment on Andy's statements. He's right. Americans are extremely aggressive, among the most aggressive people in the world. Part of this is our "Ugly American" attitude. If you take a day trip to Mexico you'll find Americans lined up at Papa's 'N' Beer, paying Mexican waiters to toss Tequila poppers down their throat and hold a towel over their mouths so they don't throw it back up. Part of it is purely conditioning. People in Los Angeles learn to drive fast, otherwise they won't get anywhere on time. The MTA adds extra minutes onto the route of any bus going through Chinatown, because Asian immigrants are known to drive much slower than those born here.

Now, if you get outside the large urban centers, you might witness a more laid back, passive existence. (Not completely true--small town folks in the Western states drive 90 mph on the highways and Americans, everywhere, like to drink and fight over football.) When my mom moved out to the desert, she was shocked. There, most everyone is on what some call "Indian Time". If the repairman says he'll be there at two, he'll call you at 4 and say he's running late and can he come back tomorrow. Perhaps some of my more defensive countrymen come from such areas.

Some have concluded this American aggressiveness is connected to our Puritan and Democratic heritage. We have no royalty. While people from other cultures are taught their lot in life from an early age, Americans are taught that they can become anything they want, and that they have to EARN their way into heaven. This combination spurs inventions, factories, music and murder. Americans are taught the world is theirs to mold. I suspect people from other countries have a different attitude.

As Adlai Stevenson once said: "In America anyone can be President. That's the chance we take."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have suffered a great deal for preserving [Ashton Gray's] freedom of speech. In return, you [Mr. Gray] have accused me of defending the CIA. In fact, it seems to me, that you are in fact doing the work of the CIA.....

I have noticed three major programs advanced by Ashton Gray, beginning with his vitriolic attack on the character of Doug Caddy. At the time I asked the moderators -- both publicly and via PM -- to issue a public reprimand to Mister Gray. The moderators have finally done so.

Mr. Gray has responded by repeating his libelous innuendos in this thread.

Mr. Gray's second major contribution was a spirited piece of verbosity defending E. Howard Hunt against the well-proven charge that Hunt forged State Papers and managed to have the forgeries promulgated as truths on national television and in the New York Times. These forgeries were calculated to damage the reputation of John F. Kennedy, and thereby trivialize and discourage the inquiry into his murder.

The latest of Mr. Gray's forays to come to my attention is his vicious campaign of libel against the good name of Malcolm Perry, the Parkland doctor who used his best efforts to save the life of JFK.

I do not wish to be associated in any way with this libel, and if this was my forum I would delete all of Ashton Gray's accusations and innuendo and replace them with an apology to Dr. Perry and his family.

As far as I can see, Mr. Gray's primary purpose here is to give this forum a bad name.

Edited February 4, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Michael Hogan]

*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....

[David G. Healy]

*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!

Have you Mr. Hogan posted/performed ANY JFK assassination related research one can review, if so, WHERE?

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?

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!