Has there been a Forum rule change?

[John Simkin]

Correct. I remember the case of "Larry Peters". I believed Mr. Simkin

revoked his membership when he found that the person in that photo

was not writing the messages.

Jack

This is completely untrue. Larry Peters never had his membership revoked. Unlike Jack I was convinced that Bill Miller and Larry Peters were the people they said they were. In fact, I met Bill at a conference in Dallas, and know what he looks like.

[Charles Black]

Mark Valenti

Posted the following ... "There are some (unnamed) pithy posters who periodically pontificate on this forum--- sans personal photo"

Which he follows with "Sometimes it is illuminating to match a face with a rant, or a beady eye with a snide comment".

Since I feel that I am probably one of those "beady eyed and snide commentors" to whom he refers are pontificating on this forum, I feel that I should offer a couple of "MY personal thoughts" on this manner.

This is a comment that I would expect from an old comic character named "Dudley Doright of the RCMP."

I personally feel that it is a very strange desire

to wish to look upon "a beady eyed pithy poster".

But if ths is what turns some on, why should I judge them?

More seriously I would like to mention a couple of points regarding the photo postings that some may not be aware of. I do not mean to imply that any of the following reasons apply to me personally.

There could be certain members of this forum who have some inner knowledge of "behind the scenes" in a great many of our topics. Not that I necessarily approve of it, but these persons could be posting under a false ID out of fear, as this at times can be a quite sensitive topic. There may be those who want the "knowledge put forward or to stimulate thought in a particular direction" without possibly putting their lives or reputations on the line.

There may be some members who might still be engaged in "under cover" operations.

It should also be acknowledged by everyone, that true "spooks", do not even want their photos taken at all, much less plastered on the world wide web.

I feel that these are quite valid and valuable reasons to not force photo posting.

It is also apparent, I'm sure, that one does not have to be a "007" to realize the ease of posting a fake picture or BIO.

Some seem to think that the posting of a photo is akin to displaying a security clearance....which is ridiculous. Those whose purpose is "to deceive" will do so regardless of any rules of heaven or earth.

Some might even consider this "requirement", if it is such, a means of racial or political profiling!

Since this is not a "dating service", or a "Pen Pal" type operation, and since we realize the hopelessness of being unsure that we are looking at a true photo of who is posting; I see no value that can be derived from such a rule...and some possible harm.

In my particular case, I just don't want anyone knowing how "ugly" my features actually are. Perhaps I could post an old photo of Cary Grant or Errol Flynn.

Charlie Black

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Charlie,

You flatter yourself. I wasn't thinking about you. Sorry - I'll try to include you in my thoughts next time.

However, now that you've injected yourself into the dialogue in typically maze-like fashion, let me clear up a few issues for you.

This is not based on a "strange desire" to gaze into anyone's face. It's merely fair. You're guessing about my motives with zero info. Why not ask before making silly suppositions?

You indicate that some posters may have clandestine connections - you mean like Hemming, who never cowered from posting a photo?

It's awfully kind of you to play "case officer" and represent the interests of the Local 007 Union of Covert Spies. But why don't you let them speak for themselves? Unless you can't help yourself...

You say, "some seem to think that the posting of a photo is akin to displaying a security clearance....which is ridiculous"

Who the hell said that? You make up a quote and then call it ridiculous. That, my friend, is the very definition of ridiculous. Although I must say, it's not surprising.

And no, it's not a "pen pal" or "dating" service, Charlie. It's a grown-up forum for the airing of theories and opinions about a deadly serious topic. And if the rules say that a photo is mandatory, then participants ought to pony up.

That's only fair.

[Jack White]

Correct. I remember the case of "Larry Peters". I believed Mr. Simkin

revoked his membership when he found that the person in that photo

was not writing the messages.

Jack

This is completely untrue. Larry Peters never had his membership revoked. Unlike Jack I was convinced that Bill Miller and Larry Peters were the people they said they were. In fact, I met Bill at a conference in Dallas, and know what he looks like.

1. Did you ever meet Larry Peters? Does he look like the photo he used?

2. Why did Larry Peters quit posting on the forum when it was pointed out that his writing was identical to Miller's?

3. About 10-15 years ago I met a person in Dealey Plaza who said his name was Bill Miller. That person was not

the person whose picture appears here, and who does not know details that the "DP Miller" told me.

4. You met the "current Miller", not the "DP Miller".

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

The moderating team will be taking up the issue of avitars on an indivdual basis with those not compling with this simple request. If you have not already done so please post a recent picture of yourself. If anyone is unsure how to do this send your picture to John. Steve.

Thanks for the clarification Stephen.

[Kathleen Collins]

First of all, I would like to thank Jack White for sticking up for me. I believe I have unearthed fresh material and photos of Donald O. Norton and Ralph Geb and info on their businesses that neither would really like. (Covered on my blog at www.thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com, beginning Feb or March 06.)

I have a make-shift alarm system in my house so I know if anyone's trying to get in. This alarm rang several times by way of a lone insect or lizard crawling under the door. It would wake up the dead.

But another reason. Maybe some of you have been as unlucky as I; the majority probably not. Which of you has been a victim of stalking, violent crime and threats of retribution? Maybe then you'd understand my paranoia. Even using my real name makes me uncomfortable.

If I'm nuts, so be it. I am always looking over my shoulder.

Kathy

[Jack White]

First of all, I would like to thank Jack White for sticking up for me. I believe I have unearthed fresh material and photos of Donald O. Norton and Ralph Geb and info on their businesses that neither would really like. (Covered on my blog at www.thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com, beginning Feb or March 06.)

I have a make-shift alarm system in my house so I know if anyone's trying to get in. This alarm rang several times by way of a lone insect or lizard crawling under the door. It would wake up the dead.

But another reason. Maybe some of you have been as unlucky as I; the majority probably not. Which of you has been a victim of stalking, violent crime and threats of retribution? Maybe then you'd understand my paranoia. Even using my real name makes me uncomfortable.

If I'm nuts, so be it. I am always looking over my shoulder.

Kathy

For the record, I do not know Kathy. But I know she is on the right side.

I stick up for anyone who is unfairly picked on. Let's keep personalities

out of discussions. The research is about JFK, not about researchers.

Anything anyone says should stand on its own without reference to

who said it. Judge the message, not the messenger. If someone is

paranoid, that is not a topic for discussion. As Penn Jones used to say,

"You are not paranoid IF THEY REALLY ARE OUT TO GET YOU!"

Jack

[Charles Black]

Mark Valenti

In my personal opinion your last post beat around the bush, as you do usually, and made "no" argument for the mandatory posting of personal photos.

No! I don't speak for the "007's" of the world, but there are many out there and they are represented on this and similar forums.

There was nothing ridiculous or not completely sound regarding my last post. There are those who would track "rules breakers" that are in violation of an outdated rule defining where a horse might deficate, that may have been an important rule in the year 1066, but has held no practical validity in 100 or more years.

In my honest and somewhat knowledgeable opinion, I sincerely feel that there is absolutely nothing that can be gained, tho there could be losses incurred, as a result of the enforcement of this rule which serves no educational or truly practical

cause.

What should follow next..... fingerprinting or DNA profiling ?

I do not believe in rules with no practicality or laws that are unenforceable. There is no reason for either to exist.

But of course.....Beady Eyes and Snide Comments may play an important role in some new science of which I am not yet aware.

Charlie Black

[Kathleen Collins]

Mark Valenti

In my honest and somewhat knowledgeable opinion, I sincerely feel that there is absolutely nothing that can be gained, tho there could be losses incurred, as a result of the enforcement of this rule which serves no educational or truly practical

cause.

What should follow next..... fingerprinting or DNA profiling ?

Charlie Black

Thank you, Charlie.

Kathy

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Charlie,

It's a rule. I only asked if it was still being enforced. You parked your snout in this thread and raised the strange issue of paranoids with secrets and fears. And if you don't speak for the 007's of the world why the hell are you doing so? Nobody's talking about DNA or fingerprints. Get a grip.

And while we're here, I believe you were pouting some time ago about posters not following rules. They're important only when it suits you?

[Miles Scull]

In addition, since we are discussing rules, it is against the forum rules to bash or belittle other posters. To correct someone is one thing, to make fun of or harshly criticize is quite another.

Certainly, this forum is an area for debate, and we debate positions. However, when we attack our opponent personally, then it is no longer a debate.

It has been my experience that when one resorts to personal attack, one is effectively losing the argument.

Kathy Beckett,

Thanks for being a moderator.

As you can see, I have no photo. Sorry, I have not figured out how to post same. (I found an old snap-shot of myself, but it is so similar to Mark Valenti's photo that I thought that by posting it as mine I might create a firestorm of protest & provoke the wrath of God on my weak head... I actually had the thought that if someone wanted to see right away what I looked like, then I could refer them to Mark's avatar photo as an exemplar. I even considered that Mark's photo might be an old forgotten one of me from the old days. Naauugh, couldn't be. )

More to the topic of this thread, I would have to strongly agree with Kathy Collins, Charlie Black, Jack White & others who point out that some members may well have legitimate, compelling reasons to not post a photo of themselves. For example, I would certainly not want on my conscience the realization that I had contributed to Kathy's physical injury. Even Mark Valenti would concur on this!

I have posted a short description of myself (biography?); it appears on my profile page. Is every member required to do this as well as post a photo? If so, are members in compliance & are members monitored for compliance? A complicated thicket...

As a newbie here on this excellent forum, I'm afraid I don't know the rules very well. Kathy, any listing of rules would be appreciated. Thanks.

Miles

[Charles Black]

Charlie,

It's a rule. I only asked if it was still being enforced. You parked your snout in this thread and raised the strange issue of paranoids with secrets and fears. And if you don't speak for the 007's of the world why the hell are you doing so? Nobody's talking about DNA or fingerprints. Get a grip.

And while we're here, I believe you were pouting some time ago about posters not following rules. They're important only when it suits you?

Mark Valenti

To answer you, I have a grip and a hell of a good one. You question me putting my "snout" into things, in a manner that I find to be much more agressive than if you were not hiding in the relative safety and possible anonymity of a forum. Anonimity that is present whether or not you have personally posted a picture of a "someone"! Here you can be as brave as you care to be, and know that you are quite safe.

You have made NO reasonable point except that you apparently feel like being ridiculously confrontational. Who the hell do you think you are, a "self appointed" seargent of arms?

If you cannot find sound reason in my statements regarding some persons desire to not be photographically identified, you have much more to learn than I or probably anyone on this forum can explain to you. You must be quite impaired to not understand that everyone has not had the relative security which you seem to have enjoyed, and that there are actually some here, on this forum, that have participated personally in several of the areas which are frequently discussd and were actually a part of making this history.

I personally do not feel that you are "qualified" to challenge me in any area, so I will not put up with your childish jibberish that promotes no position, other than you want the "playground rules" enforced so that you can be personally more comfortable.

Now...why don't you "Get Off My Ass" and go and tell the teacher that I am breaking more rules !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

In addition, since we are discussing rules, it is against the forum rules to bash or belittle other posters. To correct someone is one thing, to make fun of or harshly criticize is quite another.

Certainly, this forum is an area for debate, and we debate positions. However, when we attack our opponent personally, then it is no longer a debate.

It has been my experience that when one resorts to personal attack, one is effectively losing the argument.

Kathy Beckett,

Thanks for being a moderator.

As you can see, I have no photo. Sorry, I have not figured out how to post same. (I found an old snap-shot of myself, but it is so similar to Mark Valenti's photo that I thought that by posting it as mine I might create a firestorm of protest & provoke the wrath of God on my weak head... I actually had the thought that if someone wanted to see right away what I looked like, then I could refer them to Mark's avatar photo as an exemplar. I even considered that Mark's photo might be an old forgotten one of me from the old days. Naauugh, couldn't be. )

More to the topic of this thread, I would have to strongly agree with Kathy Collins, Charlie Black, Jack White & others who point out that some members may well have legitimate, compelling reasons to not post a photo of themselves. For example, I would certainly not want on my conscience the realization that I had contributed to Kathy's physical injury. Even Mark Valenti would concur on this!

I have posted a short description of myself (biography?); it appears on my profile page. Is every member required to do this as well as post a photo? If so, are members in compliance & are members monitored for compliance? A complicated thicket...

As a newbie here on this excellent forum, I'm afraid I don't know the rules very well. Kathy, any listing of rules would be appreciated. Thanks.

Miles

If the rules are to have a photo of yourself, I say enforce the rules. I know of no valid

reason to circumvent the rule. However, it is easy to post a false photo...so the whole

thing is somewhat dumb. I cite the case of "Larry Peters" whose photo was posted, but

apparently his messages were being written by another person. A "Bill Miller" posts here

but the photo of him is not the person who once introduced himself to me as "Bill Miller"

in Dealey Plaza.

Jack

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Professor Black is in session.

Once again. <sigh>

[Guest Mark Valenti]

For example, I would certainly not want on my conscience the realization that I had contributed to Kathy's physical injury. Even Mark Valenti would concur on this

Miles

Kathy, if you feel that you could be in physical danger if you post a photo, of course you shouldn't. But I have to say, in this age of electronic sleuthing, it's not that hard to find people even without a photo. Everyone leaves traces of themselves online, through banking, employment, etc.

If you delve into the world of secrets and lies as we have, it's inevitable that you will feel somewhat unnerved on occasion, especially if you have personal experiences that are frightening.

I think of a guy like Jack White who has been outspoken against government agencies and individuals for decades. He was almost killed in his bed. And yet he continues to make public statements and offer his opinions candidly.

There's a wide spectrum of thought on this issue - and judging from some of the weirdo responses it's generated, I guess I'm sorry I brought it up.