Miles Scull Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 For my first year of membership here, I slid by without a photo, until the issue was raised by somebody. In fairness to the administrators, it is a requirement of membership. However, I felt the same trepidation that other members have mentioned above, and resorted to a tactic used by Gerry Hemming. Thinking that if it was fair for Gerry to use a photo from the late 1950s, I located one that was not quite recent [albeit one from a time less ancient than the '50s.] The admins wisely chose to edit out some of the more interesting background. Perhaps those who share my previous trepidation would be well served by resorting to a similar tactic. It meets the letter of the law, if not the spirit or intent. Robert, excellent! A venetian carnival masque held to the face, shrouded in deep shadow. Impenetrable! Even John is hidden deep within a Woods. ! Note that: "You are responsible for what you post on this board. You will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Members who fail to abide by these simple guidelines will have their membership rescinded and their posts deleted." An offender is not ostracized merely, but killed & all his city statues destroyed, expunged from memory. Whoa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Woods Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 (edited) a Edited April 8, 2007 by John Woods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) I'm all for the photo and bio qualification for this forum. It's what makes this forum unique (aside from John's presence and participation). The number of trolls is greatly reduced when people are asked to use their real names and images. Sure, some can get around it. But most won't take the time to concoct a fictitious persona. I seriously doubt there is anyone out there with anything worth sharing about the assassination, that wouldn't gladly follow these rules. If someone, say a former CIA op, wishes to contribute some info, but anonymously, they can always contact John directly. I believe several have. Well said! Personally, I'd rather these rules be applied more stringently - not less. A number of bios don't seem credible or adequately informative to me. Some photos are missing; others are not suitable (one avatar mainly shows a motorbike, another looks like an alien from 'Close Encounters'; today I notice that the burkha has made a mischievous appearance). But I'm happy to leave these things to John's discretion. Edited March 22, 2007 by Sid Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Andy Walker Due to your "exalted" position on this forum, you have in the past done so, and you with your last post on this thread have attempted to belittle a forum member as you would an "ass". Kick me off if you so wish, but your last post to me is the most OBNOXIOUS statement that I have EVER heard a forum director direct at a forum member. Andy stated "If challenged to do so it would be difficult to conjure up five more absurd statements relating to an extremely simple forum requirement." You didn't have to be "terribly challenged" to be able, within one simple sentence, to be much more obnoxious than I was in five. And if others on this forum were not afraid of your POWER, I am certain thay many who have read this will agree(if you don't delete it too quickly)! I think it would be difficult for anyone with minimal intelligence to agree with your ridiculous evaluation. I truly question not only your slovenly judgement, but your intellect and your obvious lack of class and breeding. I have heard Americans, on many ocassions, belittled on this forum as being cursed by a lack of culture, but I have never heard one say anything as crass as your last little jewel. My statement to John Simkin contained nothing absurd, unreasonable or un gentlemanly ! You are in over your head! Your only recourse is to "boot me" as you have "Shown Your ASS" ! AGAIN ! Charlie Black Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Just one more thing that I would like to say regarding rules and this forum. Since I am neither an anarchist, nor have ever been arrested, and I have also participated in local government.....I don't want to express to anyone that I object to sound government, or that I do not believe in the absolute requirement of "sound" laws and rules. It appears to me however, that recently, rules are relegating discussion to a secondary position. In my opinion, the cart has perhaps been placed in front of the horse, and the tail is now wagging the dog. Is etiquette edging out education, or is the primary purpose in participating here, discussing manners or murder ? Or was Andy's latest statement just another slap at Americans for the "hell of it"? Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 See the following for information on this rule:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471 Hm, I think I see a loophole: "Members must also add a photograph as an avatar." So technically we not being told to add a photo of ourselves. We're just supposed to add any photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 If challenged to do so it would be difficult to conjure up five more absurd statements relating to an extremely simple forum requirement. Like I said, I'm sorry I brought it up... Oh don't be so morose. It's got everyone's pulses going. Where's the bad? (Mods, please don't answer that. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 For my first year of membership here, I slid by without a photo, until the issue was raised by somebody. In fairness to the administrators, it is a requirement of membership. However, I felt the same trepidation that other members have mentioned above, and resorted to a tactic used by Gerry Hemming. Thinking that if it was fair for Gerry to use a photo from the late 1950s, I located one that was not quite recent [albeit one from a time less ancient than the '50s.] The admins wisely chose to edit out some of the more interesting background. Perhaps those who share my previous trepidation would be well served by resorting to a similar tactic. It meets the letter of the law, if not the spirit or intent. Ah, the elephant in the corner speaks out. The photo rule does result in some interesting psychology. When I first became a forum member I saw Dunne's phantom of the opera picture and assumed he was not legit, so I didn't read his posts. In that case the absence of a photo made me jump to a conclusion. Subsequently someone said something about what a valuable researcher he is, so I revisited my conclusion based on this new information... Result: still don't read his posts. I think my point is ( ), probably a lot of people feel trepidation over posting photos and also real names. I did and do. But I posted a pic out of respect for the environment. I would like the overtly trepidatious to know that some members post photos in spite of concerns, and possibly even to make a tacit statement about courage and resolve in researching President Kennedy's murder. I'm not militant about it however. If someone has a compelling reason not to flash their photo around I'd think the mods could handle it on a case by case basis. I didn't see a compelling reason in Dunne's post, but perhaps the mods know of one. Enforcement of any rule is ultimately up to them anyway. (Man I've eaten a lot of ice cream tonight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Hm, I think I see a loophole:"Members must also add a photograph as an avatar." So technically we not being told to add a photo of ourselves. We're just supposed to add any photo. Members must also add a photograph as an avatar. First select a photograph on your hard-drive. Your picture must be no bigger than 64 pixels by 64 pixels in size. If the width is less than 64 pixels, make a note of its size. If you are unable to do this, send me the photograph by email and I will do it for you. There is no loophole. This is not an issue of people being tracked down by the CIA. If you were that dangerous there are plenty of ways of the CIA discovering who you are. It might make you feel important by saying it is too dangerous for you to post a photograph, but it is not very convincing to those who know about such things. In truth, this is about people playing the role of naughty schoolchildren. Part of their long-term fight against the system. I am all in favour of questioning authority, but I would have thought you could have found better causes to fight. It is all rather pathetic but once a rule has been made, it is important that it is followed. If it is not, members who have so far accepted the rule, will start removing their photograph and biographies from their signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 [...] This is not an issue of people being tracked down by the CIA. If you were that dangerous there are plenty of ways of the CIA discovering who you are. It might make you feel important by saying it is too dangerous for you to post a photograph, but it is not very convincing to those who know about such things. In truth, this is about people playing the role of naughty schoolchildren. Part of their long-term fight against the system. I am all in favour of questioning authority, but I would have thought you could have found better causes to fight. It is all rather pathetic but once a rule has been made, it is important that it is followed. If it is not, members who have so far accepted the rule, will start removing their photograph and biographies from their signature. ________________________________________ John, I totally agree with you on this. Unfortunately, some Forum members have overly-active imaginations and/or are suffering from delusions of grandeur in thinking that they are, or are soon going to be, somehow instrumental in the solving this huge Rubik's Cube of a public execution and probable conspiracy. Interesting to note, however, that true researchers like Larry Hancock and James Richards, just to mention two, have posted their photos and biographies and haven't complained about "having to" do so. Interesting, yes? BTW, I don't read a whole hell of a lot into it when someone dies of a heart attack or a stroke or cancer or something like that when they're in their 50's or 60's. My biological father, who almost went to the Olympics in the 110 meter high hurdles in 1952 and 1956 and who was a world-class beach volleyball player in his time, died of lung cancer right after he'd turned 68. Mysterious? Not really- He's smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for forty-something years. And oh BTW, I live within two hours of lots of dangerous people. BFD... (But then again, hell, maybe I'm dangerous- after all, GPH does send me an e-mail from time to time...) LOL --Thomas _______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Hello John I don't feel that you nor anyone on this forum truly interpreted my statements as meaning that I or very many on this forum may object to posting their pictures, "primarily" out of fear of being tracked down by the CIA. You personal rewording of my thougts was and is an attempt to change some very valid points that I made. It appears that others agree with my real contention, that this "rule" has the potential of causing discomfort to some members, although it has no positive purpose other than satisfying some members curiosity. I feel that this point was and remains a quite valid one. What is the true value of the rule, since it has been expressed by many that this rule does not necessarily promote truth or honesty ? Is this just a pronouncement that "this is a rule so it must be of value" ? Have any of my, or others thoughts, even been considered for anything other than very obvious ridicule. Both rules and laws, when implemented, are considered in most free societies, that they are subject to change, ammendment, or nullification. Unlike Moses' tablets, I don't feel that these rules are etched in stone. You have been willing to ridicule, but have offered no sound reasonable purpose that would preclude amending this rule to state that the posting of personal photographs is optional, as it is on many forums. Perhaps this same lack of consideration for the ruled masses was a major contributing factor which brought down the British Empire. Perhaps, some of the ruled, tho lacking British Culture, were not lacking sound and reasonable minds. As I stated in a prior post, I personally, do not believe that I have broken forum rules. I have attempted to uphold my personal dignity, as should anyone worth corresponding with, and expressed sincere opinions. I remind you again that the only reason that my photo is not posted is because you informed me that you had received my snail mailed photo, and that you intended to post it as I was unable to do so. I sincerely feel that your past and most recent comments, and particularly Andy's most recent display to me of English "culture", represent a resentment toward the U.S. and as you have previously put it, our lack of culture. I feel this to be extreme arrogance on the part of the Forum Hierarchy, and an absolutely vivid display of the lack of respect for certain forum members. Did my last statement break any standing forum rules? Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Perhaps this same lack of consideration for the ruled masses was a major contributing factor which brought down the British Empire. Perhaps, some of the ruled, tho lacking British Culture, were not lacking sound and reasonable minds.CHARLIE, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TAKE ON BOARD WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IF YOU WERE NOT GIVEN TO SUCH FLIGHTS OF HYPERBOLE. Did my last statement break any standing forum rules? Charlie Black NO, THERE IS NO RULE OUTLAWING OVERSTATEMENT OR MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Oh don't be so morose. It's got everyone's pulses going. Where's the bad? (Mods, please don't answer that. ) Not morose. Chagrined at the Twisted Knickers Eruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Hm, I think I see a loophole:"Members must also add a photograph as an avatar." So technically we not being told to add a photo of ourselves. We're just supposed to add any photo. Members must also add a photograph as an avatar. First select a photograph on your hard-drive. Your picture must be no bigger than 64 pixels by 64 pixels in size. If the width is less than 64 pixels, make a note of its size. If you are unable to do this, send me the photograph by email and I will do it for you. There is no loophole. This is not an issue of people being tracked down by the CIA. If you were that dangerous there are plenty of ways of the CIA discovering who you are. It might make you feel important by saying it is too dangerous for you to post a photograph, but it is not very convincing to those who know about such things. In truth, this is about people playing the role of naughty schoolchildren. Part of their long-term fight against the system. I am all in favour of questioning authority, but I would have thought you could have found better causes to fight. It is all rather pathetic but once a rule has been made, it is important that it is followed. If it is not, members who have so far accepted the rule, will start removing their photograph and biographies from their signature. Er John, my "loophole" post was very obviously a joke, as evidenced by the smiley face--the universal joke symbol. Instead of dusting off the tired ol' "naughty schoolchildren" metaphor you might try dusting off your sense of humor. :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Oh don't be so morose. It's got everyone's pulses going. Where's the bad? (Mods, please don't answer that. ) Not morose. Chagrined at the Twisted Knickers Eruption. Hah! Twisted knickers. That's some fine prose. Very good. Well knickers can untwist as fast as they twist... almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now