Moderating Political conspiracy threads.

[Kevin M. West]

And does one photo constitute sufficient proof to justify a correction from alleged offender?

When the question is "are there footprints in this specific photo", then yes, that one photo is all that is necessary.

[Mark Stapleton]

As others have tried to make you understand there is no indication Evan was acting as a moderator when he asked Jack to correct his claim. Has Jack been proven wrong? If you think not perhaps you should add your thoughts on the appropriate thread.

There's a difference between a moderator asking someone to correct his/her post and a member asking someone to correct a post.

Moreover, there's no indication that Evan wasn't acting as a moderator when he requested that Jack correct his post. Can you show me where Evan indicated that he was speaking as a mere member and not also as a moderator when he requested Jack correct the post?

In 1000+ posts I can't recall a member or a moderator asking me to correct a post, although I've probably made dozens of errors.

IMO, it comes down to whether readers can determine for themselves if a member is talking rubbish. I believe they can. Moderator intervention is not required in these cases and it would be a dangerous precedent which could serve to stifle debate.

I happen to disagree with you on this issue as I do on many other issues, Len. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that others are entitled to dissent with the majority. I know it can be annoying.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Gentlemen, and occasional Lady visitor. To prevent topics becoming derailed by moderator adjudications, and subsequant debate, I propose the following. 1, If i feel a member has broken (or severly bent) Forum rules and guidelines I shall, in the first instance, contact them by P/M, offering a chance to either, defend their comments, or self edit them, only on the occasion of neither of these opptions being taken will I edit the post. The last thing I desire is to insert a "politically correct"editorial regime, because without the heat of intellectual debate, topics such as 911, or Apollo become sterile. I shall send a copy of this post to my fellow moderators. Thanks for your time. Steve.

Above is my original post, what in the name of Julius Ceaser it has to do with what followed (John Dolva excepted) I can only guess. Some of you lot could start a fight in an empty room. If you have problems with Moderator ajudication report your concerns to another Mod, failing that John S, or Andy W. What you do not do is derail another members thread with yet more juvinile bickering.

[Len Colby]

As others have tried to make you understand there is no indication Evan was acting as a moderator when he asked Jack to correct his claim. Has Jack been proven wrong? If you think not perhaps you should add your thoughts on the appropriate thread.

There's a difference between a moderator asking someone to correct his/her post and a member asking someone to correct a post. .

As I asked you before, would you object if John Simkin or one of the moderators who believes JFK's assassination was a conspiracy asked an LNT to correct a false claim? Did Evan and the other moderators give up the right to ask other members certain questions when they took on this thankless task?

.

Moreover, there's no indication that Evan wasn't acting as a moderator when he requested that Jack correct his post. Can you show me where Evan indicated that he was speaking as a mere member and not also as a moderator when he requested Jack correct the post?

That's a bit absurd Mark you're asking me to prove a negative. Do the administrators and moderators have to make this clear every time they post? Evan has been asking Jack to correct his spurious claims since long before he became a moderator, there is not reason for him to refrain from doing so now. Also as already pointed out a few times there is no rule about correcting erroneous claims or even a rule against making them (though members are asked to try to be accurate). Thus Evan would have no basis to ask him as a moderator to admit error.

In 1000+ posts I can't recall a member or a moderator asking me to correct a post, although I've probably made dozens of errors.

I'm sure you've made lots of errors too, [dozens seems a bit low to me LOL]. As to whether or not anyone has ever asked you to admit error I can't be sure though I think I asked you to do so and you have asked me to do so. In any case you're not Jack, who on more than one occasion said he would admit error and make corrections when shown to be wrong. Thus a member (and that includes moderators) who believes Jack was in error has even more of a "right" to ask him for correction than if another member of the forum had made an error.

I suspect part of the confusion is based on a misconception on your part, you keep repeating the phrase "correct the/his/their post" as if you thought Evan was asking Jack to edit the erroneous claim from his post rather than asking him to admit error in a later one. Evan pretty clearly was asking for the latter and not the former

.

IMO, it comes down to whether readers can determine for themselves if a member is talking rubbish. I believe they can. Moderator intervention is not required in these cases and it would be a dangerous precedent which could serve to stifle debate..

If it were as easy to determine what's rubbish there would be little reason for the extended debates on forums such as these, many issues are thorny and hard for the uninitiated to understand. Even you seem unclear as to whether the "anomalous object" was a boot print or not. As another example I wonder how many people believed I was "full of it" and Jack was correct before he admitted error regarding the Pentagon's point of impact.

.

I happen to disagree with you on this issue as I do on many other issues, Len. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that others are entitled to dissent with the majority. I know it can be annoying..

Projection Mark? You'll have accept that I and others have the right to disagree with you much as it might piss you off. Do I blindly demand allegiance to the majority view, as you insinuate? I don't know if you're referring to a majority of: forum members, Americans, Brazilians or inhabitants of the planet but in any case the charge is risible.

Edit to fix spelling errors

Edited March 26, 2007 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

spurrious.... errouneous.... wether.... wether.... anomolus.... allegance.... insinuaate.... risable....

Rule (v):

Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

[Len Colby]

Mike - Though I doubt it was meant as "constructive criticism" you were right this time. Errors noted and corrected.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Len Colby

[Mark Stapleton]

Gentlemen, and occasional Lady visitor. To prevent topics becoming derailed by moderator adjudications, and subsequant debate, I propose the following. 1, If i feel a member has broken (or severly bent) Forum rules and guidelines I shall, in the first instance, contact them by P/M, offering a chance to either, defend their comments, or self edit them, only on the occasion of neither of these opptions being taken will I edit the post. The last thing I desire is to insert a "politically correct"editorial regime, because without the heat of intellectual debate, topics such as 911, or Apollo become sterile. I shall send a copy of this post to my fellow moderators. Thanks for your time. Steve.

Above is my original post, what in the name of Julius Ceaser it has to do with what followed (John Dolva excepted) I can only guess. Some of you lot could start a fight in an empty room. If you have problems with Moderator ajudication report your concerns to another Mod, failing that John S, or Andy W. What you do not do is derail another members thread with yet more juvinile bickering.

Steve,

I thought Jack's original post, while not directly addressing your proposals, was still on topic. I just wanted to state my opinion for the record. A barbrawl was not my intention but 'Sixgun' Colby seems to take exception to my view and he can be an 'ornery varmint.

I think your proposals are fine, with the rider that I strongly oppose the concept of members being asked to correct their posts. I don't like the idea of posts being edited or deleted by moderators, either. It can become, you know, a habit. I know the moderators, to a man and woman, have the best of intentions but sometimes the best of intentions can still lead to bad rules. Extreme profanity or legal risks excepted. But it's not my forum, so I'll abide by the consensus.

p.s. You should have added that the last and final resort always should be.........the comfy cushion.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[David G. Healy]

As others have tried to make you understand there is no indication Evan was acting as a moderator when he asked Jack to correct his claim. Has Jack been proven wrong? If you think not perhaps you should add your thoughts on the appropriate thread.

There's a difference between a moderator asking someone to correct his/her post and a member asking someone to correct a post. .

As I asked you before, would you object if John Simkin or one of the moderators who believes JFK's assassination was a conspiracy asked an LNT to correct a false claim? Did Evan and the other moderators give up the right to ask other members certain questions when they took on this thankless task?

.

Moreover, there's no indication that Evan wasn't acting as a moderator when he requested that Jack correct his post. Can you show me where Evan indicated that he was speaking as a mere member and not also as a moderator when he requested Jack correct the post?

That's a bit absurd Mark you're asking me to prove a negative. Do the administrators and moderators have to make this clear every time they post? Evan has been asking Jack to correct his spurious claims since long before he became a moderator, there is not reason for him to refrain from doing so now. Also as already pointed out a few times there is no rule about correcting erroneous claims or even a rule against making them (though members are asked to try to be accurate). Thus Evan would have no basis to ask him as a moderator to admit error.

In 1000+ posts I can't recall a member or a moderator asking me to correct a post, although I've probably made dozens of errors.

I'm sure you've made lots of errors too, [dozens seems a bit low to me LOL]. As to whether or not anyone has ever asked you to admit error I can't be sure though I think I asked you to do so and you have asked me to do so. In any case you're not Jack, who on more than one occasion said he would admit error and make corrections when shown to be wrong. Thus a member (and that includes moderators) who believes Jack was in error has even more of a "right" to ask him for correction than if another member of the forum had made an error.

I suspect part of the confusion is based on a misconception on your part, you keep repeating the phrase "correct the/his/their post" as if you thought Evan was asking Jack to edit the erroneous claim from his post rather than asking him to admit error in a later one. Evan pretty clearly was asking for the latter and not the former

.

IMO, it comes down to whether readers can determine for themselves if a member is talking rubbish. I believe they can. Moderator intervention is not required in these cases and it would be a dangerous precedent which could serve to stifle debate..

If it were as easy to determine what's rubbish there would be little reason for the extended debates on forums such as these, many issues are thorny and hard for the uninitiated to understand. Even you seem unclear as to whether the "anomalous object" was a boot print or not. As another example I wonder how many people believed I was "full of it" and Jack was correct before he admitted error regarding the Pentagon's point of impact.

.

I happen to disagree with you on this issue as I do on many other issues, Len. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that others are entitled to dissent with the majority. I know it can be annoying..

Projection Mark? You'll have accept that I and others have the right to disagree with you much as it might piss you off. Do I blindly demand allegiance to the majority view, as you insinuate? I don't know if you're referring to a majority of: forum members, Americans, Brazilians or inhabitants of the planet but in any case the charge is risible.

Edit to fix spelling errors

ahh.... excuse me, spelling errors over fact, alleged fact? For the sake of student's, EVERYWHERE?

I think most would agree, the Warren Commission Report and attendant volumes have few misspelled words. It's also full of erroneous facts, alleged facts, outright distortions and, most of all OMISSIONS of pertinent interviews/evidence....

Other than that, the report IS written well. Certainly well enough for, US based Universities to use as a ciriculum material, not to mention 60-80's era "professional" historians (whom many feel were ASLEEP at the wheel) to rubber stamp the WCR and its THEORY'S into consumer consumption!

So pardon me if I laugh out LOUD regarding feeble attempts in shrouding "for the sake of the students" an untidy mess called, the JFK Assassination... or any other questionable event in world history (or sophistry - that spelled right?)

In today's market the reality (on this board or others) is this: readers AND writers (teachers, professors, students) of prose are on the way OUT -- you'd be better off learning the latest video editing software -- YouTube is IN

Edited March 26, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

I just happened to see my name used in a posting as follows:

"Even you seem unclear as to whether the "anomalous object" was a boot print or not. As another example I wonder how many people believed I was "full of it" and Jack was correct before he admitted error regarding the Pentagon's point of impact."

I don't know who wrote this or why, but the writer is certainly "full of it".

I have never admitted an error regarding the "Pentagon's point of impact".

The point of impact is well known, considering that under discussion is an

object as big as a 757 or as small as a Cruise Missile. A 757 is 125 feet

wide, so pinpointing a SINGLE "POINT OF IMPACT" would be a futile

exercise. Whatever it was, it hit near the mid-point of the west wall, just

south of the heliport, and cannot be located with more precision than

this.

If I make an error, I am anxious to admit it. But only when I make an

error. Someone SAYING I am wrong is proof of nothing.

Jack

[Len Colby]

Jack -

Thanks to Colby for providing an updated VDoT frame which shows the error of my initial study.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=78984

Mark - There is a saying here in Brazil "Two people don't fight when one doesn't want to" don't blame me no one forced you to reply to my posts. In the name of peace I'm done with the debate over the appropriateness of Evan's remark.

Steve (and anybody else who was offended) - Sorry for the ruckus

Edited March 27, 2007 by Len Colby