info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Morley Tries to Justify his Censorship
87 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
May 7, 2014, 9:23:07 AM5/7/14
to
From Morley's blog:
<Quote on>
jeffmorley
May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
he said, falsely, that his comments were being �censored.� They were
being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have
had with other commenters. He also, falsely, that I had �caved in� to
pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had
engaged in a �stupid stunt� which I had not.
For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site�s
Comments Policy, which you can read here:
http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
<end quote>
Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
comments.
Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
posts that buffs would not like.
Your credibility is shot.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<Quote on>
jeffmorley
May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
he said, falsely, that his comments were being �censored.� They were
being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have
had with other commenters. He also, falsely, that I had �caved in� to
pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had
engaged in a �stupid stunt� which I had not.
For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site�s
Comments Policy, which you can read here:
http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
<end quote>
Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
comments.
Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
posts that buffs would not like.
Your credibility is shot.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
May 7, 2014, 9:38:24 PM5/7/14
to
On 5/7/2014 9:23 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> From Morley's blog:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> jeffmorley
>
> May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
>
> No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
>
> As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
> he said, falsely, that his comments were being ?censored.? They were
> From Morley's blog:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> jeffmorley
>
> May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
>
> No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
>
> As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
> being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have
> had with other commenters. He also, falsely, that I had ?caved in? to
> pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had
> engaged in a ?stupid stunt? which I had not.
>
> For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
> delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site?s
> For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
> Comments Policy, which you can read here:
> http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
>
>
> <end quote>
>
> Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
> response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
> Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
>
> And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
> insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
>
> I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
> comments.
>
> Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
> pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
> posts that buffs would not like.
>
> Your credibility is shot.
>
Sounds like a circular firing squad to me. In the old days there was a
> http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
>
>
> <end quote>
>
> Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
> response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
> Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
>
> And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
> insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
>
> I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
> comments.
>
> Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
> pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
> posts that buffs would not like.
>
> Your credibility is shot.
>
rule here forbidding posters from posting private e-mails and messages
from another newsgroup (mentioning no name) without explicit permission.
So now you say anything goes. Does that mean I can post all your e-mails?
Even your mailing list where you plot strategy with your fellow WC
defenders about how to attack the conspiracy believers here and force them
out?
> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Mike
May 8, 2014, 12:21:46 AM5/8/14
to
Tony you are the one that exerts the most effort to force out the fellow
conspiracy believers.
Now I understand why you would have access to John McAdams WC mailing
list. You are part of their strategy. They depend upon you to attack.
You need to fix that Tony.
black...@aol.com
May 8, 2014, 12:22:22 AM5/8/14
to
Anthony:
You've been around in this field for a long time and accomplished a lot;
But lately, all I see you do is complain about the newsgroup, or try to
put down some other posters as not being as knowledgable about
intelligence as you, or patting yourself on the back for the Judyth
letter. Do you have anything left to contribute to the JFK case?
You've been around in this field for a long time and accomplished a lot;
But lately, all I see you do is complain about the newsgroup, or try to
put down some other posters as not being as knowledgable about
intelligence as you, or patting yourself on the back for the Judyth
letter. Do you have anything left to contribute to the JFK case?
Anthony Marsh
May 8, 2014, 9:25:14 AM5/8/14
to
I usually had to contend only with the WC defenders.
But recently we have been invaded by kooks and trolls spreading
misinformation. And it seems that I am the only one brave enough to
correct them.
Anthony Marsh
May 8, 2014, 9:25:50 AM5/8/14
to
defenders scared them away.
Peter is supposed to be a moderator here, but when is the last time you
saw him post here? 2 years ago?
McAdams has hijacked this newsgroup to destroy it.
> Now I understand why you would have access to John McAdams WC mailing
> list. You are part of their strategy. They depend upon you to attack.
>
claviger
May 8, 2014, 2:21:06 PM5/8/14
to
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:23:07 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
Sounds like Morley is in over his head as a blogger and people are asking
too many logical questions he can't answer. I do respect him for trying
to get the remaining documents released from the US Government. He had
the courage to fight that uphill battle.
Sounds like Morley is in over his head as a blogger and people are asking
too many logical questions he can't answer. I do respect him for trying
to get the remaining documents released from the US Government. He had
the courage to fight that uphill battle.
FELIX LEITER
May 8, 2014, 2:22:27 PM5/8/14
to
You have accomplished a lot. My Latin is improving. Marsh, are you
teaching hip hop in your music class?
Sandy McCroskey
May 8, 2014, 7:27:13 PM5/8/14
to
stubbornness, dedication... sure. But I am confident that Morley is in no
danger because of repeating such inquiries.
OHLeeRedux
May 8, 2014, 11:39:56 PM5/8/14
to
Mike
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
So now we find out.
Tony you are the one that exerts the most effort to force out the fellow
conspiracy believers.
Tony you are the one that exerts the most effort to force out the fellow
conspiracy believers.
Now I understand why you would have access to John McAdams WC mailing
list. You are part of their strategy. They depend upon you to attack.
list. You are part of their strategy. They depend upon you to attack.
You need to fix that Tony.
Yet another conspiracy. They are behind every menorah, aren't they Mike?
jfk...@gmail.com
May 10, 2014, 4:43:08 PM5/10/14
to
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:23:07 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> From Morley's blog:
>
>
>
> <Quote on>
>
>
>
> jeffmorley
>
>
>
> May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
>
>
>
> No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
>
>
>
> As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
>
> he said, falsely, that his comments were being �censored.� They were
>
>
>
> <Quote on>
>
>
>
> jeffmorley
>
>
>
> May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am
>
>
>
> No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.
>
>
>
> As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because
>
>
> being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have
>
> had with other commenters. He also, falsely, that I had �caved in� to
> being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have
>
>
> pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had
>
> engaged in a �stupid stunt� which I had not.
> pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had
>
>
>
>
> For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
>
> delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site�s
>
>
> For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is
>
>
> Comments Policy, which you can read here:
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
>
>
>
>
>
> <end quote>
>
>
>
> Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
>
> response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
>
> Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
>
>
>
> And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
>
> insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
>
>
>
> I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
>
> comments.
>
>
>
> Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
>
> pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
>
> posts that buffs would not like.
>
>
>
> Your credibility is shot.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> -------------------------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is hilarious from McAdams who has had a field day with the replies of
> Comments Policy, which you can read here:
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
>
>
>
>
>
> <end quote>
>
>
>
> Of course, Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in
>
> response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying
>
> Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.
>
>
>
> And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the
>
> insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."
>
>
>
> I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the
>
> comments.
>
>
>
> Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff
>
> pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored
>
> posts that buffs would not like.
>
>
>
> Your credibility is shot.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> -------------------------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
the posters on aaj he didn't like. :-0
0 new messages