info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Morley In a Snit Because I Was "Rude" to Him
77 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
May 7, 2014, 5:35:17 PM5/7/14
to
From Morley's blog:
(Scroll down)
jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/when-did-hidells-id-enter-oswalds-wallet/
First, a good comment from Jean Davison:
<Quote on>
Jean Davison
May 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Jeff,
It�s your site, you make the rules, but I respectfully disagree with
your decision. IMO, withholding moderation approval so that all of
someone�s posts go into limbo is definitely a form of censorship.
Didn�t John use the word �censored� only *after* his posts started
being withheld?
If John�s posts were withheld because of complaints you�d received
from other commenters and not because of anything specific that he
said, I would call that �caving in to pressure.� Should I be put on a
48-hour delay also for agreeing with him? (Eventually maybe all the
LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)
Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints
about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did
John break, if I may ask?
IMO, anyone who doesn�t like John McAdams� posts should suck it up or
simply stop reading them.
Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I
sincerely hope you will reconsider, Jeff. What�s wrong with the old
policy of rejecting individual posts that cross the line?
Reply
jeffmorley
May 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Jean: you are laboring under a misapprehension. NONE OF JOHN�S
POSTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED.
Your notion that publication after 48 hours is �censorship� is
silly. Its not censorship. Its punishment for John being uncivil to
me.
I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other
readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of
censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED
RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a
�stupid stunt.�
John is entitle to his views and they�re welcome on the site.
(He�s been published more on my site than I have on him. Is that a
sign of �censorship� Jean?)
Now you may sey that the 48 hour delay rule is discriminatory�and
you would be right. It discriminates against people who are rude to
me.
So tell me what exactly you disagree with?
That I should publish all of John�s posts? I have.
Do you think that I shouldn�t delay the comments of people who
insult me?
Well then we�ll just have to agree to disagree. I promise you and
everybody else who reads this site: if you insult me, your posts will
be put on 48 hour delay. That�s not �censorship� Jean. That�s
enforcing good manners
<End Quote>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
(Scroll down)
jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/when-did-hidells-id-enter-oswalds-wallet/
First, a good comment from Jean Davison:
<Quote on>
Jean Davison
May 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Jeff,
It�s your site, you make the rules, but I respectfully disagree with
your decision. IMO, withholding moderation approval so that all of
someone�s posts go into limbo is definitely a form of censorship.
Didn�t John use the word �censored� only *after* his posts started
being withheld?
If John�s posts were withheld because of complaints you�d received
from other commenters and not because of anything specific that he
said, I would call that �caving in to pressure.� Should I be put on a
48-hour delay also for agreeing with him? (Eventually maybe all the
LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)
Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints
about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did
John break, if I may ask?
IMO, anyone who doesn�t like John McAdams� posts should suck it up or
simply stop reading them.
Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I
sincerely hope you will reconsider, Jeff. What�s wrong with the old
policy of rejecting individual posts that cross the line?
Reply
jeffmorley
May 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Jean: you are laboring under a misapprehension. NONE OF JOHN�S
POSTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED.
Your notion that publication after 48 hours is �censorship� is
silly. Its not censorship. Its punishment for John being uncivil to
me.
I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other
readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of
censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED
RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a
�stupid stunt.�
John is entitle to his views and they�re welcome on the site.
(He�s been published more on my site than I have on him. Is that a
sign of �censorship� Jean?)
Now you may sey that the 48 hour delay rule is discriminatory�and
you would be right. It discriminates against people who are rude to
me.
So tell me what exactly you disagree with?
That I should publish all of John�s posts? I have.
Do you think that I shouldn�t delay the comments of people who
insult me?
Well then we�ll just have to agree to disagree. I promise you and
everybody else who reads this site: if you insult me, your posts will
be put on 48 hour delay. That�s not �censorship� Jean. That�s
enforcing good manners
<End Quote>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Walt
May 8, 2014, 12:09:58 AM5/8/14
to
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:35:17 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
Oh fer cryin out loud!!..... What are we a bunch of cry babies who can't
take a little sarcastic teasing ?
Personally I love sarcastic wit.... I know not everybody does, but I think
it's an indication of a very conceited individual when they think so
highly of themselves that they can't any disagreement.
Oh fer cryin out loud!!..... What are we a bunch of cry babies who can't
take a little sarcastic teasing ?
Personally I love sarcastic wit.... I know not everybody does, but I think
it's an indication of a very conceited individual when they think so
highly of themselves that they can't any disagreement.
Alex Foyle
May 8, 2014, 12:24:19 AM5/8/14
to
"Its not censorship. Its punishment for John being uncivil to
me."
Hilarious.
me."
Anthony Marsh
May 8, 2014, 9:42:54 AM5/8/14
to
On 5/7/2014 5:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> From Morley's blog:
>
> (Scroll down)
>
> jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/when-did-hidells-id-enter-oswalds-wallet/
>
> First, a good comment from Jean Davison:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Jean Davison
> May 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm
>
> Jeff,
>
> It�s your site, you make the rules, but I respectfully disagree with
> From Morley's blog:
>
> (Scroll down)
>
> jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/when-did-hidells-id-enter-oswalds-wallet/
>
> First, a good comment from Jean Davison:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Jean Davison
> May 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm
>
> Jeff,
>
> your decision. IMO, withholding moderation approval so that all of
> someone�s posts go into limbo is definitely a form of censorship.
> Didn�t John use the word �censored� only *after* his posts started
> being withheld?
>
> If John�s posts were withheld because of complaints you�d received
> from other commenters and not because of anything specific that he
> said, I would call that �caving in to pressure.� Should I be put on a
> 48-hour delay also for agreeing with him? (Eventually maybe all the
> LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)
>
> Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints
> about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did
> John break, if I may ask?
>
> IMO, anyone who doesn�t like John McAdams� posts should suck it up or
> LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)
>
> Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints
> about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did
> John break, if I may ask?
>
> simply stop reading them.
>
> Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I
> sincerely hope you will reconsider, Jeff. What�s wrong with the old
>
> Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I
> policy of rejecting individual posts that cross the line?
> Reply
>
> jeffmorley
> May 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
>
> Jean: you are laboring under a misapprehension. NONE OF JOHN�S
> Reply
>
> jeffmorley
> May 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
>
> POSTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED.
> Your notion that publication after 48 hours is �censorship� is
> silly. Its not censorship. Its punishment for John being uncivil to
> me.
> I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other
> readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of
> censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED
> RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a
> �stupid stunt.�
> me.
> I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other
> readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of
> censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED
> RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a
> John is entitle to his views and they�re welcome on the site.
> (He�s been published more on my site than I have on him. Is that a
> sign of �censorship� Jean?)
> Now you may sey that the 48 hour delay rule is discriminatory�and
> you would be right. It discriminates against people who are rude to
> me.
> So tell me what exactly you disagree with?
> That I should publish all of John�s posts? I have.
> me.
> So tell me what exactly you disagree with?
> Do you think that I shouldn�t delay the comments of people who
> insult me?
> Well then we�ll just have to agree to disagree. I promise you and
> everybody else who reads this site: if you insult me, your posts will
> be put on 48 hour delay. That�s not �censorship� Jean. That�s
> enforcing good manners
>
> <End Quote>
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
I don't believe in censorship, but it's fun to see you get a taste of
>
> <End Quote>
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
your own medicine.
claviger
May 8, 2014, 2:20:20 PM5/8/14
to
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:09:58 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:35:17 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> Oh fer cryin out loud!!..... What are we a bunch of cry babies who can't
> take a little sarcastic teasing ?
>
> Personally I love sarcastic wit.... I know not everybody does, but I think
> it's an indication of a very conceited individual when they think so
> highly of themselves that they can't any disagreement.
Well said.
> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 4:35:17 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> Oh fer cryin out loud!!..... What are we a bunch of cry babies who can't
> take a little sarcastic teasing ?
>
> Personally I love sarcastic wit.... I know not everybody does, but I think
> it's an indication of a very conceited individual when they think so
> highly of themselves that they can't any disagreement.
FELIX LEITER
May 8, 2014, 2:22:03 PM5/8/14
to
0 new messages