Clueless at the Education Forum

[John McAdams]

It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left
voluntarily.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250

Another in a long series of people being censored on
conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Dave Reitzes]

On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left
>
> voluntarily.
>
>
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250
>
>
>
> Another in a long series of people being censored on
>
> conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions.

According to moderator Pat Speer (who says he had nothing to do with the
decision to ban me), it wasn't because of my opinions, but because I asked
forum moderators (in a thread devoted to "JFK Forum Rules and Behaviour")
why posts from former members had been deleted, and expressed some
disapproval.

Administrator Evan Burton replied that, with the exception of the case of
one particular former moderator, no posts had been deleted to his
knowledge, and asked me to be more specific. I referred to missing posts
from former members Jim DiEugenio (who had been banned) and Martin Hay
(who had left voluntarily because he disagreed with Jim D. being banned).
Neither Evan nor anyone else responded.

A couple months later, I noticed Martin Hay, at another forum, accusing
John Simkin of deleting his posts:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t584-fetzer-on-dieugenio

I posted a link to this at the EF, underneath my previous questions. The
next day, my log-in didn't work, all my posts were deleted, and all
threads I'd begun were gone -- including, oddly enough, contributions to
those threads by other members. Simkin didn't reply to an email of mine
about this, but Pat Speer confirmed with him that this is the reason I was
banned.

Dave

[TJCole]

On Tuesday, 31 December 2013 09:47:26 UTC+8, John McAdams wrote:
> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left voluntarily. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250 Another in a long series of people being censored on conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions. .John -------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Well, John none of my original or reply posts are being posted on this
forum.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

These are the guys that are going to crack the case. They`ll probably
figure he was retrieved by Langley.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left
>
> voluntarily.
>
>
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250
>
>
>
> Another in a long series of people being censored on
>
> conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions.
>
>
>

Do we know for a fact that a moderator removed the whole thread? Or can
there be some other explanation while we lack a clear statement from
either Dave or the moderator?

It ain't nice to do that sort of thing intentionally, even with Dave's
LN oriented stuff. It's easy enough to oppose the info without going to
nasty methods.

Chris

[Glenn V.]

Den tisdagen den 31:e december 2013 kl. 02:47:26 UTC+1 skrev John McAdams:
> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left
>
> voluntarily.
>
>
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250
>
>
>
> Another in a long series of people being censored on
>
> conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions.

Yup, you really are *the* beacon of light, John! :-)

I wish you and everyone else on this board a Happy New Year!

Glenn V.

[John McAdams]

On 31 Dec 2013 09:58:36 -0500, Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 30, 2013 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left
>>
>> voluntarily.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250
>>
>>
>>
>> Another in a long series of people being censored on
>>
>> conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions.
>
>
>According to moderator Pat Speer (who says he had nothing to do with the
>decision to ban me), it wasn't because of my opinions, but because I asked
>forum moderators (in a thread devoted to "JFK Forum Rules and Behaviour")
>why posts from former members had been deleted, and expressed some
>disapproval.
>

Still sounds like it's "your opinions." At best, opinions on banning
people and deleting their posts.

But I have a hard time believing that it had nothing to do with the
fact that you were a pain in the ass to the buffs there, making them
try to defend stuff that they would like to assume.

>Administrator Evan Burton replied that, with the exception of the case of
>one particular former moderator, no posts had been deleted to his
>knowledge, and asked me to be more specific. I referred to missing posts
>from former members Jim DiEugenio (who had been banned) and Martin Hay
>(who had left voluntarily because he disagreed with Jim D. being banned).
>Neither Evan nor anyone else responded.
>
>A couple months later, I noticed Martin Hay, at another forum, accusing
>John Simkin of deleting his posts:
>
>http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t584-fetzer-on-dieugenio
>
>I posted a link to this at the EF, underneath my previous questions. The
>next day, my log-in didn't work, all my posts were deleted, and all
>threads I'd begun were gone -- including, oddly enough, contributions to
>those threads by other members. Simkin didn't reply to an email of mine
>about this, but Pat Speer confirmed with him that this is the reason I was
>banned.
>
>

Yea . . . more of the petty politics of JFK assassination forums.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

I see nine of your posts this month.

We never just delete your posts. If we reject a post of yours, you
will hear from us.

If the post doesn't appear, and you have not heard from us, it means
we haven't gotten it.

(It's also possible you many have been reading the group on a server
than doesn't have a "good feed," and doesn't get all the posts.)

So don't whine. Work with us to get your posts on the group.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

Why would that be such a mine field? Quite ridiculous and hap hazard to
get banned because of that, if it's true. Sounds more like there was
something else behind it, and this was the opportunity to get rid of you.

Of course, in that thread about your Skeptic Magazine article, it was
apparent that you have the capability of shake that shark tank EF at it's
foundations.

The CTs over there, with few exceptions, can handle a LN of your caliber.
That's more likely what this is all about.

[Glenn V.]

"can not handle a LN of your caliber.", that is.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/31/2013 1:30 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2013 09:59:17 -0500, TJCole <thali...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 31 December 2013 09:47:26 UTC+8, John McAdams wrote:
>>> It seems that Cliff, at least, suspects that Dave might have left voluntarily. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20918&p=283250 Another in a long series of people being censored on conspiracy-oriented boards for having the wrong opinions. .John -------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Well, John none of my original or reply posts are being posted on this
>> forum.
>
> I see nine of your posts this month.
>
> We never just delete your posts. If we reject a post of yours, you
> will hear from us.
>

No. You delete posts without informing the poster.

> If the post doesn't appear, and you have not heard from us, it means
> we haven't gotten it.
>

You've tried that excuse before. It's like, "the dog ate my homework"
excuse.

[Anthony Marsh]

On another forum the moderator has software which finds naughty words and
converts them into emoticons. A couple of days ago I wrote that someone
was a moron and the software changed it to "lovely person." Your Net Natty
is British and gets easily confused by simple expressions. Most Americans
probably wouldn't even know what a tommy rotter is. On Late Night David
Letterman has commentary on the news from England by a fictitious
correspondent named Graham Fenwick-Jones who speaks only in British slang.

[Mitch Todd]

"Glenn V." wrote in message
news:c0a69760-4cfc-4125...@googlegroups.com...

>> Why would that be such a mine field? Quite ridiculous and hap hazard to
>> get banned because of that, if it's true. Sounds more like there was
>> something else behind it, and this was the opportunity to get rid of you.
>>
>> Of course, in that thread about your Skeptic Magazine article, it was
>> apparent that you have the capability of shake that shark tank EF at it's
>> foundations.
>>
>> The CTs over there, with few exceptions, can handle a LN of your caliber.
>> That's more likely what this is all about.
>
>"can not handle a LN of your caliber.", that is.

What caliber is that? 6.5mm?

[Dave Reitzes]

> The CTs over there, with few exceptions, [cannot] handle a LN of your caliber.

> That's more likely what this is all about.

I don't want to speculate too much about anyone's motives. John Simkin
expelled a handful of members and moderators this past May or June, and
they were all CTs. Simkin started a thread on the subject, and many chimed
in, some in agreement with John's decisions and some not so much:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259

One of the banned moderators, Tom Scully, has reposted some material that
was deleted, in case anyone's interested:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,9759.24.html

Some of the banned members and supporters of theirs have taken up
residence at Greg Parker's forum. Here are some of their recent posts on
the subject, FWIW:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t584-fetzer-on-dieugenio

I missed the whole blow-up, so I have no position on whether or not anyone
should or should not have been banned. My only question was about why it
is necessary for the forum administration to delete the posts of banned
members. (I subsequently learned that the administration had also deleted
the posts authored by at least some of those who had left voluntarily.
Also, according to Tom Scully, whenever someone's posts are deleted, the
site's software automatically deletes all threads that had been started by
that member, taking with them all the posts from other members who just
happened to post in the same thread. Cliff seems to be the first person to
complain.)

As I said in my original question, such practices strike me as kind of
Orwellian. For anyone who hasn't read "1984," this should explain what I'm
talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

(Also, to anyone who hasn't read "1984": You really should read "1984.")

Dave

[Glenn Sarlitto]

Just curious, are there any Texas Attorneys that post at the EF?

GS

[Glenn V.]

Den onsdagen den 1:e januari 2014 kl. 06:38:31 UTC+1 skrev Mitch Todd:
> "Glenn V." wrote in message
>

>

> >"can not handle a LN of your caliber.", that is.
>
>
>
> What caliber is that? 6.5mm?

I'd say more like a bazooka - 60 mm.

[Mike]

I'd say more like a BB gun.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 10:25:43 AM UTC-5, Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
> Just curious, are there any Texas Attorneys that post at the EF?

Yes, at least one. The one I'm thinking of says I'm a disinformation
agent.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

Incidentally, a few members of that forum have told me that they disagree
with John Simkin's reasons for banning me, but support his decision
because it's his forum. Well, sure it's his forum, as I acknowledged in
one of my deleted posts. If he wants to ban people without warning and
obliterate posts of theirs that were deemed perfectly acceptable at the
time they were posted, that's his business.

But to do it surreptitiously, even as your own moderators deny that it's
happening? Call me crazy, but that sounds kind of Orwellian to me.

There is something I was told by another Education Forum member that I
find far more discouraging than John Simkin's behavior, however. It
bothers me because it came from someone I thought to be a little more
reasonable in some respects than many others I've encountered there. He
told me he disagreed with my banning (although he supported Simkin's right
to ban me); however, if it had been up to him, he would have considered
deleting my EF post about my SKEPTIC article, as he considered that
article to be insulting to the members of the forum.

Dave

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/

[BT George]

Thanks for the link Dave. I hadn't read the article before now as I was
looking for a free copy. (As you know, I don't share "SKEPTIC" veiws on a
great number of matters related to religion in general and pure naturalism
in particular and thus prefer not to add any financial support.)

As I suspected it was very well written. Congtatulations! Also---I dare
say--were the same opinions voiced regarding religion, while I might
disagree with certain aspects of the critique and/or its bottom-line
conclusions, I do not think I would find it seriously insulting in any
way. Indeed, if more wrote with the same clarity, civility, and restraint
on controversial matters I think we would be much further ahead as
individuals and as a society.

It is sad indeed that anyone would support the notion of banning/deleting
it as though it were some kind of "hit piece".

BT George

[Mike]

Why do you think he thinks you are a disinformation agent?

You cannot get around that.

There are people who think that I am a disinformation agent.

If you present evidence and opinions that conflict with their opinion
the easy way out is to label you as a disinformation agent.

I have to to hold my tongue every single day to keep from labeling Tony
Marsh as a disinfo agent.

[Mike]

Reitz says this in his article. The idea that Dealey Plaza is a "virtual
echo chamber" is a factoid.

"Not only that, but as Charles Manson-prosecutor and later
JFK-assassination author Vincent Bugliosi puts it, �Dealey Plaza
resounds with echoes, the multistory buildings on the north, south, and
east sides making it a virtual echo chamber.�"

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 2:07:23 PM UTC-6, Dave Reitzes wrote:

Dave, congrats on an excellent piece. That's a lot of ground to cover,
with swamps everywhere, and you were able to keep it concise and on the
path.

This piece and Dale Myers' blogpost on the 50th anniversary should be
required reading to any engaged American. However many those are nowadays.
Kim Kardashian anyone?

That sounds snobbish but so be it.

[Mitch Todd]

"Mike" wrote in message news:52c5fb80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

On 1/1/2014 11:12 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 10:25:43 AM UTC-5, Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>> Just curious, are there any Texas Attorneys that post at the EF?
>>
>> Yes, at least one. The one I'm thinking of says I'm a disinformation
>> agent.
>

>Why do you think he thinks you are a disinformation agent?
>
>You cannot get around that.
>
>There are people who think that I am a disinformation agent.
>
>If you present evidence and opinions that conflict with their opinion
>the easy way out is to label you as a disinformation agent.
>
>I have to to hold my tongue every single day to keep from labeling Tony
>Marsh as a disinfo agent.

Yeah baby! Sing it!

I'm disinfo,
He's disinfo,
She's disinfo,
We're disinfo!
Wouldn't you like to be disinfo, too?
Be a disinfo!
Do some disinfo!
Be a disinfo!
Do some disinfo!

&c.....

[Glenn Sarlitto]

hmmmmm....all I'm looking for is the 1963 Texas Law regarding AUTOPSIES &
COURT of INQUIRIES...

Here's the current law regarding Autopsies
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm

Was watching a C-Span interview of Malcolm Kilduff and the interviewer
stated that per Wade, the taking of JFK's body outside of Texas
jurisdiction was no more than a misdemeanor and a $100 fine.

Wonder if Gary Mack would have a copy of the 1963 statutes at the 6th
Floor Museum?

GS

[Stan Shipman]

This isn't the first time we've needed an attorney well-versed in history
to help cut through the legal fog.

SS/Dallas

[Glenn Sarlitto]

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:58:19 PM UTC-6, Stan Shipman wrote:
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:10:36 PM UTC-6, Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 11:12:19 PM UTC-6, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 10:25:43 AM UTC-5, Glenn Sarlitto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Just curious, are there any Texas Attorneys that post at the EF?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Yes, at least one. The one I'm thinking of says I'm a disinformation
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > agent.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Dave
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > hmmmmm....all I'm looking for is the 1963 Texas Law regarding AUTOPSIES &
>
> >
>
> > COURT of INQUIRIES...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Here's the current law regarding Autopsies
>
> >
>
> > http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Was watching a C-Span interview of Malcolm Kilduff and the interviewer
>
> >
>
> > stated that per Wade, the taking of JFK's body outside of Texas
>
> >
>
> > jurisdiction was no more than a misdemeanor and a $100 fine.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Wonder if Gary Mack would have a copy of the 1963 statutes at the 6th
>
> >
>
> > Floor Museum?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > GS
>
>
>

Stan,

Re Your:

> This isn't the first time we've needed an attorney well-versed in history
> to help cut through the legal fog.

Agreed.

No Law is cut & dry. They are interpretive. That's why we have a Dept of
Justice and not a Dept of Law. Everyone at Parkland was dealing with a
complicated and antiquated law that day.

Here's an interesting take made by Earl Cabell, mayor of Dallas at the
time, who wasn't quite pleased with Manchester's book.

FORMER DALLAS MAYOR EARL CABELL'S RESPONSE TO THE MANCHESTER REPORT

http://smu.edu/smunews/jfk/cabell-manchester-response.asp

Quote On

The other legal obstacle to the removal of the body from the premises and
from the state was the fact that state law prohibits the removal of a body
from the state where death was due to violent causes without a release
signed by either the Governor of the state, the Lieutenant Governor in his
absence, the Attorney General of the state or after a coroner's inquest.
The reasoning behind this law, I believe, is obvious to any rational or
intelligent person.

Quote Off


My goal this year is to get a hold of a 1963 edition of "Vernon’s Texas
Statutes (Annotated)", just to make sure that the HSCA used the 1963 laws
and not the then current laws when the HSCA discussed this event. The HSCA
referenced "Vernon’s Texas Statutes (Annotated)".

I remember Vern Law being a Pitcher for the Pirates in the 50s & 60s, but
who the heck is Vernon, anyhow? I'm thinking it's a publishing company?

GS

[Stan Shipman]

'Sorry Glenn; I had just completely missed seeing your post. 'Good stuff
here.

If I had seen the mayor's letter, it sure was a long time back. Thanks for
posting it. It certainly provides a different slant to the hospital
conflict. As for the Vernon reference, it doesn't ring any bells with me
and I would doubt it has any tie-in to Vernon, Texas. And Yes, I remember
that pitcher, but that doesn't add-up either.

I'd say you need to find an attorney to answer that question; 'gotta be
some kind of legal connection to statutes, and your hunch is as good as
any regarding the publication.

Let me know if you find (or have found) it.

SS/Dallas

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I don't think so. He is just grumpy. :-0