Morley Denies Censorship

[John McAdams]

OK, starting with my most recent post to Morley, and working back:

<Quote on>

Yes, Jeff, I am being censored, and the reason is that some buffs who
are intolerant of different opinions complained about me to you.

So you held my posts in spite of the fact that you admitted you saw
nothing wrong with them.

And I didn't actually call you "stupid." I said you engaged in a
"stupid stunt."

Here it is, Jeff, for all to see:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KmqSUR199Bc/q-Wwv18lTQ

.John

<Quote on / this is Jeff>

You need to listen John. You are not being censored. Your comments are
welcome on the site.

The comments policy says that commenters who use uncivil language will
be put on 48 hour delay. By calling me "stupid" and saying I had
censored your comments when in fact I had every intention of running
them, you were uncivil.

Here's the policy: Check it out:

http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/


<My e-mail to which is is replying>

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, McAdams, John
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
So you are censoring them unless I apologize?

Nonsense.

You should apologize to me for your initial act of failing to approve
them.

Indeed, you owe me an apology for this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/KmqSUR199Bc/q-Wwv18lTQwJ

And you should apologize for comparing me to an obnoxious guest at a
dinner party. I'm only obnoxious to intolerant people who don't want
their buff factoids contradicted.

Now, I would suggest you approve the five comments you refused to
approve. If you don't, it will be obvious your site lacks
credibility, and that you caved to buff pressure.

.John

<The post from Morley to which I was replying>

From: Jefferson Morley [mailto:mor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:49 PM
To: McAdams, John

John,

None of the other guests in the discussion at JFK Facts have insulted
the host.

So I've come up with a solution. I've added a provision to comments
policy that anyone who insults the editor (ie me) or otherwise use
language will have their comments put on a 24 hour delay.

So John your comments are on 24 hour delay until you apologize for
insulting me or until I feel your language has improved. Your comments
are not being have censored.

Jeff

<Quote off>

Of course, I'm not going to post on any site that wants to put me on
"48 hour moderation."

Jeff started this by pandering to irate buffs who hate having me
contest their theories.

And he faces the consequences.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Strange that he couldn`t discern the difference between calling him
stupid and saying he was engaging in a stupid stunt. But then again, maybe
not so strange, it`s a hallmark of all these hobbyists.

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> OK, starting with my most recent post to Morley, and working back:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Yes, Jeff, I am being censored, and the reason is that some buffs who
> are intolerant of different opinions complained about me to you.
>
> So you held my posts in spite of the fact that you admitted you saw
> nothing wrong with them.
>
> And I didn't actually call you "stupid." I said you engaged in a
> "stupid stunt."

That doesn't exactly strike me as being polite, john.

But it certainly is hypocritical.

Since you fabricated a ruled that I have to be "polite" to your friends,
why would you complain that Morley requires you to be polite to him and
members of his forum??


Robert Harris

[neopa...@aol.com]

Jeez, you're sounding more and more like a conspiracy theorist.

What "consequences" is Morley going to face from you?

Surely you're not threatening him are you?

[Anthony Marsh]

Just as you pandered to your WC defender buddies who hate having me
point out their lies.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 6:37 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
>> OK, starting with my most recent post to Morley, and working back:
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Yes, Jeff, I am being censored, and the reason is that some buffs who
>> are intolerant of different opinions complained about me to you.
>>
>> So you held my posts in spite of the fact that you admitted you saw
>> nothing wrong with them.
>>
>> And I didn't actually call you "stupid." I said you engaged in a
>> "stupid stunt."
>
> That doesn't exactly strike me as being polite, john.
>

But when I attacked McAdams buddies for saying stupid things he deleted my
messages because he said that is the same thing as calling them stupid.

[Anthony Marsh]

Strange that McAdams couldn't discern the difference when I called his
cronies theories stupid.