Morley Doubles Down on Censorship

[John McAdams]

Here is his e-mail to me:

<Quote on>

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

<end quote>

I responded as follows:

<Quote On>


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

<end quote>


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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 2:18 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Here is his e-mail to me:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> 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
>
> <end quote>
>

How would we know if all the messages have been censored?

> I responded as follows:
>
> <Quote On>
>
>
> So you are censoring them unless I apologize?
>
> Nonsense.
>
> You should apologize to me for your initial act of failing to approve
> them.
>

Is this your way of apologizing to me for deleting my messages?

> 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.
>

But you don't allow me to do the same. Double standard.

> 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.
>

Look in the mirror.
You encourage your buddies to post outright lies and forbid me from
pointing them out.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 18:12:18 -0400, Anthony Marsh

No.

>> 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.
>>
>
>But you don't allow me to do the same. Double standard.
>

I'll allow you to contest anything, Tony.

But you can't call people liars. And you can't say they are part of
the "coverup."

>> 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.
>>
>
>Look in the mirror.
>You encourage your buddies to post outright lies and forbid me from
>pointing them out.
>

You can't call people liars. You can say that anything they posted is
untrue.

.John

[FELIX LEITER]

Dear Jeff,

I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry you are so stupid.

[Anthony Marsh]

And McAdams allows YOU to post crap like this? Only because you are a WC
defender.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 22:46:05 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 5/6/2014 6:20 PM, FELIX LEITER wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:18:19 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> Here is his e-mail to me:
>>>

>>> --
>>>
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Dear Jeff,
>>
>> I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry you are so stupid.
>>
>
>
>And McAdams allows YOU to post crap like this? Only because you are a WC
>defender.
>

Tony, if you didn't have that bug up your ass, you would have noticed
that Jeff does not post here.

And we don't protect people who don't post here.

If we did, we'd have to protect the CIA people you blame.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

How would I know? You keep changing the rules, only for conspiracy
believers. You allowed Barb to call me a liar. You told me that I am not
allowed to say someone's theory is stupid because that implies that the
person is stupid. Yet you just allowed one of your buddies to call me
stupid. You have created an unlevel playing field to discriminate against
conspiracy believers.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Look in the mirror.
>> You encourage your buddies to post outright lies and forbid me from
>> pointing them out.
>>
>
> You can't call people liars. You can say that anything they posted is
> untrue.
>

And then you delete my posts. To protect your buddies. CIA 101: Never
allow an honest debate. Always attack your opponent personally. Your goal
is to water down the debate and forbid facts so that it is only one
person's opinion against another's. And they you use Argument by Authority
to claim that YOUR opinion is more valuable.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 10:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 22:46:05 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2014 6:20 PM, FELIX LEITER wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:18:19 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> Here is his e-mail to me:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>> Dear Jeff,
>>>
>>> I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry you are so stupid.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And McAdams allows YOU to post crap like this? Only because you are a WC
>> defender.
>>
>
> Tony, if you didn't have that bug up your ass, you would have noticed
> that Jeff does not post here.
>

.John if you quoted properly you'd see that the comment was TO Jeff
(Dear Jeff) from someone here. You snipped out who sent it to Jeff to
protect him.

> And we don't protect people who don't post here.
>

Not true. You told me that I was not allowed to criticize President Bush
and call him a liar. Maybe you knew that he was posting here under an
alias? Was that as BIGFART?

> If we did, we'd have to protect the CIA people you blame.

You already do.

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

[FELIX LEITER]

Marsh wept!

[Bud]

Somebody throw Tony a crying towel.

> >>> 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.
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> Look in the mirror.
>
> >> You encourage your buddies to post outright lies and forbid me from
>
> >> pointing them out.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > You can't call people liars. You can say that anything they posted is
>
> > untrue.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And then you delete my posts. To protect your buddies. CIA 101: Never
>
> allow an honest debate. Always attack your opponent personally. Your goal
>
> is to water down the debate and forbid facts so that it is only one
>
> person's opinion against another's. And they you use Argument by Authority
>
> to claim that YOUR opinion is more valuable.

More valuable than yours, certainly.