http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious 'so-called
researchers'
February 19, 2014
jeffmorley Assassination
John Simkin, moderator of the U.K.-based JFK Education Forum, writes that
he plans to shut down the online discussion site, which he launched in
2004.
In an email Simkin blamed the self-centered and obnoxious behavior of
commenters:
"I became very disillusioned with the behaviour of the so-called
researchers. The degree of hostility they show towards each other is
beyond me. The vast majority of researchers only appear to be interested
in promoting their own theories and to rubbishing those who disagree with
them. I will be closing down the JFK Education Forum when the subscription
comes up for renewal."
Simkin says he has abandoned JFK research to devote himself to writing
about the British government and its intelligence services.
Who can blame Simkin for retiring from the field? Anybody who spends any
time in the JFK research community knows exactly what -- and who -- Simkin
is talking about.
The prototype is the egregious James Fetzer, a tenured professor and
otherwise intelligent man, who does a superb job of embodying the
stereotype of a crazed conspiracy theorist. I disagreed with him once on a
minor point in 2007, and he still hectors me for my heresy. The language
of his harangues has varied little over the years but his shamelessness
has grown. Last I heard of him he was trying to peddle some contemptible
sophistries about the Newtown School tragedy.
Then there's Robert Groden, a nice man in person, certainly one of the
world's leading experts on the photographic record of November 22, and a
citizen unjustly persecuted for exercising his First Amendment rights in
Dealey Plaza. Maybe he doesn't have anything to do with the trashing of
the Education Forum but his certainties are the kind of thing that can
wreck a discussion of JFK. For example, Groden informed me last August
that anyone who believes the Warren Commission's account of JFK's
assassination is a "liar."
Really? Was it possible, I asked, that somebody might have considered the
facts and sincerely reached a different conclusion? Or possibly that they
were not being intentionally deceptive but had been misled by a government
that fears transparency on the issue? "Is there no such thing as an honest
mistake or difference of opinion?" I asked.
The possibility seemed not to have occurred to him before. Groden promised
to think about it and get back to me. My phone has not yet rung.
Last week, I cited the the example of Charles Drago who declares that
anyone who believes the Warren Commission is either mentally retarded or
criminally complicit in JFK's murder. I likened Drago's intellectual style
to that of former White House official Cass Sunstein, who once advocated
Internet infiltration teams to disrupt those demonic online conspiracy
theorists (i.e. me and you) whose informed conversation (in Sunstein's
paraoid view) endanger the fabric of American democracy.
Impervious to irony, Drago responded by doubling down on
self-righteousness. In a comment made to JFK Facts. He boasted that he had
first used his line about the mentally retarded and criminally complicit
at a JFK conference in 1999, where he said it had received a "prolonged,
enthusiastic positive response." The conference, he noted with pride, was
sponsored by Jim Fetzer. Mercifully, Drago spared us his analysis of the
second gunman at Newtown, and we thank him for that.
Some will say that the heinous nature of JFK's assassination and the
prolonged coverup requires such audacious "truth tellers." Others will say
that John McAdams or Cass Sunstein are even worse. This is a succinct
expression of the odd theory that one needn't have critical standards,
merely adopt those of the enemy.
The reality is that this all-too prevalent intellectual style of the JFK
crowd only serves to alienate the young student, the thoughtful newcomer,
the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the
female.
Not to be sexist but it is plain that almost all of the JFK jerks are
male, and so are virtually all of their defenders. This isn't proof of the
inferiority of the male species (though a case can be made). It is
evidence that these blowhards are out of touch with reality, at least as
it is experienced by half the country.
In any case, they do not contribute to the JFK discussion. They stifle,
discredit, and kill it. JFK Education Forum R.I.P.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
I'll let someone else be the first to comment on whether Lisa Pease,
Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, or other prominent women in the JFK research
community, past or present, have been prone to portray those they disagree
with as liars or disinformation agents.
I'm more intrigued by the fact that the guy lamenting the behavior of some
in the research community is the same guy who, only a few days ago,
refused to let John McAdams continue posting comments on his blog until
John assured him that he was not any sort of undercover operative (and he
takes a gratuitous swipe at John in the above article, although he's
careful to distance himself from the view being expressed, attributing it
to unnamed "others").
He's also the guy who likened Dale Myers and Gus Russo to accessories in a
CIA cover-up because they had the audacity to suggest that his published
claims about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination went well beyond the
evidence. (For example: "...Myers and Russo are determined to support the
CIA in its efforts to block release of [classified files Morley is suing
to obtain]. Their method is to pound the drums of conspiracy so as to
drown out discussion of the unnecessary and unjustifiable CIA secrecy
around JFK's assassination records.")
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/fanning-wisps-of-smoke.html
Dave