Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Restoration Of The "JFK Lancer" Forum
101 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Oct 1, 2016, 10:31:24 AM10/1/16
to
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1179.html
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
This is to let [Education Forum] members know that the Lancer Archive will
be restored this August [2016].
I understand it will not be a restoration of the previous system. It will
be a bespoke rebuild.
It has been confirmed by the developers that they expect to restore all
the data saved prior to the hack.
EF Members will need to apply to be members of Lancer. Present membership
of the EF will not give members access to the site. Nor will it be
possible to have read access without membership. Lancer membership will be
needed to have both read and write access.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is there any way to revise that horrible decision, James?
IMO, it's incredibly silly to go to the trouble of restoring all those
Lancer posts and then cut off everyone except "members" from reading the
content. Why would anyone choose to incorporate such a stiff restriction?
I really don't understand that. ~shrug~
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
David,
I do not see a problem. If the archive is something you are interested in,
then request to be a member. Unless there is good reason not to admit a
member into the JFKLancer, it is simply a matter of routine.
In your time, you must have applied to join numerous sites. JFK Lancer is
not the property of the EF. The EF has been entrusted with the upkeep [of]
it. We promised Debra [Conway]--when possible--we would have the site
professionally restored.
[...]
It is also going to cost quite a bit of money to restore in the way we
want it restored and it does not seem unreasonable to create a separate
membership for the site.
Bottom line, it is up to each member to decide whether they also wish to
be a member of JFKLancer as well. Nobody is being forced to join.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But why REQUIRE someone to JOIN a forum just to READ its contents? That
was my point. I hate that restriction. And I think some other people do
too.
Some people prefer to lurk (i.e., just read), but prefer not to "join up".
Virtually all forums that I have been a part of have allowed everyone on
the Internet to at least SEE the posts being written without being forced
to join the forum as an official member.
Duncan MacRae's forum permits everyone to read the site (although, for
some reason, there is a restriction on viewing links and photos unless
you're a registered member). The Usenet newsgroups are completely open to
all readers. As is Greg Parker's forum. And DPF [Deep Politics Forum]. And
Wim Dankbaar's forum. And, of course, this Education Forum does not
restrict the reading of threads to just members. So why would JFK Lancer
restrict readership? They never did before their shutdown a few years ago.
Anybody could read the posts in past years.
I don't understand the logic of such a restriction at all. Without the
restriction, the site would undoubtedly get far more hits too. (How could
it not?) And isn't that one of the things that a website owner strives
for--a bigger audience, in order to get its message out there to the
public?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1179.html
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
This is to let [Education Forum] members know that the Lancer Archive will
be restored this August [2016].
I understand it will not be a restoration of the previous system. It will
be a bespoke rebuild.
It has been confirmed by the developers that they expect to restore all
the data saved prior to the hack.
EF Members will need to apply to be members of Lancer. Present membership
of the EF will not give members access to the site. Nor will it be
possible to have read access without membership. Lancer membership will be
needed to have both read and write access.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is there any way to revise that horrible decision, James?
IMO, it's incredibly silly to go to the trouble of restoring all those
Lancer posts and then cut off everyone except "members" from reading the
content. Why would anyone choose to incorporate such a stiff restriction?
I really don't understand that. ~shrug~
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
David,
I do not see a problem. If the archive is something you are interested in,
then request to be a member. Unless there is good reason not to admit a
member into the JFKLancer, it is simply a matter of routine.
In your time, you must have applied to join numerous sites. JFK Lancer is
not the property of the EF. The EF has been entrusted with the upkeep [of]
it. We promised Debra [Conway]--when possible--we would have the site
professionally restored.
[...]
It is also going to cost quite a bit of money to restore in the way we
want it restored and it does not seem unreasonable to create a separate
membership for the site.
Bottom line, it is up to each member to decide whether they also wish to
be a member of JFKLancer as well. Nobody is being forced to join.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But why REQUIRE someone to JOIN a forum just to READ its contents? That
was my point. I hate that restriction. And I think some other people do
too.
Some people prefer to lurk (i.e., just read), but prefer not to "join up".
Virtually all forums that I have been a part of have allowed everyone on
the Internet to at least SEE the posts being written without being forced
to join the forum as an official member.
Duncan MacRae's forum permits everyone to read the site (although, for
some reason, there is a restriction on viewing links and photos unless
you're a registered member). The Usenet newsgroups are completely open to
all readers. As is Greg Parker's forum. And DPF [Deep Politics Forum]. And
Wim Dankbaar's forum. And, of course, this Education Forum does not
restrict the reading of threads to just members. So why would JFK Lancer
restrict readership? They never did before their shutdown a few years ago.
Anybody could read the posts in past years.
I don't understand the logic of such a restriction at all. Without the
restriction, the site would undoubtedly get far more hits too. (How could
it not?) And isn't that one of the things that a website owner strives
for--a bigger audience, in order to get its message out there to the
public?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1179.html
Anthony Marsh
Oct 1, 2016, 8:49:18 PM10/1/16
to
you are a WC defender and support censorship? Can't have it both ways.
> Some people prefer to lurk (i.e., just read), but prefer not to "join up".
> Virtually all forums that I have been a part of have allowed everyone on
> the Internet to at least SEE the posts being written without being forced
> to join the forum as an official member.
>
> Duncan MacRae's forum permits everyone to read the site (although, for
> some reason, there is a restriction on viewing links and photos unless
> you're a registered member). The Usenet newsgroups are completely open to
> all readers. As is Greg Parker's forum. And DPF [Deep Politics Forum]. And
> Wim Dankbaar's forum. And, of course, this Education Forum does not
> restrict the reading of threads to just members. So why would JFK Lancer
> restrict readership? They never did before their shutdown a few years ago.
> Anybody could read the posts in past years.
>
and newspaper critical of Trump are hacked and attacked with DDoS?
> I don't understand the logic of such a restriction at all. Without the
> restriction, the site would undoubtedly get far more hits too. (How could
> it not?) And isn't that one of the things that a website owner strives
> for--a bigger audience, in order to get its message out there to the
> public?
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1179.html
>
In case some of the dull-witted here do not know what a DDoS attack is,
here is a recent example:
Newsweek suspects that hackers are to blame for the crash of its website
on Thursday night, after it published an article about Donald Trump???s
company secretly conducting business in Cuba in the 1990s.
"We don't know everything. We're still investigating," Newsweek editor
in chief Jim Impoco told POLITICO. "But it was a massive DDoS attack,
and it took place in the early evening just as prominent cable news
programs were discussing Kurt Eichenwald's explosive investigation into
how Donald Trump's company broke the law by breaking the United States
embargo against Cuba."
A DDoS attack, or distributed denial of service attack, is when an
attacker attempts to overwhelm a website or server with traffic,
rendering it unable to function reliably.
As of Friday afternoon, Impoco told POLITICO that the main IP addresses
involved in the hack were Russian, but that there was "nothing
definitive" about the ongoing investigation.
The magazine???s cover story, ???How Donald Trump???s company violated the
United States embargo against Cuba,??? was posted online around 5:30 AM on
Thursday. By Thursday evening, a "fairly sophisticated" attack took
Newsweek???s website down "for hours," Impoco said. Newsweek's IT team
worked through the night to get the website back online, he said.
"It would either be a big coincidence, or it had to do with this story,"
Impoco said Friday. " ... We were fortunate that some other sites picked
up the story so that people could still read it."
In the story, Eichenwald reported that a company controlled by Trump
???secretly conducted business in Communist Cuba during Fidel Castro???s
presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such
undertakings illegal.??? The piece also reported that senior officers in
Trump???s company attempted to make the business undertakings ???appear
legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.??? Trump
campaign manager Kellyanne Conway confirmed on ABC???s ???The View??? that one
of the payments Newsweek reported occurred.
The news magazine first suspected that the website crashed because of
the number of people viewing the article.
"Last night, @Newsweek crashed from flood of ppl trying 2 read story
about Trump breaking Cuban embargo," Eichenwald, the author of the
piece, wrote on Twitter Friday. He later tweeted that the publication
suspected hackers were behind the crash of the website.
Newsweek's IT team is still investigating the attack. We will continue
to update this post as more information becomes available.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Authors:
Kelsey Sutton
ksu...@politico.com
@kelseymsutton
This story tagged under:
2016 Elections Cyber Attacks Newsweek Donald Trump
Morning Media copy.jpg
Stay a Step Ahead with Morning Media
Your early morning rundown of the biggest media stories and scoops,
reported by Joe Pompeo
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/09/newsweek-suspects-hackers-crashed-website-because-of-negative-trump-article-004788#ixzz4LqWaBvmz
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
See, the CIA and Russian Intelligence CAN cooperate when they have a
common enemy, the American people.
0 new messages