Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 10:12 am by Stan Dane

» What strange affidavits these are!
Yesterday at 11:43 pm by Ed. Ledoux

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 1:21 pm

greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...
And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Guest on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 3:03 pm

At the risk of committing a faux pas, our friend DVP and his "buddies" are well compensated for battling with kooks such as us.


P.S. I've currently got Mr. DVP chasing his tail over at the Ed. Forum in regard to a bullet question. He's not quite sure how to safely answer the question without compromising any part of the WC. What would I do for fun without DVP? Smile


Last edited by Traveller11 on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Stan Dane on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 3:04 pm

greg parker wrote:
greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...
And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...
What explains that reaction?
 
I wonder if DVP, Bugs, McAdams and other Looney Nutters are on the "payroll" to keep certain things from getting out of hand. When new threats emerge (such as your new book, etc.), the paid contractors preemptively launch attacks to try to keep the proles under control. If not that, then what psychology explains this kind of reaction to new facts and ideas? 
 
The more I think about it, the Lonely Nuts camp is almost like a religion. People seem to be drawn to it because of faith, not reason. If you show people hard evidence of something (e.g., Prayer Man, doctored records, impossible timelines, provable lying, etc.) it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe they (and wacko fringe CTs) feel like they're getting something valuable from their beliefs, so they intentionally shield themselves from things that challenge their faith and won't listen. They belong to the Lone Nut family and that's all that matters. Their thinking is filtered according their ideological framework.
 
Maybe these thoughts and behaviors originate in the reptilian part of the brain.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2329
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Guest on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 9:16 pm

Traveller11 wrote:Okay, for your information, I was actually referring to the JFK Assassination Forum, home of the disinfo campaign.

I just got a little annoyed at Lee for posting my post from another site on here and demanding an explanation, so I fed his own words back to him.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ why Chaney's passing the limo was concealed, but I do feel that if it was ever proven, it would bring down the whole house of cards on the Warren Commission; as would proving any single segment of the Z film was altered.

If Mr. Farley is worried about being called a "crackpot", I'm afraid he is in the wrong business. We're called crackpots and kooks just for showing up on these forums.

Before I respond to your posts from the last few days I would like to first flesh out your claim that you were referring to Duncan McRae's forum.  I have searched high and low for a thread you were involved in over at JFK Assassination Forum that mentions Chaney riding forward.  I would like to see what "instant ridicule" looked like when you raised this issue.

Please point me in the right direction.  Failing that I will ask Tom Scully to help verify my own empty handed searches.

Then I will reply.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:30 pm

Maybe these thoughts and behaviors originate in the reptilian part of the brain.
You're a evil and twisted individual, Stan. cheers

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Martin Hay on Sun 02 Feb 2014, 10:33 pm

greg parker wrote:
 it is because of the Fetzers of this world, we all get lumped with the "kook" label. It is a tactic - but only one that is possible because in the name of "unity" so many on "our side" either embrace people like Fetzer, or at least live with his presence. Fuck that. He is as much the enemy as any "Lone Nutter". I refuse to sit around the camp-fire singing "Kumbaya" with utter scumbags.



Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 03 Feb 2014, 12:27 am

greg parker wrote:And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...


Poor DVP. He doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit that his fantasy about Oswald murdering the President has been ripped to shreds, so instead he ridicules honest researchers like Greg by calling them Kooks. What an utterly childish and pathetic human being he is.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Stan Dane on Mon 03 Feb 2014, 2:56 am

Martin Hay wrote:
greg parker wrote:
 it is because of the Fetzers of this world, we all get lumped with the "kook" label. It is a tactic - but only one that is possible because in the name of "unity" so many on "our side" either embrace people like Fetzer, or at least live with his presence. Fuck that. He is as much the enemy as any "Lone Nutter". I refuse to sit around the camp-fire singing "Kumbaya" with utter scumbags.



Speaking of Kumbaya sessions, I think Greg was the inspiration for John Belushi in this scene from Animal House (the twerp on the guitar played the role of DVP):


Stan Dane

Posts : 2329
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Mon 03 Feb 2014, 8:13 am

I’ll likely be thanked by neither party for saying so, but I believe contretemps such as these are counter-productive and don’t move the ball down field. 

Anything that propagates needless schisms benefits only those who wish the truth to remain buried   I know in my heart that neither party here wishes for that outcome.

End of sermon.

Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Mon 03 Feb 2014, 10:18 pm

Stan Dane wrote:
greg parker wrote:
greg parker wrote:Yeah... but only some - not all in the first volume...
And the pre-emptive attacks have started... no sooner did I put up a FB page for the book than one of my good FB buddies, DVP, put up another in his series of old debates with "kooks" on his blog... yep. One in which he calls me a "kook" in every second sentence...
What explains that reaction?
 
I wonder if DVP, Bugs, McAdams and other Looney Nutters are on the "payroll" to keep certain things from getting out of hand. When new threats emerge (such as your new book, etc.), the paid contractors preemptively launch attacks to try to keep the proles under control. If not that, then what psychology explains this kind of reaction to new facts and ideas? 
 
The more I think about it, the Lonely Nuts camp is almost like a religion. People seem to be drawn to it because of faith, not reason. If you show people hard evidence of something (e.g., Prayer Man, doctored records, impossible timelines, provable lying, etc.) it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe they (and wacko fringe CTs) feel like they're getting something valuable from their beliefs, so they intentionally shield themselves from things that challenge their faith and won't listen. They belong to the Lone Nut family and that's all that matters. Their thinking is filtered according their ideological framework.
 
Maybe these thoughts and behaviors originate in the reptilian part of the brain.
  date I set up the FB page for the book - followed by this from DVP... he is so predictable. god bless his little cotton socks...


_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Guest on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 4:05 am

I'm saddened to see this kind of friction develop between two forum members, reaching the boiling point like this after only a couple of days over whether James Chaney did or did not pull forward of the limo. It's a molehill that has no resemblance to being a mountain.

It doesn't come down to ultimatums- either he goes or I go, with no in-between. Why don't you each take about a week off, until next Sunday or so, before you post again? That should help calm down the anger level.

Robert is a relative newcomer but earnest, in my view, and brings a lot of expertise in weaponry to the discussion. And Lee's command of the assassination subject material is second-to-none, with a propensity for digging up cutting-edge contradictions. 

There is plenty of room for both of you gentlemen here.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Guest on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 4:33 am

Recommendation accepted.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 7:25 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:I'm saddened to see this kind of friction develop between two forum members, reaching the boiling point like this after only a couple of days over whether James Chaney did or did not pull forward of the limo. It's a molehill that has no resemblance to being a mountain.

It doesn't come down to ultimatums- either he goes or I go, with no in-between. Why don't you each take about a week off, until next Sunday or so, before you post again? That should help calm down the anger level.

Robert is a relative newcomer but earnest, in my view, and brings a lot of expertise in weaponry to the discussion. And Lee's command of the assassination subject material is second-to-none, with a propensity for digging up cutting-edge contradictions. 

There is plenty of room for both of you gentlemen here.
Richard, thanks for jumping in. It's only just turned 7am here. I've been up since 5:20am getting my shop ready for opening. Mornings can be hectic for me. Time for a quick browse and maybe a quick reply or two until things slow down in the afternoon. In any case, I was going to abstain from being part of any decision to avoid any charge of bias.

Without going into the specifics here, I will say that a lot of people do have a tendency to guild the lily a little in certain situations and see no real harm in doing so. A small number of people have zero tolerance for any variation on the exact truth of a matter. 

I have received a PM from another member, and I wholeheartedly agree with what that member said. The question for you and Hasan is this: is a decision (if one is to be made) more important than the processes involved? 

I will only add that there are no rules here in regard to language. Where I personally draw the line however, is that if a poster is labelled X, Y Z by another poster, I have no real objection if the charge can be defended on grounds of being factual and relevant. For example, if someone is called a coprophiliac on Prozac, it better be transparently obvious as to the relevance of it - and it also needs to be a provable fact. 

That's all I have to say - all I have time to say. I'll leave it with you and Hassan. Whatever actions you guys take (or don't take), you will have my support.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Admin_2 on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 7:49 am

I am posting this here because I think members have a right to know that I have banned Robert Prudhomme from posting on the forum. Although there were some unpleasant remarks made from both Lee and Robert; Robert was clearly caught out lying, and made what I considered to be a provocative remark. Namely that he told Lee to get a life. Although other members may disagree, I think Robert accusing Lee of being a stalker and a psychopath was much worse than anything Lee said to him.


If Greg or Richard restore Prudhomme's membership, then I will leave the forum myself, because I feel it is the right thing to do.


Hasan Yusuf.

Admin_2

Posts : 21
Join date : 2013-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Admin_2 on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 7:54 am

P.S If anyone would like to send me a P.M on my decision, please send it to ''Hasan Yusuf" and not this account.

Admin_2

Posts : 21
Join date : 2013-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Guest on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 8:31 am

I don't agree with this decision, but won't interfere. It reeks of favoritism toward Lee Farley, who has a track record of getting a bit too tempermental when he disagrees with someone. What I would have done is temporarily suspend the posting rights of both individuals for a short period of time, say one week, to let emotions calm down. 

Robert Prudhomme I became familiar with by following the Prayer Man thread at the Education Forum. I found him a quick learner who asked good questions. And he has an expertise with rifles that anyone should appreciate- I can't keep up with half of it.

This place shouldn't become a clubhouse where disagreeing members get booted out of the gang. We'll quickly grow bored with ourselves and quit one by one.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 9:26 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:It reeks of favoritism toward Lee Farley, who has a track record of getting a bit too tempermental when he disagrees with someone.


I admit that I don't want Lee to leave the forum, Richard. However, my reasons for banning Prudhomme are as stated.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Tue 04 Feb 2014, 10:29 pm

I would think  few would relish Lee leaving. 

Robert gilded the lily at another forum concerning the subject of this thread and then proceeded to try and cover that up by attributing the problem to yet another forum. That is how Lee sees it. I don't doubt it, but for the record, I did not personally check Robert's claims. Lee has zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. 

I find myself in partial agreement with Hasan and with Richard. I think Robert's comments warranted sanction. They could not be supported by facts and were offered in lieu of straightforward answers. On the other hand, the "clubhouse" analogy is also troubling. I have seen other current and departed forums become "clubhouses" where you will not last if you don't agree with the core beliefs of the leadership, or if, for any reason, they simply take a dislike to you.

A few things worked against me getting too involved in this today - but in the end, that may be just as well. Not only was there a conflict of interest involved, but also, at the time I handed the reins over, it was supposed to be so I could let go. 

I know this hasn't been handled well. That is partly a product of my involvement instead of allowing full autonomy... but it is also a product of having no protocols in place to handle such situations. As much as the latter may cause some problems, I do not want to set up any rules or protocols - whether that be for moderating or for forum behavior. I will say that this at least  has been handled openly and honestly, and that is something I don't want subjugated by a set of decrees which can be flouted, ignored, or twisted.  

I'm sure Robert will find his Plimsoll line elsewhere and regain buoyancy. 

I will try and rebuild bridges here where I can. But I will also try and let go of admin/moderating decisions. It is not fair on Hasan or Richard and they should not have to worry about second guessing what I would do.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Thu 06 Feb 2014, 7:23 am

I'm just letting members know that I have removed all of the unpleasant remarks made by Lee and Robert towards eachother. They have not been deleted, but hidden from public view.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Thu 06 Feb 2014, 5:27 pm

Hasan,

A few years ago at the Lancer Forum, a Canadian chap commented on the high violent crime rates in the US by making reference to the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic makeup of American society. I responded by saying that he was fortunate to live in a country where there were so few darkies to worry about. Completely oblivious, he agreed with me. But a moderator (who I regard very highly, still) chose to edit my statement by changing "darkies" to "black people"; upon re-reading it, I was appalled to find that it now read as if I were serious in my statement.

I continually find this same problem with the censor's art: by deleting or changing things as they are, they sometimes can make it worse. If I called someone a scurrilous turd, and that was edited as "deleted," most people would more or less automatically assume that I called the person a m*th***c*er. Granted, that might be because that's what they expect from me .... but the point is that trying to do the right thing in censorship very often leads people to believe the worst, and the principle of transparency is usually a better guide because everything's "out in the open" and there's less chance of misunderstandings. Or people being able to take advantage of a situation, like deleting all the posts one has made in a forum ..... and so in one fell swoop, a critic is silenced, friends are protected from prior critiques, the silenced person has no way of proving what was previously said or argued or presented as evidence, and the censor could even conceivably send out private messages to select people making all kinds of claims about the silenced person, with that person not knowing what was claimed and unable to fight back, especially without having any posts to support one's arguments/defense.

This is only a "point of order," Hasan, something to think about.

Take care all,
Dan

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by greg parker on Thu 06 Feb 2014, 6:51 pm

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Hasan,

A few years ago at the Lancer Forum, a Canadian chap commented on the high violent crime rates in the US by making reference to the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic makeup of American society. I responded by saying that he was fortunate to live in a country where there were so few darkies to worry about. Completely oblivious, he agreed with me. But a moderator (who I regard very highly, still) chose to edit my statement by changing "darkies" to "black people"; upon re-reading it, I was appalled to find that it now read as if I were serious in my statement.

I continually find this same problem with the censor's art: by deleting or changing things as they are, they sometimes can make it worse. If I called someone a scurrilous turd, and that was edited as "deleted," most people would more or less automatically assume that I called the person a m*th***c*er. Granted, that might be because that's what they expect from me .... but the point is that trying to do the right thing in censorship very often leads people to believe the worst, and the principle of transparency is usually a better guide because everything's "out in the open" and there's less chance of misunderstandings. Or people being able to take advantage of a situation, like deleting all the posts one has made in a forum ..... and so in one fell swoop, a critic is silenced, friends are protected from prior critiques, the silenced person has no way of proving what was previously said or argued or presented as evidence, and the censor could even conceivably send out private messages to select people making all kinds of claims about the silenced person, with that person not knowing what was claimed and unable to fight back, especially without having any posts to support one's arguments/defense.

This is only a "point of order," Hasan, something to think about.

Take care all,
Dan
Dan,

I agree with you about transparency. But in this case, labels were applied to a poster which could not be substantiated. The one who applied those labels was banned, and the aggrieved party left by personal choice. He then contacted and asked that the remarks about him be removed and added that if Hasan and Richard felt anything he said should also be removed, then that should be done as well.

The posts have not been deleted, just removed from view. If either party wants access to what was said (if they haven't kept copies already) that should be considered within the context of the request/purpose.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Fri 07 Feb 2014, 4:45 am

Greg wrote:....the aggrieved party left by personal choice. He then contacted and asked that the remarks about him be removed and added that if Hasan and Richard felt anything he said should also be removed, then that should be done as well.
Okay, now we know. Thanks.

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Fri 07 Feb 2014, 7:06 am

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Hasan,

A few years ago at the Lancer Forum, a Canadian chap commented on the high violent crime rates in the US by making reference to the multi-cultural and multi-ethnic makeup of American society. I responded by saying that he was fortunate to live in a country where there were so few darkies to worry about. Completely oblivious, he agreed with me. But a moderator (who I regard very highly, still) chose to edit my statement by changing "darkies" to "black people"; upon re-reading it, I was appalled to find that it now read as if I were serious in my statement.

I continually find this same problem with the censor's art: by deleting or changing things as they are, they sometimes can make it worse. If I called someone a scurrilous turd, and that was edited as "deleted," most people would more or less automatically assume that I called the person a m*th***c*er. Granted, that might be because that's what they expect from me .... but the point is that trying to do the right thing in censorship very often leads people to believe the worst, and the principle of transparency is usually a better guide because everything's "out in the open" and there's less chance of misunderstandings. Or people being able to take advantage of a situation, like deleting all the posts one has made in a forum ..... and so in one fell swoop, a critic is silenced, friends are protected from prior critiques, the silenced person has no way of proving what was previously said or argued or presented as evidence, and the censor could even conceivably send out private messages to select people making all kinds of claims about the silenced person, with that person not knowing what was claimed and unable to fight back, especially without having any posts to support one's arguments/defense.

This is only a "point of order," Hasan, something to think about.

Take care all,
Dan


Dan,

Your advice is much appreciated. I will keep it in mind when making decisions in the future.

Hasan.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: What is James Chaney Looking Back at?

Post by Sponsored content Today at 7:14 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum