Response to the post on the New Regime at the Spartacus JFK forum

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I am responding to it here as I am not going to jump through the hoops required in order to make one post.

Andy Walker and I started the Education Forum in December 2003. The main objective was to create a place to discuss educational issues. At the time we were both involved in several educational projects, including the European Virtual School. If you look at the following thread you will see the biographies of our early members.

http://educationforu...p?showtopic=530

A second objective of the forum was to enable people to engage in debate about the content of my Spartacus Educational website. This was important because my website contains information on controversial subjects. In fact, it was started in September 1997 to support the History National Curriculum (England and Wales). An important feature of this curriculum is to study the different interpretations of the past.

John doesn't believe that history can ever be interpreted with any precision - presumably because of the human element - so he presents an assortment of information from various sources - mainly books. Very rarely (if ever?) does John quote from any official sources. It's a bit like my argument for avoiding vegetables - I shouldn't have to eat the greens - the cow does that for me. Moreover, as can be seen in his biographical sketches of authors, the "different interpretations" mantra doesn't apply to those authors in whom John has (mis)placed his trust as reliable sources of information, or has befriended.

As for not being able to nail down history with a high degree of accuracy... he is correct up to a point. But if treated as a maths problem and broken down to the simplest components, it can be done. It just takes time, patients and very tiny steps, followed by deep digging.

In those early months of the Forum we had some interesting discussions about educational issues and the content of my website. Although members strongly disagreed about some of these subjects all the members treated each other with respect and no one was banned nor did we need to have moderators.

In March 2004 I was asked if I would start a new section of the Forum on the subject of the JFK assassination. I had taught the subject in the classroom as an “interpretation” exercise since 1979 and had put some of this material on the website in 1998. At the time, there was very little material of the subject and was appearing near the top of search-engine inquiries (this was a time before Google).

"Interpreting" is just an admission you can't be bothered trying to ascertain the facts. It's "history" for intellectuals, historians and teachers who by nature, prefer ruminating on the merits, superiority and philosophy of their approach above doing the dirty work of actually digging deep.

I agreed to this request and the first posting took place a few days later on the subject of David Atlee Phillips. The main objective of this section was to bring together researchers into the assassination of JFK. As I said a few months later: “It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).”

And it has done that, and continues to, to varying degrees of success regardless - and maybe even sometimes because of the in-fighting.

What is completely missed is this:

"not all conflict is bad! Conflict is always difficult, but it leads to growth and change, which is good. No one likes pain, but pain wakes you up and tells you when to react. If you had your hand on a stove, and you couldn’t feel the pain to know to remove it, you’d be in big trouble! If there were no painful stimulus, you would get burned. It’s been said that conflict is like a tea bag: You have no idea how strong it can be until it gets into hot water."

Some level of organizational conflict is actually desirable — it’s not always dysfunctional. When conflict exists, it generally indicates commitment to organizational goals, because the players are trying to come up with the best solution. This in turn promotes challenge, heightens individual regard to the issues, and increases effort. This type of conflict is necessary. Without it, an organization will stagnate!

When conflict does occur, the results may be positive or negative, depending upon how those involved choose to approach it. http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10385718/conflict-in-the-workplace-conflict-can-be-positive-and-productive

In the early days of the JFK forum authors of books on the assassination, were willing to discuss their material on the subject. I was aware that people held strong opinions on the assassination but I had no idea of the level of hatred that people had for fellow researchers. The real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy.

John is completely correct here. Despite the fact that I am probably one being referred to, I admit there is a Monty Python element to it (Think the People's Liberation Front of Judea)

The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail.

I don't know so much about that and would have liked to have been shown examples.

These discussions often resulted in members making abusive comments. The worst offenders were members who saw JFK as some Jesus Christ type figure who was killed because he was trying to save the world. Therefore, anyone who suggested that JFK was a flawed individual faced the prospect of venomous attack.

Here is where I object. John has seemingly lumped me into this category and accused me of attacking him over it. I did not. I merely pointed out there is a dearth of evidence to support the sex allegations. To suggest that this paints me as someone who believes JFK was a saint either shows a hypersensitivity on John's part, or he simply is employing the cheapest of debate tactics. It would save confusion if John would name names. But that's another tactic: the use of generalizations spread with a broad brush.

Several of the authors who had been attacked told me they were no longer willing to post on the Forum because of the abuse they received. At that time I considered closing down the JFK section of the forum. It was causing me more grief than it was worth. However, at the same time, the forum did contain good researchers who were always polite and argued their case in a logical manner. I therefore asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. It was a thankless task but some people did volunteer to do the job.

Never trust volunteers. It is why arsonists volunteer as rural fire-fighters - why pedaphiles volunteer as scout leaders and why future tyrants volunteer to be chalk monitor.

In November, 2004, I posted the new forum rules.

http://educationforu...?showtopic=2243

It included (iv): “Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “liar” is banned from use on the forum.”

Members often broke this rule and persistent offenders were warned about their behaviour. Some were put on moderation but it seemed to have little impact on their long-term behaviour. I have to confess that by this stage I was completely disillusioned with the JFK Forum and rarely read it and only occasionally posted items that I thought members might find interesting.

Occasionally I received emails from friends bring my attention to what some members were saying about me on the forum, other people’s forums and websites. Some of these unpleasant comments were about my so-called support of Peter Janney’s book, Mary’s Mosaic. It is true that I believe that the CIA were involved in the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer as can be seen on my page on her and the discussion that I started on 23rd March 2005.

http://educationforu...?showtopic=3520

It seems my main sin was not that I was blaming the CIA for her death but because I was suggesting that JFK had affairs with women. I posted this attack on me by Jim DiEugenio here:

http://educationforu...showtopic=11208

John is obsessed with this. To the point of acting like a 5 year old. When what are supposed to be bios of Jim di and yourself are actually mostly taken up with a continuance of the debate between the two of them over a book that will never have any impact on the case, it is time he looked in the mirror every time he accuses others of behaving childishly.

I even allowed Jim to join the Forum in June 2010 so he could continue his attacks on me. I am not complaining. I think these attacks say more about Jim than me. However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.

http://educationforu...showtopic=19058

http://educationforu...showtopic=19777

http://educationforu...showtopic=19367


The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.

The best way to defend a friend is hardly by acting unilaterally to send the alleged offenders to Siberia. The best defence is what John claims he expect from others - address the claims being made with what ever facts can be mustered. Not to do so simply suggests you have no facts to draw upon. I do not think anyone would have thought badly of John for fighting with facts. Such is not the case for the course of action taken.

Last week I received an email from Hank Albarelli Jr. about a thread about his book, "A Secret Order"

http://educationforu...showtopic=19016

I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar.

Hank argues:

The recent posts and actions of James DiEugenio and one Tom Scully are accomplishing nothing but the gross discrediting, and perhaps destruction, of the forum. These two fellows seem to be on some sort of pathological campaign to damage and discredit any forum member who may happen to disagree with them or that posts something they don't agree with.

Their destructive campaign against Peter Janney is a very good example. Their blatant attempt to coerce me into that campaign is yet another fine example of how devious and harmful these two individuals can be. (The fact that Scully lists himself as a site "moderator" is quite surprising to me.)

I noted you in my new book as a fine historian, and also highly praised the forum and several of its members, but I would hesitate to do that again given the actions of the above two fellows. I fear that they are making a mockery of the forum and are using it simply for their own devices. Quite sad to observe and experience.

I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.

The New Regime... Same as the Old... rules applied without concern for common law concepts of fairness.

[Hasan Yusuf]

Well said, Greg. Let me just say that banning Jim Di from the forum, while leaving charlatans such as DVP, Lifton, and a sex freak like Robert Morrow who posts complete garbage about JFK, will just make him look bad.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Well said, Greg. Let me just say that banning Jim Di from the forum, while leaving charlatans such as DVP, Lifton, and a sex freak like Robert Morrow who posts complete garbage about JFK, will just make him look bad.

Well, here's the latest post from that thread:

That is what is called "projection" and "shooting the messenger."  John Kennedy loved gossip, especially if it was sexual gossip. Gore Vidal mentions that. JFK was completely sex obsessed, addicted to amphetamine and he was having sex with teenage girls such as Mimi Alford and the mother of Jack Worthington http://www.vanityfai...8/04/jack200804

"His mother, an exquisite beauty queen in her youth, met John F. Kennedy soon after he became President through an introduction from Vice President Lyndon Johnson, a close family friend. Members of his mother’s family were political allies of LBJ during his ascent to power."

I don't know if JFK was having underaged sex, but he was obsessed with having teenage sex while he was a married man in his mid forties.

Several on the forum (including at least one moderator) have Morrow's number. John may well argue that he breaks no forum rules - but that is actually not the case.

While I got a post censored for use of the word "ass"... hereare two of Morrow's efforts

Seal began yelling at the top of his voice, something out of character for him. Terry had never seen him this euphoric.
"YEE-HAWWWWWW," he screamed. "I'm gonna fuckin' make it. We're gonna do this, Terry. We've got these assholes eatin' outa our hands. YEE-HAWWWWWWWWW. Give me the fuckin' airplane.
He grabbed the control yoke and executed a series of aileron rolls. Terry had never been sick in an airplane, but he was sure about to lose his SOS.
"OK, enough of that shit," Seal said after seeming to tire of the aerobatic antics. "You got the airplane, I'll hook up the radios."
"Terry sat silently at the controls, trying to figure out what was driving Seal. As Barry emerged from under the electrical panel, after making the radio connections, he abruptly began pounding with his right hand on the dash of the Lear until Terry thought the avionics in the control panel would be dislodged.
"There ain't nuthin' in this world more powerful than good ol' fucking blackmail, Terry. And don't let anybody ever tell ya different. Jeeeeeesus Christ, I got some good shit on some big people."
"Will you let me in on your party? Calm down, Barry! Tell me what's goin' on."
"Terry, what's most important right now is for ya ta play ball with these guys and get your ass down to Mexico ASAP. You impressed the shit out of Leroy... Robert Johnson [William Barr, later Attorney General for GHW Bush], too. I won't be able ta come to Mexico right now, I've got a little matter to take care of. But ya get on down there and get in a position to receive me, and I'll be joining ya soon. Goddam, this'll be great. Won't it be fun workin' together and spendin' all their fuckin' money?"

the President stormed out
of the room and screamed at an aide backstage, "Keep those motherfuckers
away from me. If you can't, I'll find someone who can."
LBJ ON THE COUCH

. An old saying in Texas
is, "Fuck with the bull, you get the horn." To the military, members of
the vast intelligence community, the oil magnates and other industrialists,
Lyndon Johnson was the absolutely perfect replacement for the "radical"
from Massachusetts.

There are actually 74 hits for "fuck" at the Ed Forum, so Morrow is most likely not the only one who has dropped the "f" bomb without censorship. And that's not going into other verboten language.

I can't say there is favouritism shown to Morrow because John is not the one with the black marker pen. But it's still noteworthy that Morrow and John both believe the same evidence-free crap about the drugs and sex.

I wish John all the best. His forum ebbs and flows. Right now tho, it's a sewer - and that has NOTHING to do with bad language.

[Hasan Yusuf]

Greg,

There's no doubt in my mind that John's own obsession with JFK's sex life and alleged drug taking is why he hasn't booted off Morrow from the forum. I'm sure he's a nice guy in person based on what you and others have said about him, but he really needs to find better friends than someone as arrogant and egomaniacal as Lifton.

[Sponsored content]