The Ed Forum Might Close Soon

[Vinny]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=a39e28aa3ff23a5b76412059816f7e2a&showtopic=20931

The idea of Forums are in decline. They are expensive to run and they seem to attract disturbed individuals. Unless others step forward to pay for this Forum, it will close when it comes up for renewal.

[James DiEugenio]

It cannot happen soon enough.

Its a complete waste right now.

I don't know why Simkin let Lifton talk him into reopening it anyway.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Oh, please, don't let's close 'John's Place' just yet.  Wait until Mr. Lazar finishes with his Harry Dean sausages and Mr. Trejo hash browns……….with a dash of Terri Lee Williams Dixieland Hot Sauce……. fo' a little mo' flava', y'all.

[James DiEugenio]

Its almost become a mockery of what a JFK forum should be.

Especially since Sean has left there.  And I don't blame him.

The stuff he had was really important and revolutionary.

But just recall this:  When I first questioned the whole soda machine encounter with Baker's affidavit, Lifton attacked me for that.  He said, well look at the FBi reports.  (I think he was really serious about that too.)

Sean has now moved way beyond me in his analysis.  And Lifton was no where to be seen.  I cannot wait to see what he does with Sean's stuff in his book.

I will wager that he says the encounter still happened.

[StanDane]

Its almost become a mockery of what a JFK forum should be.

Especially since Sean has left there.  And I don't blame him.

The stuff he had was really important and revolutionary.

But just recall this:  When I first questioned the whole soda machine encounter with Baker's affidavit, Lifton attacked me for that.  He said, well look at the FBi reports.  (I think he was really serious about that too.)

Sean has now moved way beyond me in his analysis.  And Lifton was no where to be seen.  I cannot wait to see what he does with Sean's stuff in his book.

I will wager that he says the encounter still happened.

I was just checking the Prayer Man thread over at ED and I saw this from Bill Kelly:
 
"Those who reject the second floor lunchroom encounter that exonerates Oswald, are only fooling thselves, and it has yet got be established that Oswald is Prayerman, though he is a candidate." – Bill Kelly, ED Forum, 1/29/14
 
:: sigh ::

[GuestGuest]

Hi Jim

Any idea where Sean is hanging his hat these days? I miss reading his posts.

[Vinny]

Looks like it will be closing down shortly.

Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious ‘so-called researchers’


http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/

[Martin Hay]

Looks like it will be closing down shortly.

Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious ‘so-called researchers’


http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/

I left a comment on Morley's piece but it hasn't been "approved" yet (if indeed it will).

Here's what I wrote:

Everybody feel sorry for good ole John-boy. He’s just a victim of the “hostility” of “so-called researchers”.

Oh puh-leaze.

This is the man who kicked Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully off of his forum because he didn’t like the way they used facts to dismantle the theories of his buddy. He then lied and said they’d been kicked off for calling his buddy a liar. I asked John repeatedly to present the posts to prove it and he ignored me every time because he knew that no such posts existed. Disgusted, I gave up my membership to what I once thought was the best JFK forum on the web. And good ole honest John responded by deleting all of my posts. Then, when Dave Reitzes asked whether or not it was true that posts by myself and others had been deleted, he too was ejected from the forum.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone willing to do a little research that the reason the Education forum has gone down the toilet has nothing to do with the “intellectual style” of its members and everything to do with the disgraceful behaviour of its owner.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Hi Martin:

I've just added my tuppence worth and reproduce it below in case Mr. Morley doesn't deem it fit for his site:

Since Robert Groden has contributed a grand total of one post to the Simkin forum, inserting him here is inappropriate and unjust.  He is not, and never was, the problem at the Simkin forum.  If you have an issue with him, perhaps it is more rightly addressed elsewhere. 

Fetzer and Drago should have been enough to make the point.  Yet even those two have long been absent from the Simkin forum, as they were banned, and promptly started or improved their own internet soapboxes.  In fact, Drago was excommunicated from the forum he helped start after the Simkin ouster.

However, if the Simkin Forum closes, it has less to do with mis-behaviour than mercantile considerations.  In my nine years of membership at the Forum, John Simkin decided the membership required moderation, and then recused himself, allowing moderators he appointed to apply the rules inequitably. 

David Lifton was allowed to post any comment, now matter how low or gratuitous a slur, against another member, without sanction.  One such lucky victim of Lifton's wrath was told by a moderator that he should feel honoured to have so great a man call him mentally defective.  Simkin has acknowledged keeping Lifton aboard, despite a lengthy record of childishness, in the vain hope it would result in increased site traffic.  That's no way to run a railroad.

The gutlessness on display led a number of persons to self-exile, myself included.  If one is to have rules, they must be applied evenly to all rule-breakers, or there are no rules.  Equity is the cornerstone of all law, and it was sorely missing.  The resulting banishments thinned the herd of some very bright and insightful contributors.

With dwindling membership came decreased posts of interest, and decreased traffic.  John Simkin has repeatedly stated the Forum has been costing him money, rather than be self-sustaining.  It is no longer the cash cow John once hoped it would be.

Nor does it deserve to be.  The best and the brightest are absent; what's left is largely dross, and people whose own ignorance of the central topic they post about is staggering in nature. 

That said, John Simkin had other, urgently pressing reasons to disengage himself from the operation of his Forum.  It is tragic that his absence from the driver's seat of his own Forum allowed others to drive it into the ground. 

Finally, you wrote:

"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."

The record shows none of these concern troll assertions is true.

Some of the best work on this case has been done by women such as Sylvia Meagher, Mae Brussell, Shirley Martin, Martha Moyer, Mary Ferrell, et al, and they endured far greater hostility than mere flaming from self-appointed internet character assassins.

"Young students" come to the topic, generation after generation, because they are clever enough to discern there are unresolved issues, despite the blandishments of those who condescend to assure them there's nothing left to solve. 

"Thoughtful newcomers" read the adversarial arguments and come to their own thoughtful conclusions.  Which is as it should be, for in the marketplace of ideas the best hypothesis should win, assuming a level playing field.

If some of us misbehave in the process, it is lamentable, but is the direct result of the Warren Commission's failure to achieve the goal set out for it, and the subsequent obstructionism by federal bureaucracies that have not lived up to the legal requirements imposed upon them by the Assassination Record Review Board. 

Do you really think the CIA is withholding the Joannides records because John McAdams, Dale Myers and their rearguard faction are correct?  Or, in light of Antonio Veciana and Glenn Carle both admitting David Atlee Phillips used "Maurice Bishop" as one of his many aliases, do we see a far more viable and dangerous probability? 

In a world where "Maurice Bishop" is now proved to have associated with Oswald, how can one conclude that McAdams, Myers, et al, are honest brokers, rather than propagandists for something other than the truth.

[beowulf]

I was just checking the Prayer Man thread over at ED and I saw this from Bill Kelly:
"Those who reject the second floor lunchroom encounter that exonerates Oswald, are only fooling thselves, and it has yet got be established that Oswald is Prayerman, though he is a candidate." – Bill Kelly, ED Forum, 1/29/14
:: sigh ::

That is really sad.

[Martin Hay]

Hi Martin:

I've just added my tuppence worth and reproduce it below in case Mr. Morley doesn't deem it fit for his site:

Since Robert Groden has contributed a grand total of one post to the Simkin forum, inserting him here is inappropriate and unjust.  He is not, and never was, the problem at the Simkin forum.  If you have an issue with him, perhaps it is more rightly addressed elsewhere. 

Fetzer and Drago should have been enough to make the point.  Yet even those two have long been absent from the Simkin forum, as they were banned, and promptly started or improved their own internet soapboxes.  In fact, Drago was excommunicated from the forum he helped start after the Simkin ouster.

However, if the Simkin Forum closes, it has less to do with mis-behaviour than mercantile considerations.  In my nine years of membership at the Forum, John Simkin decided the membership required moderation, and then recused himself, allowing moderators he appointed to apply the rules inequitably. 

David Lifton was allowed to post any comment, now matter how low or gratuitous a slur, against another member, without sanction.  One such lucky victim of Lifton's wrath was told by a moderator that he should feel honoured to have so great a man call him mentally defective.  Simkin has acknowledged keeping Lifton aboard, despite a lengthy record of childishness, in the vain hope it would result in increased site traffic.  That's no way to run a railroad.

The gutlessness on display led a number of persons to self-exile, myself included.  If one is to have rules, they must be applied evenly to all rule-breakers, or there are no rules.  Equity is the cornerstone of all law, and it was sorely missing.  The resulting banishments thinned the herd of some very bright and insightful contributors.

With dwindling membership came decreased posts of interest, and decreased traffic.  John Simkin has repeatedly stated the Forum has been costing him money, rather than be self-sustaining.  It is no longer the cash cow John once hoped it would be.

Nor does it deserve to be.  The best and the brightest are absent; what's left is largely dross, and people whose own ignorance of the central topic they post about is staggering in nature. 

That said, John Simkin had other, urgently pressing reasons to disengage himself from the operation of his Forum.  It is tragic that his absence from the driver's seat of his own Forum allowed others to drive it into the ground. 

Finally, you wrote:

"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."

The record shows none of these concern troll assertions is true.

Some of the best work on this case has been done by women such as Sylvia Meagher, Mae Brussell, Shirley Martin, Martha Moyer, Mary Ferrell, et al, and they endured far greater hostility than mere flaming from self-appointed internet character assassins.

"Young students" come to the topic, generation after generation, because they are clever enough to discern there are unresolved issues, despite the blandishments of those who condescend to assure them there's nothing left to solve. 

"Thoughtful newcomers" read the adversarial arguments and come to their own thoughtful conclusions.  Which is as it should be, for in the marketplace of ideas the best hypothesis should win, assuming a level playing field.

If some of us misbehave in the process, it is lamentable, but is the direct result of the Warren Commission's failure to achieve the goal set out for it, and the subsequent obstructionism by federal bureaucracies that have not lived up to the legal requirements imposed upon them by the Assassination Record Review Board. 

Do you really think the CIA is withholding the Joannides records because John McAdams, Dale Myers and their rearguard faction are correct?  Or, in light of Antonio Veciana and Glenn Carle both admitting David Atlee Phillips used "Maurice Bishop" as one of his many aliases, do we see a far more viable and dangerous probability? 

In a world where "Maurice Bishop" is now proved to have associated with Oswald, how can one conclude that McAdams, Myers, et al, are honest brokers, rather than propagandists for something other than the truth.

[Hasan Yusuf]

I was just checking the Prayer Man thread over at ED and I saw this from Bill Kelly:
"Those who reject the second floor lunchroom encounter that exonerates Oswald, are only fooling thselves, and it has yet got be established that Oswald is Prayerman, though he is a candidate." – Bill Kelly, ED Forum, 1/29/14
:: sigh ::

That is really sad.

I totally agree.

[Hasan Yusuf]

Simkin can get fucked for all I care. He has absolutely no problem being friends with one of the most condescending and insulting pricks to ever research this case (Lifton), but bitches about others being that way. Now I find that to be incredibly ironic. I just feel sorry for all those great contributors who will lose all their posts.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

If Mr. Simkin has any British manners left in his bones, he'd "un-erase" all deleted posts and offer the complete EF JFK Forum codex as a CD-ROM, then close shop. He is (was?) part of the process of seeking justice for Jack.  This kind gesture would be for the next batch of snoopers to sift through, long after all of you reading this are gone. 

And he should give them out free to those who did the most moderating.  I can think of one person in particular.  That's the start of our Guessing Game.  I hope you find what you're researching for.

[GuestGuest]

Simkin is still attempting to save face, seeking attention through an email campaign. He could care
less about facilitating continued public access to the posts contributed these last ten years on the JFK Debate Forum.

Simkin chose to back the surrogate son long after it was obvious the son had credibility issues, among a myriad of personal challenges. (Simkin's initial justification, his accusation that Hank Albarelli had been accused of lying, had been contradicted by Albarelli himself. ).:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2013/10/wow-this-is-amazing.html
"I have been sent the complete court filing. I've got it all.  And I am going to post parts of it here selectively. I have to be careful because I don't want to violate Peter's privacy, and there is a lot of personal information included, which I will not put up. ..... "

................... Ironically, Janney's suit describes as "evidence," Leo Damore's alleged early 1990's exchanges with the "defendant," William L. Mitchell, but less than two months later Janney published a revision of his book which amounted to a new attempt to discredit me as a "protege of Jim DiEugenio," and included Janney admitting that Damore must have made contact with a person who could not have been the person Janney names in his lawsuit, but who may have been an imposter.

In Santa Barbara on 22 November, 2013, the surrogate son proudly described his ongoing wrongful death lawsuit as an ongoing and a promising legal endeavor to expose the truth and hold the guilty accountable.:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/11/john-hankey-peter-janney.html
(Link below from green script near top of page at link above.)
Link to file with sound recording of Janney's Santa Barbara "talk".:
http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-hankey%20janney%2050.mp3

One troubling issue is that Janney's wrongful death lawsuit was about to be dismissed with prejudice by the DC court in response to a motion filed just four days earlier by Janney's attorney William Pepper, most likely with Janney's approval. It seems unusual that plaintiff Janney was moving to dismiss his own lawsuit, after also moving to dismiss the default judgment against defendant Mitchell.:
http://dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf



I have had to learn the hard way that "the community" keeps those of little consequence, of little consequence and encourages the Simkins in its midst to be the bold, confident "bug squashers."
Simkin still exhibits and attempts to leverage his misplaced sense of confidence.

John Simkin is not a man who tolerates criticism that is constructive because it is accurate.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19058&p=259041
Greg Parker Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:47 AM
You're a disappointment, Tom.

I had you down as jumping on within an hour to protest the verdict. Ninety one minutes is just not good enough. Lift your game.

John is entitled to his opinion and I'd warrant it's not one that would do badly in any poll among posters and readers.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275587
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted 16 June 2013 - 06:37 PM
............

At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood.  Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think?  I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode....

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Tom,

thank you for providing the link to my quote - but it won't help those unfamiliar with your own history of sneering at certain areas of research whilst bemoaning how your own research is ignored.

My comment was a gentle chide that it took you a whole 91 minutes to lodge your protest at others being named "most valuable".

My other comment was merely stating the obvious. John was/is entitled to his opinion about who he deems most valuable contributors. My own opinion is that he got it half right. The other named party contributed very very little by way of research, but was awfully fond of looking for quotes from other members to point out apparent discrepancies in their positions. Sometimes this was apt,  but just as often it was far from appropriate. I would also point to his hyper-selectivity which amounted to hypocrisy given his self-appointed role as "conscience of the group". There were certain people he refused to find fault with, no matter how obvious, or how egregious their behavior. And he was also pretty good at sucking up to John.

That Robert left, despite his popularity with John and the vast majority of members, over the issues he outlined in his final post, should tell anyone reading it, just about all they need to know about him.

As for you, Tom... what can I possibly say? You were a terrible "hall monitor" over there - but unlike others performing those duties, I never believed you ever acted with any malice aforethought.  That was an important distinction to me, between you and certain other moderators.  

Regarding your posts, your method of simply dumping a whole bunch of raw data as your preferred method of communicating your research, was a royal pain for anyone trying to read it and follow your throughline. That said, you have indeed provided some hot material - but I couldn't blame anyone who didn't recognize it. They probably never had the time or stamina to read through it AND sort it out and extract the right bits to go with the preceding right bits. 

To be fair, your posts are more readable these days.

[beowulf]

Regarding your posts, your method of simply dumping a whole bunch of raw data as your preferred method of communicating your research, was a royal pain for anyone trying to read it and follow your throughline.

I always figured Tom was a very fast reader and didn't consider that text he'd zip through, would be slow going for others. I would give him the same advice I'd  give our friend Sean Murphy, summarize your arguments like you were making a Powerpoint presentation. You can always include source material in the footnotes for interested readers.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-mckinsey/f0885dd3c5c7

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Well, moving right along here……….. Um, what IS the latest news on the two Oswalds, I mean, Mitchells ?  Any motions in the court ?  Any more riveting interviews?

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Well, moving right along here……….. Um, what IS the latest news on the two Oswalds, I mean, Mitchells ?  Any motions in the court ?  Any more riveting interviews?

Mark,

credit where due. Tom put the sword to the claims being made about Mitchell. If there are any more updates, I'm sure Tom will be all over it like a rash.

[James DiEugenio]

Janney called Mary Meyer his "surrogate mother" in his lawsuit?

My God.  That is preposterous.

And Pepper went along with that?

Wow, that could hurt Pepper in the RFK case he has on appeal.  Which is a good case.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Just an update on Mr. Lazar's EF breakfast feast………. Paul "hash browns" Trejo has requested a forum moderator to intervene with the dialog concerning Mr. Dean and his past.  Mr. Scully, are you up for the job?  Lord knows you're qualified.  Judge Greene had an easier time with MCI v. Ma Bell, IMHO.

[Sponsored content]