Comment of the week

Willy Whitten – March 23

Have no fear Dr Agular,

I understand the disingenuous nature of McAdams’ purposes here.

I had a comment that remains unpublished just before your last two, that makes this very clear.
. . .

“Dr Boswell – one of the autopsy doctors – maintains that he was lifting such a flap over the back of the head in the photo below.”:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/piks/boh.jpg

Thank you Gary, for the link to the Paul Seaton page.
\\][//

50 comments

  1. Tom S. says:

    Would more facts likely appear in reader’s comments if the most frequent submitters of comments were not prevented from presenting comments centered on other commenters, instead of on the supporting details of their points?

    Or is it anticipated that the opposite is the case, that despite the
    personal criticisms that are submitted but do not appear, there is still too bitter an atmosphere of distraction?

    Is there a JFK Assassination discussion venue that is more congenial that a lesson or two can be drawn from, or must we accept that this is about as good as
    it gets? I regularly visit, and even participate at some of the more active JFK discussion sites. As unhappy as I am with the atmosphere here on JFKfacts.org,
    I’m not reading more inviting or informative posts on other JFK discussion sites.

    Years ago, I was self employed and managed a staff of fifteen or so. There had been a long history in that small business of high turnover, an effect of
    frequent firings. New to the business and to its problems, I decided to execute an opposite strategy, emphasizing working with and developing the progress
    and performance of the current employees. A big challenge was that a core group of veteran staff took delight in the frequent dismissals, the past atmosphere
    I was committed to doing away with. the frequent and sudden firings had become a source of entertainment and reinforcement. Just as the personal criticisms
    are a major distraction and atmosphere deadening effect, here, the parade of new hires and quick firings in that particular business was a resource draining
    side show.

    There are options. Might it help to confine commenters frequently critical of other commenters to one discussion, and permit all of their vitriol to display
    there, instead of attempting to stifle much of it? I’m describing mainly comments that are devoted to personal criticism, not ones that are informative and on topic and contain an, “oh, by the way, your mother dresses you funny!”

    • Why don’t you simply reject comments that are personal attacks? That would be way more effective than occasionally berating people about them.

      • Tom,

        Why don’t you simply reject comments that contain such phrases as “huffing and puffing buffs”?

        OR you could use a subjective criteria such as rejecting all commentary that is ‘hypocritical’.

        Or any commentary that is “arrogant” and “displeasing” to some subset of commentators.

        I would submit that you are dealing with an aspect of human nature here that is futile to extinguish, and that is the animosity that arises between people who disagree with each other’s opinions.

        What is your own motivation for researching and making commentary to the assassination of John Kennedy Tom?

        Is there not a certain passion driving you here?
        Doesn’t it frustrate you and displease you when your own commentary doesn’t receive the attention or get the positive reaction to it you expected?

        What shall we do or say about human frailty in all of its manifestations? What do we do about our own frailties as human beings?

        Shall we pray or pull out a blade? Or any of the countless possibilities in-between?
        \\][//

        • Why don’t you simply reject comments that contain such phrases as “huffing and puffing buffs”?

          That’s my way of pointing out that you are fussing, fuming, complaining, griping and bitching about something, and not adding any information to the discussion.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        And of course your comments are completely free of personal attacks, and are never anything other than the epitome of calm, reasoned discourse.

        I have an idea, don’t approve any that contain a link to a poster’s own website. That will improve the atmosphere immeasurably. 😉

        • Fearfaxer says:

          And anyone using the pseudo-word “factoid” receives a 60 day ban.

          • “Factoid” is a perfectly fine word.

            What you don’t like it anybody disputing things that conspiracists post.

          • Jason L. says:

            Calling something someone posts a “factoid” is belittling and is basically a personal attack, in my opinion. You can post evidence that you think rebuts someone’s assertion without that. It’s certainly much more polite.

        • I have an idea, don’t approve any that contain a link to a poster’s own website. That will improve the atmosphere immeasurably.

          That will protect you from seeing any evidence at odds with what you believe.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            No, since I’ve already thoroughly reviewed you website, and found it wanting. Just as I’ve thoroughly reviewed the Warren Report and found it wanting. But given a choice between the two, I’ll take the WR, much better to read the original than something produced by writing up uninteresting summaries of what it contains.

            And then there’s the witness testimony, so at odds with the Report’s conclusions. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            BTW, I notice you don’t deny your comments are full of personal attacks. At least they’re at times mildly interesting, unlike your website.

          • PBR says:

            Agree with John McAdams in this regard. Beatrice Evelyn Hall’s statement regarding her opinion on Voltaire’s attitude to freedom of speech springs to mind here. The distractions to which Tom refers are an abrogation of freedom of speech and are tiresome sideshows to what I believe to be the original purpose behind JFKFacts.org. I’m fed up with the ad hominem tirades following many of the crucial questions posed by Jeff on this site. Critique the evidence, not the person perhaps?

          • And I have to disagree with PBR, in that John McAdams has been at least as abrasive as anyone else on these threads as far as personal characterizations.

            But I do agree with Tom, that two wrongs do not make a right. With the caveat that, as in many things what is and is not ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder.
            \\][//

      • PBR says:

        I should qualify my last comment by saying that I don’t wish to take sides in the Punch and Judy show diversions. I just wished to point out that respecting freedom of speech and respect for fellow commenters would perhaps lead to a more clinical, detached and dispassionate tone of debate in which the evidence can be tested, whomsoever posts it. My comment was in no way an endorsement of John McAdams’, nor anyone else’s, theories on the assassination. I firmly adhere to the notion that where anyone has posted evidence it deserves thorough analysis before any endorsement or rebuttal, particularly one that is based solely on the poster’s identity, opinions or attitude. Apologies if my last comment was somehow misconstrued.

      • theNewDanger says:

        John McAdams

        March 23, 2016 at 10:26 am

        Why don’t you simply reject comments that are personal attacks? That would be way more effective than occasionally berating people about them.

        Are you serious? You are one of the main people making personal attacks.

  2. Well, what was in my comment that did not get published that I referred to?

    In my comment that you did publish, I characterize my unpublished comment as making clear McAdams’ disingenuous nature. But in that comment I did not make that clear by saying outright that McAdams has a disingenuous nature. Did I Tom?
    No, I illustrated that nature by showing that McAdams remarks that I was answering were absurd.

    I submit that if my original comment had been published I would not have posted the comment to Gary that you ended up using as comment of the week above.

    Shall we publish that original comment here on this thread for public clarity on the matter?
    \\][//

  3. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Sometimes I will post a quick comment just to let off steam, knowing full well you will not actually let it pass.

    I was quite surprised you allowed the post where I told Photon to “dry your tears and get over it, princess”.

    • Tom S. says:

      Bob,
      That was not a difficult call. You had also included this in your “princess” comment.:

      The fact remains that McClelland believed there was a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head, and he also believed this wound was concealed by a flap of scalp in the Back of Head autopsy photo.

      The first week guidance I received from Jeff, and it was in response to a comment submitted by the now Travis County, TX, Republican party chairperson elect, was to consider the entirety of the comment. I do not make a practice, aside from correcting a spelling error as a courtesy, of editing out portions of submitted comments. I am left to weigh the value vs. the offensiveness. Should none of this appear, because of this portion? I also try to consider if the provocative portion is an escalation, is it likely to trigger a reply in kind, at best.

      It is any easy call when the only point in a comment is to insult. intent is a consideration, as is refined consistency. I am taking only a small risk, for example, if I do not carefully read every word of comments submitted by Dr. McAdams. Compared to others who often comment very critical and personal opinions, he takes any particular comment only so far.

      Ironically, the result is a manipulation of his critics. McAdams can reasonably ask, and often does, “what kind of moderator are you, approving a comment addressing me in that way?”

      IOW, he keeps control of his emotions, as manifested in the wording in his comments, even as he influences others to abandon control, in their responses.

      Jeff made a point of saying two years ago, that he had not disapproved any of McAdams’s comments.

      I ask everyone to comment in a manner indicating the opportunity to do so is valued. If you change the alias you’ve used in prior comments, or you are a new commenter and the email address you offer seems contrived, your comment may not appear.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I think you’re doing all right, Tom. We’re all big boys here and I don’t think any of us are ever surprised at what gets printed and what doesn’t.

        I spent many years working in the Bush as a logger, where foul comments and profane expletives are considered a normal means of communication. I regularly have to go back over my posts and clean up the nasty language I typed in the heat of a moment. Sure, it feels good to type such things but, I am in full agreement with you that there is no place for such things on this forum.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I’ve not perused any other sites recently besides here and the Education Forum and CTKA. Different formats but all good in their own respects. This is the only one of those that allows comments from any and all. That invites some extremes. Not easy to moderate to the satisfaction of all. The lectures, diatribes and battles are part and parcel I guess. I am thankful for the occasional insightful discourse. It would be nice if the demeanor of the participants, me included, was a little more courteous, if for no other reason than to encourage participation by others.

    • Tom S. says:

      Willy Whitten writes,

      Since Bob has brought up Photon, and we are seemingly free to air some of our grievances here….

      Willy, actually we are free to contribute ideas here on how to move JFKfacts.org in a more readable direction, and what to do in reaction
      to the commenters who interfere with that goal. I offered both Bill Clarke and yourself one discussion to confine your personal opinions
      of each other in, for example. Readers are not coming here to read commenters’ opinions of each other. There are already too many comments
      departing from presentation of competing analysis and relevant details.

  4. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Willy:

    “But I do agree with Tom, that two wrongs do not make a right.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but two Wrights made an airplane. 🙂

  5. MDG says:

    “It would be nice if the demeanor of the participants, me included, was a little more courteous, if for no other reason than to encourage participation by others”.
    Ronnie Wayne March 24

    The Assasination of President John F. Kennedy is a serious and convulted matter. We must focus on that. Let’s hear from everyone. I often have the thought what would JFK think of this site in all its forms, and digressions.

    I agree with you Ronnie Wayne. Thank you for your comments.

  6. Brian Joseph says:

    I don’t post often but read frequently. I think a lot of the insults and name calling could be reduced with two simple self monitoring rules:

    1) Try to be nice. Just because someone disagrees that doesn’t make them an idiot.

    2) Try to ignore bait that appears to be dropped into the water to elicit a response of insults or name calling. That type of bait is usually used when a commenter doesn’t have a real rebuttal and is trying to squirm away from the topic. Many other commenters likely realize the intent of the insult.

    Remember that a lot of people hold their beliefs around this whole subject with an almost religious zeal and when someone presents an opinion or evidence that challenges their belief they may attack the messenger as a way of avoiding the message. Many other commenters realize this and just ignore the insulter. When ignored the insulter may think they got the last word but those words are a sign of weakness of argument more than anything else.

    When those who drop insult and name calling bait are ignored they usually eventually go fishing in another pool.

    • I was high on JFK Facts when Jeff first began the forum. I’ve read/reread over 200 books, attended 3 scholarly conferences, gotten friends to view the site, etc, etc. However, over time two individuals have ruined the site and all of us know who they are (they should be banned). They know who they are. As I read this thread one of them left a reply almost as every other reply (they should be banned). This forum’s subject matter is no longer about JFK Facts. It’s about two individuals (this should be banned). One even promotes their web site (that should be banned). When I was at the 2013 Pittsburgh conference, I saw Mr. John standing in the corner of a room with almost 500 people. Who was he talking to? None other then Max Holland. Mr. John could have told Robert Tannembaum, Joan Mellon or a host of people that they were wrong/incorrect. No, no, he stood in that corner and didn’t say a damn word. He’s the insincere one (or two) on JFK Facts who is closed minded, negative or any number of words could be put here. I’ve chosen to not log on here near as often as in the past. In addition, I’ll no longer financially support JFK Facts because of the inability for the moderators to deal with these problems. Since it’s no longer JFK Facts, what will be the new name or…will you allow these individuals to continue to spread their BS until no one is left except those you “accidently” find what is left of JFK Facts. next…

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Bob Truitt
        March 24, 2016 at 9:39 pm

        “I was high on JFK Facts when Jeff first began the forum. I’ve read/reread over 200 books, attended 3 scholarly conferences, gotten friends to view the site, etc, etc. However, over time two individuals have ruined the site and all of us know who they are (they should be banned). They know who they are. As I read this thread one of them left a reply almost as every other reply (they should be banned).”

        Ban the books. Blacklist the writers and actors as McCarthy did. Hell, why not bring back the “white only” signs while we are at it?

        Aren’t we whining a bit much here? We’re all grown men and women. Must we whine all the time. This group, as any group, needs a dissenting voice. Without it you don’t have much. For example, you would have a very warped view of JFK and the Vietnam War without a opposite view here.

        Tom is doing good work at a very difficult job. He cannot make everyone happy. I say let it roll. If I can take a certain member calling our fallen soldiers, “chumps” I think I can take anything.

        • Tom S. says:

          To what degree do other commenters influence what is presented in subsequent comments, and how should responsibility
          be assigned? Do each of us simply own what we submit, or are contents of prior comments of others influences to be
          assigned some credit or blame? If they are, what is fair, reasonable assignment?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_%28artificial_intelligence_robot%29#cite_note-bizarre-1
          Tay is an artificial intelligence chatterbot released on March 23, 2016 by Microsoft Corporation on the Twitter platform.[1]….
          Within one day and after Tay had tweeted more than 96,000 times,[6] Microsoft temporarily suspended Tay’s Twitter account for “adjustments” after Microsoft claimed a “coordinated effort by some users to abuse Tay’s commenting skills to have Tay respond in inappropriate ways”,[7] …..

          Ich bin ein Tay …..

          http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/citing-fbi-quest-apple-asks-judge-delay-iphone-37926865
          Microsoft Artificial Intelligence Experiment Under Fire
          Microsoft’s teenage chat bot “Tay” is in a time-out of sorts after the artificially intelligent system, which learns from interactions on social media, began spewing racist comments within a day of its launch this week, company officials said…

          …..It was unclear what adjustments were being made or when Tay would be back online. She no longer responds to messages and her last tweet makes it unclear when — if ever — a kinder, gentler Tay will emerge from her time out.

          https://twitter.com/TayandYou

  7. Paul May says:

    This entire thread is a mystery to me. You have a blog going by the name JFKFacts yet the majority of those posting are conspiracy advocates. When does ones position become a fact? History is debated, not argued. When McAdams uses the word “factoid”, I interpret that to mean the position as put forth by a conspiracy advocate has long ago been discarded by main stream researchers. I for one become discouraged by what I call the ” everything is sinister crowd”. Everything is not sinister because history does not work that way. Were the two sides to debate just the facts of the case as JFKFacts implies I believe decorum would be maintained and personal attacks minimized.

    • “Everything is not sinister because history does not work that way.” ~Paul May

      Perhaps Mr May should learn something beyond the Lollipop History of his “mainstream”, and discover some real history as to how “education” has been turned into an Indoctrination Factory based on the Prussian Military Model of “training” and manipulation:

      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/

      \\][//

      • Paul May says:

        I truly have no idea why you posted that link.

      • Federal Rules of Evedence # 406

        Habit; Routine Practice

        Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
        . . . . .
        This rule officiates the concept of Modes Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.

        Subsequently this rule transfers as relevant in discussion on this forum, and has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.

        The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.

        In tandem with Routine Habit is the construction of the “profile” of a group or individual. That would be a catalog of the habits and routines of individuals or groups.
        This can turn from an exacting science to an art form by talented individuals with long experience in such investigation and research.

        What has this to do with Paul May? let his own words and the subtext they reveal be an illustration:

        “This entire thread is a mystery to me”~Paul May, on March 24, 2016 at 7:50 pm

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          Willy, isn’t this a clearer representation of your comment?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence
          Federal Rules of Evedence # 406

          Habit; Routine Practice

          Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
          . . . . .

          This rule officiates the concept of Modes Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.

          Subsequently this rule transfers as relevant in discussion on this forum, and has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.

          The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.

          In tandem with Routine Habit is the construction of the “profile” of a group or individual. That would be a catalog of the habits and routines of individuals or groups.
          This can turn from an exacting science to an art form by talented individuals with long experience in such investigation and research.

          What has this to do with Paul May? let his own words and the subtext they reveal be an illustration:

          “This entire thread is a mystery to me”~Paul May, on March 24, 2016 at 7:50 pm

          • Thank you Tom,

            I suppose that is somewhat clearer.

            I had written my first part from memory and only referred back to Wiki, as an afterthought and a link, as is your wont.

            Your version works for me!
            \\][//

      • As an autodidactic polymath, I never had the need to seek ‘credentials’ from authority. Thus by intuition I bypassed the indoctrination pressed on those who “seek” ‘Higher Education” as it is euphemistically called.

        As an artist I prepared my own ‘credentials’ in portfolios displaying my talents. My curriculum vitae speaks for itself.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          March 26, 2016 at 2:28 pm

          “As an autodidactic polymath, I never had the need to seek ‘credentials’ from authority. Thus by intuition I bypassed the indoctrination pressed on those who “seek” ‘Higher Education” as it is euphemistically called.”

          So this means you don’t have a PhD from Harvard? I thought so.

          “As an artist I prepared my own ‘credentials’ in portfolios displaying my talents. My curriculum vitae speaks for itself.”

          Displaying your talents? Speaks for itself? Good grief Whitten.

          • List of autodidacts

            Artists and authors

            Actors, musicians, and other artists
            Architects (Frank Lloyd Wright is on this list)

            Engineers and inventors
            (Leonardo da Vinci – Thomas Alva Edison – The Wright Brothers, included herein)

            Scientists, historians, and educators
            (Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Buckminster Fuller)

            Etc, etc, etc…

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts
            \\][//

    • A bucket of war paint
      A bucket of dust
      A bucket of blood
      Put them together and you’ve got mud
      \\][//

  8. part 2

    Remember the children’s story about the elephant in the room that no one will talk about? This is the website that knows why it’s not functioning as it wants to but is unwilling to say two words. 1. McAdams 2. Proton This is because if those two words are said, something might have to be done about them. Just one man’s opinion but I bet it’s shared by quite a few people. Those people are trying to abide by and seek the truth of JFK Facts.

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    A factoid has long ago been discarded by main stream researchers? Who are these Main Stream Researchers? Did you mean Main Stream Media? There are no researchers there, only pet pony’s.
    Tom, can you tell us from the IP address is this the real, infamous paul may?

  10. Tom, Where did the list of JFKfacts archives go?
    \\][//

    • Tom S. says:

      I dunno, Willy. That is above my clearance level. My browser displays an advertising image in that left side space now.
      Maybe if you have a browser you can clear cookies from, the archive list will reappear.

  11. Brian Joseph says:

    I don’t mind McAdams or Photon at all. I like do like Photon’s writing style more than I like McAdam’s. My view of what the cause of what happened in Dallas in November 63 is way different than their view. I first started reading challenges to the Warren Report over 40 years ago. For several years it was my primary reading. I read a few newer books in the early 90’s and then a long gap before starting again about 5 or 6 years ago. My views about the conspiracy have changed and evolved and some of that has come from my views being challenged by myself as well as others. Some of it has came as a result of new information. I like this site because I see it as trying to figure out what the facts are.

    Without “there wasn’t a conspiracy” folks the same type of insults and baiting could be going on between “Johnson did it” people and “Dulles masterminded” people. I don’t think the issue discussed in this thread is “yes conspiracy” or “no conspiracy” issue. I think it’s about different ways of disagreeing. To me initiating insults and name calling is a sign that one is frustrated because they can’t come up with a real rebuttal. I think responding in kind just feeds the initial insulter/name caller and they keep coming back for more.
    Ego stuff can get mixed into it too. It’s not easy for some people to acknowledge or want to consider that they may be wrong about something in public and this is a public forum.

    • Brian Joseph,

      There is some merit in your comment above. But I am reminded of the term, “In a perfect world”.

      I have been an “Internet Warrior” fighting what has come to be known as the “Mind Wars” for several decades now. There is something to be said for growing a thickened dermis. This is not a world for the timid, the swooning debutante, one who gets “the vapors” at the drop of a spat.

      I have encountered many a moderator struggling with how to keep some discipline and order on blogs. Some have found a moderate position to be best, and they are the best moderators in the long run. Those who are too strict inevitably turn out to be biased in some political fashion and give leeway to those they agree with, while being harsh and strict to their own arbitrarily enforced rules.

      I found the moderators on a website called ‘Scragged’ to be the worst of the last type. I found Craig McKee of ‘Truth & Shadows’ to be a bit too “fair” in allowing utterly absurdest views to be aired on his site.

      I find Tom Scully to be perhaps the best all around moderator so far in my own experience. We have our differences, but I can deal with that. Moderation is a hard job…”but somebody has to do it” (to paraphrase a common cliche).
      \\][//

    • “Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”~Adolf Eichmann

      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_eichmann.html
      \\][//

  12. The Power Elite is a 1956 book by sociologist C. Wright Mills. In it Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

    The book is something of a counterpart of Mills’ 1951 work, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, which examines the then-growing role of middle managers in American society. A main inspiration for the book was Franz Leopold Neumann’s book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state like Germany. Behemoth had a major impact on Mills and he claimed that Behemoth had given him the “tools to grasp and analyse the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy”.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite
    ________________________________________________________

    It is this System that killed President Kennedy in Dallas 11/22/1963. It is as important to grasp this larger systemic analysis to understand that this coup d’etat has continued the agenda of this Power Elite of Military Industrial Complex to the present existential crisis that humankind faces today.
    \\][//

    • BEHEMOTH
      http://www.unz.org/Pub/NeumannFranz-1942

      INTRODUCTION
      THE COLLAPSE OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC
      I. THE EMPIRE

      FOR HALF A CENTURY or more the history of modern Germany pivoted
      around one central issue: imperialist expansion through war. With the
      appearance of socialism as an industrial and political movement threatening the established position of industrial, financial, and agricultural wealth, fear of this challenge to imperialism dominated the internal policy of the empire. Bismarck tried to annihilate the socialist movement, partly by enticement and even more by a series of enactments outlawing the Social Democratic party and trade unions (1878-90). He failed. Social Democracy emerged from this struggle stronger than ever.
      Both Wilhelm I and Wilhelm I P then sought to undermine the influence
      of the socialists among the German workers by introducing various social reforms—and also failed.

      http://www.unz.org/Pub/NeumannFranz-1942-00013?View=PDF
      \\][//

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more