Keep those comments coming (just not all at once)

I just took down some of Photon’s comments policy and since I don’t have a working email address for him. I thought I would explain why. It has
nothing to do with his opinions. It was required by the site’s comment policy.

The Comments Policy stipulates that one commenter cannot occupy more than three of the home page links in the “What readers are saying” box. At one point his morning, Photob’s comments filled all seven links in the box.

This provision is designed to make sure that the diversity of debate on the site is represented in a prominent place on the home page. Having that box dominated by one comments gives a misleading impression of the site discussion.

Comments delayed because of this policy will be republished when republication does not result in a violation of the policy.

I should also say that John McAdams’ comments are subject to a 48 hour delay because he stated–falsely–that I had censored his comments. John knows this is not true. When he acknowledges to me that his accusation was false, the 48 hour delay will be lifted.

This also is required by site policy. This provision is designed to encourage civil behavior toward the owner of the site–me. It and has nothing to do with John’s opinions, which are welcome on the site and have never been censored.

 

 

39 comments

  1. Jean Davison says:

    Photon is not the only poster whose name has appeared in the sidebar three times or more, by any means. It has happened often. I’ve seen one name (not his) fill all seven slots.

    Rule 5 in the Comments Policy says “No comment will be published that results in the commenter’s name appearing three times” in the sidebar — not “taken down after they are published.” It sounds as if the person who broke this rule was whoever published more than three of his comments, not Photon.

    John McAdams’ complaint about censorship didn’t happen out of the blue, but only after his posts were held up for several days with no explanation. I’d call that a form of censorship, too.

    • jeffmorley says:

      If you see a name occurring more than three times in the top box, please let us know and we will enforce this policy. I have enforced this rule on other occasions with other commenters. John is not being singled out. And he is not being censored. Every post that John McAdams have been published. In other words, I have published his comments more than 100 times in the past month, and not published not a single one of them. Please explain to me how this qualifies as “censorship.”

      • Anonymous says:

        How come everyone else doesn’t get the same courtesy?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Jeff,

        I don’t know who Photon is, so I’m obviously not speaking for him, or for John McAdams. It’s your forum to conduct however you like, of course. I’m just expressing my personal opinion.

        How was Photon supposed to know when and how many of his posts would appear on the sidebar? Isn’t it up to the moderators to decide when they appear? By “enforced this rule on other occasions,” do you mean that someone else has had posts published and then removed? I don’t think anyone objects to the sidebar rule, but allowing something to appear and then removing it seems unfair to me.

        IMO, John was “censored” when his posts were held up for several days, apparently because some people here had complained about his “tone.” As I understand it, the withheld posts finally appeared in the “Why do you publish comments from people who are wrong and obnoxious” thread with dates of May 3-6. I hope this is the link:

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/from-the-inbox-incorrect-commenters-and-911-theories/#comments

        Can anyone tell me what was objectionable about those posts?

        John has said he won’t accept an automatic 48-hour delay on his future posts, and I don’t blame him. Who can carry on a conversation under those conditions?
        If you’ve “not published not a single one of them” lately, I imagine it’s because he hasn’t submitted any.

        As I understand it, Photon has also said he won’t be back. I think that’s too bad, since they are both extremely well-informed on this subject.

        How ironic that the thread I linked to has your excellent comments on why Photon and McAdams should be allowed to post here, Jeff. If you still want both sides of the debate well-represented here, I hope you will reconsider these recent decisions.

        • jeffmorley says:

          The views of John McAdams and “Photon” are welcome on the site. Virtually every post they have ever submitted for the site has been published in the past. There is no reason why this won’t be the case in the future.

          John is no longer on 48 hour delay. He is on a 24 hour delay. He and I are privately discussing when his full privileges as a member of the JFK Facts community are restored. I expect those discussions to end fruitfully.

          The three-name in the sidebar rule is designed to make sure that the home page displays the maximum number of participants in the site debate.

          This is a reasonable rule, and it will continue to be enforced for the purpose of promoting the maximum range of debate.

          If readers see this policy being violated, please write to editor@JFKfacts.org immediately.

          • Phil Gurholt says:

            Thank you Mr. Morley for all that you do related to working towards full JFK assassination disclosure. I love the debate because it increases my understanding of this period of our history. When the debate becomes about process, I start to think sand is being thrown in my eyes. Both sides, just keep debating the facts!

          • Pat Speer says:

            Jeff’s rule is not only reasonable, it’s necessary. Unlike most websites on this subject, this website doesn’t put recently re-activated topics at the top. This means that someone can write something that is total nonsense, and pretty much get away with it if no one responds to it within a few hours. If, at a later date, someone finds out about something, or spots something, that just isn’t true, and decides to respond to it, for that matter, the ONLY way most of the readers will find out about it is by seeing a new comment in the What Readers Are saying section. If the writer of nonsense sees this, however, and can post six or seven times in a row, however, he can effectively bury the response so none of your regular readers will know about it.

            The three post rule is a good one, and can help to offset that tactic.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Jeff’s rule is not only reasonable, it’s necessary. Unlike most websites on this subject, this website doesn’t put recently re-activated topics at the top. This means that someone can write something that is total nonsense, and pretty much get away with it if no one responds to it within a few hours. If, at a later date, someone finds out about something, or spots something, that just isn’t true, and decides to respond to it, for that matter, the ONLY way most of the readers will find out about it is by seeing a new comment in the What Readers Are saying section. If the writer of nonsense sees this, however, and can post six or seven times in a row, however, he can effectively bury the response so none of the regular readers will know about it.

            The three post rule is a good one, and can help to offset that tactic.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Pat Speer makes a valid point.

            I know of another discussion forum (multi-subject, not like this) which programs timed delays in successive and quick posts or responses to thwart spamming (even within ‘private messaging’).

            In most cases, it isn’t spam but just multiple responses, but there should be a filter of sorts to ensure diversity of debate or guard against spamming.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff,

            On his forum today McAdams posted an update that suggests you and he may have reached an impasse. It seems that his definition of censorship is different from yours.

            Demanding that he retract his statement that withholding his posts for days was censorship when that’s what he believes it was is, IMO, like asking him to lie.
            I’m sure that’s not what you intend, so may I make a suggestion?

            Why not just acknowledge that your definition of censorship is not the same as his definition, let it go at that, and allow him to post here without a time delay like everyone else?

            Wouldn’t that be a sensible compromise?

          • jeffmorley says:

            There is no impasse Jean.

            John’s posts are now on a 24 hour delay because I think he has said false things about me publicly. Each day for the next 24 days, the delay will be reduced by one hour. In 24 days–on June 14–the posting privileges will be restored.

            Note to commenters. You are free to say whatever you want about JFK within the bounds of civility. But if you says things about me that I regard as false or disrespectful, the privilege–and it is a privilege, not a right–of participating in the JFK Facts site debate in real time will be curbed. Your posts will not be censored but they will be delayed until I feel respected.

            I am lifting the delay because John’s manners seem to be slowly improving. In private emails, he is capable of being polite. He has acknowledged to me that fact that every single post he has ever submitted to JFK Facts has been published. If he wants to claim that in publishing more than 100 comments in the past month, I have “censored” him, he is free to do so. His illusions of martyrdom are tedious and ridiculous but his well-informed contributions to JFK Facts are welcome.

            I know John would not participate in a Web site that practices censorship, so if and when his next comment appears, I will take that as confirmation that he no longer believes JFK Facts censors anyone for their opinions about the assassination.

          • John McAdams says:

            I know John would not participate in a Web site that practices censorship, so if and when his next comment appears, I will take that as confirmation that he no longer believes JFK Facts censors anyone for their opinions about the assassination.

            It doesn’t work that way, Jeff.

            I’m willing to let bygones by bygones, but I will not back away from saying that your holding several posts of mine — posts you agreed were perfectly acceptable — for several days is censorship.

            And you admittedly did it in response to conspiracists on this site complaining about my “style.”

            So can can agree to disagree on “censorship,” or not. Your call.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jean Davison says:

          ” . . . so I’m obviously not speaking for him, or for John McAdams.”

          For someone that insists they are not “speaking for ‘them,’” Jean certainly appears to have an insider’s perspective in what has transpired relating to how comments are dealt with on this site.

          Relating to John McAdams she states:

          “As I understand it, the withheld posts finally appeared in the “Why do you publish comments from people who are wrong and obnoxious” thread with dates of May 3-6. I hope this is the link …” and further, “John has said he won’t accept an automatic 48-hour delay on his future posts, and I don’t blame him….”

          Relating to ‘photon,’ Jean states:

          “As I understand it, Photon has also said he won’t be back….”

          Jean’s observations suggest to me a degree of behind the scenes communication with some or all of the players in this unfolding drama, unless I’ve missed the direct exchanges between McAdams, Davison, and photon on this site. Somewhere along the line it appears that Jean has a degree of clarity about this particular and very distracting argument that has yet to be made apparent either by Jean herself or Jeff Morley.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Ms. Sharp,

            As usual, your posts here suggest that I’m being deceptive, that I have a malicious secret agenda. And as usual, you haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about.

            I didn’t need anyone to tell me what went on since McAdams posted the information you refer to on his public forum, alt.assassination.jfk. The posts are still there, go look.

            Nobody tells me what to say. If McAdams or Photon even know what I’ve written in this thread, they had to read it here.

          • jeffmorley says:

            Leslie, I think your imputations about Jean are unwarranted. She and I disagree on lots of things but she is an usually civil commenter and has record of research on JFK that should not be maligned without evidence. Her views are welcome on JFK Facts.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jeff, I respect that this is your ‘home,’ and you may invite anyone into it.

            I take exception to your assessment that Jean Davison is “an usually civil commenter” as I have been on the receiving end of her caustic reactions. You might argue they were warranted; I would disagree. I have reviewed a number of conversations Ms. Davison has engaged in over the years, and truly she is anything but civil when challenged at the core of her argument. I’ve been told by her to “get over it,” and various other forms of outbursts including one in all caps that seemingly did not cross a threshold with you. It is a double standard, and I’m not the first to admonish you of this failure.

            You state that Jean’s research on JFK ‘should not be maligned without evidence.’ I did not malign Jean’s research in this comment, but since you bring it up, the difficulty with your premise is that in order to bring light to the obfuscation and discrepancies included in her arguments one must apply a certain degree of speculation as to how and why she is able to square those contradictions. If that gets personal, there’s simply no way around it. I have over months attempted to challenge her views/conclusions that are consistently drawn from a highly selective method of presentation of fact but I’ve only been met with what is tantamount to whining – that I am somehow obsessed with Jean the person. I admit to being obsessed with anyone that presents “facts” in the vacuum she has constructed. You know full well there is a plethora of information left out of her assessments, and that there are extenuating circumstances in much of the history of Oswald’s case that she avoids completely, not to mention her refusal to address head on the failure of the Warren Commission. Jean’s “research” has stood the test of time because she argues that unless the conspiracy can be proven, the default must be to her conclusions and those that argue along her lines. I think that is an insidious method of investigation Jeff, and I assert that Jean Davison, witting or not, is party to (and has been for decades) the cover-up.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jeff, Kirkus Review says it better: (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?q=Jean+Davison;t=author)

            ” . . . Conspiracy partisans, however, will find much to snipe at here: Is it conceivable that Soviet intelligence somehow missed a chance to get its hooks into the naive American defector (wasn’t wife Marina’s uncle a spook?), or the CIA on his return? Can one blithely explain away Oswald’s contacts with anti-Castro groups as attempts at infiltration? Serviceable as a close-up of how Oswald’s sociopathic personality channeled his energies into politics and, ultimately, violence (as, indeed, Norman Mailer suggests in the Foreword)–but A BIT LIKE A PHOTO ONE SUSPECTS HAS BEEN CROPPED.” (emphasis mine)

          • Stephen Roy says:

            I wish we could have a conversation with no ad hominem attacks, like saying some one “is party to the coverup.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, then it would stand to reason that you also want to have a ‘conversation’ about who might have authorized the assassination and who might have orchestrated it without naming names or positing the argument through reason and logic? This is not an ad hominem attack (as defined, emotional without reason or logic) on Jean Davison, the person, this is about anyone who deliberately ducks contradictions and discrepancies and as a result, engages in obfuscation whether intentional or not.

            I am quite deliberately suggesting that publication of “Oswald’s Game” fell on the 20th anniversary of the assassination in Dallas in order to fuel the argument that a lone gunman murdered Kennedy. At a critical moment in the life of the investigation, along comes a laborious effort to tell Americans that Oswald acted alone and why – which in fact brought the nation’s focus full circle back to the original claim made within hours of the murders in Dallas. Strange indeed to spend 13 years on a project and come face to face where you began – “[Oswald] was ‘some kind of nut’ who probably didn’t know why he did what he did.”

            In the 1983 JFK anniversary edition of “Texas Monthly” – no shy violet when it comes to politics – the final entry of TM’s timeline of the assassination to date was: “publication of Jean Davison’s “Oswald’s Game.”" (there were only two seminal events in 1983 as far as TM was concerned, and the Davison book was one.) Editors usually have their ear to the ground and are prone to highlighting books they feel shape public opinion. Do some research on WW Norton, on Ed Butler, on Norman Mailer for that matter and come back to me that OG should not be included books that have contributed to the cover up.

            Kirkus suggests that the Davison book was a bit like a cropped photo; I believe the same can be said about the Warren Commission efforts … they presented the American public with a “Cropped Report” and by doing so, both perpetuated the cover up.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            You’re proving my point. I don’t need to take a litmus test, as you suggest. I think you should spend more time researching and analyzing the case, and less time questioning the motives and sincerity of those who disagree with you.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Mr. Roy, you can cast your bait elsewhere.

          • Jean Davison says:

            To Leslie Sharp,

            You’ve referred to me as a “certifiable disinformationist” and “a party to the cover-up.” You’ve repeatedly questioned my motives and suggested I’m acting in bad faith.

            You make these serious allegations about my character and integrity, yet you couldn’t support these claims with actual evidence to save your life.

            Why don’t you try? Quote anything I’ve said that you can show to be false — that is, provably incorrect, not just something you disagree with. If I’ve made an error, I’ll acknowledge it as I have in the past. Be specific, no vague generalities.

            I’m always civil with anyone who’s civil to me and usually even with those who aren’t. But what you consider my being uncivil is curious. You complain that I told you to “get over it” and used all caps — and you think that’s equivalent to the insulting accusations you’ve made about me? Really?

            I told you to “get over it” after you “linked” me to James Phalen through his publisher Random House, which was also at one time the publisher of Norman Mailer, who wrote an introduction to a book I wrote in 1983. Using this method, I could be linked to almost anyone.

            Contrary to your fantasies, my book didn’t sell a lot of copies and “brought the nation’s focus” absolutely nowhere. This is a good example of how your suspicion lies to your face, tells you whatever you want to hear, and you believe it. “I suspect it; therefore it is.”

            Go ahead and quote anything I’ve said that’s provably “disinformation” if you think you can. Otherwise I’m going back to ignoring you.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Nobody’s complaining about the three-post rule, Pat, or about delaying any posts that violate that rule. Photon’s weren’t delayed, they were published and then taken down.

          • jeffmorley says:

            And then Photon’s posts were reposted. As Photon can attest, none of his submissions has not been published. NONE.

        • Alex S says:

          “John has said he won’t accept an automatic 48-hour delay on his future posts, and I don’t blame him.”

          Maybe he shouldn’t fabricate claims of censorship then?

          It’s one thing for Jeff to welcome lone-nutter commentary in the spirit of scholarship and fairness. It’s another thing entirely for McAdams to bitch that he is not being allowed to turn this blog into an extension of his own stupid site and to flood it with the same meaningless factoids over and over.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “As I understand it, Photon has also said he won’t be back. I think that’s too bad, since [Photon and McAdams] are both extremely well-informed on this subject.”

          Well, some may consider McAdams “well-informed,” but the uses to which he puts whatever knowledge he has seem to me principally concerned with obfuscation. Photon, on the other hand, can in no way be so described, and frequently demonstrates either an inability or refusal to understand very simple points, to wit, the difference between a dentist and an oral surgeon, and why a hospital would have one of the latter specialists on call in its emergency room. This demonstrates either profound ignorance, or basic dishonesty, and like a lot of what McAdams posts is intended to confuse the issue. In addition, there are people who are certain he used to post here under the name “Paul May,” and having come across a few Paul May statements in some old comment threads, I tend to agree. So while he may never again post here as “Photon,” it’s likely he’ll be back.

          • GaryA says:

            What isn’t mentioned is professor McAdams’ peculiar use of evidence. Examples abound, but since McAdams says of me that I am “The tour de force of selectively using testimony to reach a particular conclusion,” (p. 28 of his book), I feel particularly aware of how he “employs” evidence.

            For example, he writes, “Clint Hill was the Secret Service agent who ran to the presidential limo after the shooting started and huddled over John and Jackie Kennedy on the wild ride to Parkland. Aguilar quotes him (correctly) as telling the Warren Commission that he saw a “large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the [president’s] (sic) head.” Aguilar interprets this statement as supporting his position (that JFK had a rearward skull wound) despite its vagueness. But Hill told National Geographic, in a TV special titled Inside the U.S. Secret Service, that there was a ‘gaping hole above the right ear about the size of my palm.’ (p. 29) ‘Above his right ear’ implies parietal bone and is consistent with the autopsy photos and X-rays.”

            McAdams never mentions that I prefaced my witness compilation with, “It was not the author’s intent to list every comment ever made by every witness, but rather to gather the earliest, presumably most reliable, accounts for consideration and comparison.” That aside, apparently McAdams considers me massively selective and quite tendentious because I failed to include in my 1994 essay [http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm] statements that Hill (may have) made to National Geographic in 2004. (I’ve not been able to get a copy of the video to verify McAdams’ assertions. For what it’s worth, in his new book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Hill has again described JFK’s skull damage as involving the upper right rear of the head.)

            But McAdams is correct that I offered Hill as a witness who said JFK’s skull damage was rearward. I did so because Hill’s meaning seemed clear enough in the full quote I cited, from which the professor took only a snippet. Here’s what I originally wrote, a longer Hill quote:

            “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed … There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” (WC–V2:141)

            Though McAdams doesn’t tell, I quoted more than just that. In the same essay, I also quoted Hill’s own 11/30/63 statement, in which he said that he “observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull. (WC–CE#1024, V18:744)” Perhaps there are readers who could read all that I wrote and yet agree with McAdams that I was wrong to believe that by “right rear,” Hill actually meant right rear. Nevertheless, by omitting much of what I wrote, McAdams has placed himself squarely among those he stridently disdains: “advocates (who) selectively present information that serves their purposes.”

            I think, Fearfaxer, that it may be a bit harsh to say the professor “demonstrates either profound ignorance, or basic dishonesty.” It’d be more reasonable to say one should be very cautious about taking what he says at face value.

          • John McAdams says:

            I also quoted Hill’s own 11/30/63 statement, in which he said that he “observed another wound (in addition to the throat wound) on the right rear portion of the skull.

            The problem, Gary, is that that statement is pretty vague, and is perfectly consistent with a wound mostly in posterior parietal bone.

            But you chose to interpret it in a way consistent with your theory.

            But when Hill clarified his statement, he showed you misinterpreted him.

            You did this frequently.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

      • Marcel Kincaid says:

        ” But if you says things about me that I regard as false or disrespectful, the privilege–and it is a privilege, not a right–of participating in the JFK Facts site debate in real time will be curbed.”

        This is virtually the DEFINITION of censorship.

    • leslie sharp says:

      fwiw: this is a portion of an email from the moderators of this site that I received several months ago in response to a concern that several of my comments had been held up.

      “. . . there’s a section called “What readers are saying.” It picks up the the last three approved comments, and we don’t like to have the same name in there more than once. So, if you’ve commented in quick succession, sometimes we have to hold one of the comments so that there aren’t two or more from you at the same time there. . . ”

      My reaction? ‘That sounds reasonable.’

      From what I understand, John McAdams was placed in a periodic “time out,” not unlike an unruly child in a classroom which he most surely must appreciate as an educator, particularly within a Jesuit institution. (It’s not like Jeff has given him a metaphorical caning, i.e. censorship.) As I follow the reactions related to McAdams’ participation, it seems that those who support him are feeling persecuted, that or this issue is a storm in a teacup designed to disrupt progressive discourse on the site. I tend toward the latter.

      The good news is this reaction is an indication that new facts which frequently surface on this site and others are challenging the ‘old guard’ researchers; it also indicates that older facts are being more effectively delineated and held under far closer scrutiny, placing many reputations and perhaps livelihoods in jeopardy. That obviously could make those who defend the Warren Commission Report very uncomfortable, ergo the cries of ‘censorship.’ Safer to argue over method – in this instance how this site is managed – than allow the focus to remain on the prize.

      • Anonymous says:

        Jeff has told us “half” the story of how comments are handled, I suppose that’s better than nothing.

  2. Jonathan says:

    Everyone here needs to have a thick skin, but that’s not the crux of the matter.

    The crux is the perception of uneven-handedness in moderating.

    Jean picks up on it this thread when she writes: “How was Photon supposed to know when and how many of his posts would appear on the sidebar? Isn’t it up to the moderators to decide when they appear?” John Kirsch, I believe, picked up on it in another thread when he commented (my paraphrase) that incivility only seems to matter here when it’s directed at the moderators.

    JFK Facts has an open-door policy. Once the site lets someone in the door it risks the appearance of discrimination if it treats someone differently because of his or her behavior. There’s all kinds of misbehavior, including intellectual dishonesty. The appearance of discrimination is inevitable if the commenter is unpopular. IMO there ought to be just a few very clear site rules posted on the front page and let it go at that. Lest the site stifle the conversation and chase commenters away.

    IMO anything that discourages commenting on this site is bad for the site.

  3. Jerry McComb says:

    no one seems to wonder about the fact that 6 known assasines (hitmen) were in Dealy Plaza on the day JFK was murdered. seems strange that many were there without any one asking, why? what would be the odds on having that many killers in one place on a infamous day?

    • Marcus Hanson says:

      Please name the six assassins.
      Please tell us their locations.
      Please advise us how their being in DP was verified.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Who said that six hitmen is FACT?

      (Okay, we’ve heard five I believe from Groden and I myself would say two to three, maybe one more, but only based on circumstantial evidence which is debatable).

    • Paul Turner says:

      Mac Wallace and Jerry Morales were two of them. In fact, let’s don’t forget Wallace’s fingerprint on one of the TSBD sniper’s nest boxes.

  4. Fearfaxer says:

    @GaryA

    There’s no “Reply” on your reply to me, so I’ll post this here. My comment “demonstrates either profound ignorance, or basic dishonesty” was actually directed at Photon, not McAdams. Though I don’t have a lot of faith in the latter’s basic honesty on this subject either.

  5. Ronnie Wayne says:

    RE: “Texas Monthly no shy violet when it comes to politics” (Leslie Sharp). I thought so for many years, especially on in state politics (e.g. annual bum steer awards). However, considering the importance of the JFK assassination in Texas history I found their coverage of the 50th so deplorable I’ll not renew my subscription.
    Their basically ignoring any search for the real truth, and, featuring the work of FBI/CIA disinformation “journalist” Hugh Aynesworth was too much.

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