Peter has been moderating the comments, where debate had gotten heated recently. I asked him to comment on the state of the debate.
“I hope that those who comment will show some restraint and police themselves. The reason we’re still debating the event is no one on either side can say with certainty what happened. So, while some think the website should be only for like-minded folks to share conjecture, I think it should be open to everyone.”
“But I am weary of the snarky comments. Maybe I am in denial about human nature, but I still don’t understand why the comments go there—and both sides are guilty of it. Out of respect for the readership, I hesitate to say, ‘Grow up’ or ‘act your age’ but I’m getting closer with each facetious comment made at someone else’s expense.
“I like to err on the side of an active discussion, but comments please cease and desist with the personal jabs. Maybe some examples would help. Acceptable: ‘There is no proof that Ruby was in the Mob.’ Unacceptable: ‘There is no proof that Ruby was in the Mob, and anyone who says so is a deluded reprobate with a demonstrably low IQ.’ Acceptable: ‘The single bullet theory is highly suspect.’ Unacceptable: ‘The single bullet theory is highly suspect, and anyone who defends it is obviously a deluded shill for the intelligence services and should not be allowed to post on this site.’
Let’s play ball, and keep it clean.