Tom Scully is doing a good job running the comments section, a demanding and sometimes thankless task. If you disagree
send me an email. Otherwise, please stick to issues that concern this site and its readers: JFK’s assassination, Kennedy’s presidency, official secrecy, democratic accountability and the like. And lay off the personal criticism. If you don’t, you’re a bore.
42 thoughts on “A note on the comments section”
Closed to comments. No additional comments in response to this article or to displayed comments will be approved.
“It depends on the setting George. This forum has certain guidelines – it is really as simple as that.
Personally Lenny Bruce is a hero of mine. But he understood how to use such language for effect, rather than a habitual jejune guttural glossolalia.” WW
That’s not telling me why certain words are designated as “vulgar”, which was what I was asking for. Who was this classifier of words, and what precipitated his or her decisions?
This world is screwed because we pay so little heed as to the real history of, well… anything… from what happened inside the TSBD during that lunch hour right through to the class cold war involved in designating what is “vulgar”.
Jejune? You just described your life.
“That’s not telling me why certain words are designated as “vulgar” ~George
The Norman elite who spoke Latin forbade Anglo-Germanic words, especially to do with bodily functions. This was after the conquest of England by William the Conqueror…who particularly despised the word “bastard”.
Now the question remains as far as this conversation on Prayerman goes — SO WHAT?
I think Tom is doing a good job as moderator here, and I would like to thank him and Jeff Morley for their efforts in running what is, in my opinion, the best JFK site around.
Being a moderator on a JFK site must be a thankless task. Emotions run very high on both sides of the argument. There will always be two different interpretations, two different opinions. Surely it is best that we just agree to disagree rather than hurl insults at each other.
Once again, thanks for your efforts Tom and Jeff
Great post Bob. Before I forget, I don’t know where else to post this but do know your interest in ballistics.
I had hopes the Prayer Man Forum on this site might become a place to discuss were LHO was if he was not on the sixth floor, whether he is PM or not. I guess that’s as they say “History”.
Sorry, that was the PM thread, not forum.
That was a great article about silencers (suppressors) for supersonic and subsonic weapons by Carol Hewett. Coincidentally, Jim DiEugenio has just started a thread at the Education Forum on this very article.
I had hoped that the research community might ask how it is possible LHO was walking around and seen by multiple witnesses(Arnold,Givens, Baker, Truly, McNeil, Reid, ETC)right before and right after the assassination, but not exactly when it occurred?(at least it appears)If there was an elaborate effort to frame the innocent patsy, he CANNOT be encountering people after 12 Noon because this would blow the plan- He needed to be dead/ gone by then and he clearly wasn’t. Was he encountering folks left and right because he knew there was an Operation to set him up and he sought the sanctuary of the herd? He brought something to the TSBD that day that wasn’t curtain rods so it is very unlikely he was a wholly innocent man. Why does he leave the scene without a word, and a sudden need to acquire a hand gun? For 30 years, I sought to confirm a belief that LHO was an innocent man and a patsy. Unfortunately, the evidence we have seems to say that LHO brought a mauser rifle that day and was directly linked to the killing, if not a trigger man- Clearly 2 or 3 shooters were involved. Between 5 and 7 shots were directed at JFK- But if LHO was a patsy, he would have been in an Oil barrel on his way to a long vacation at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico by the time Motorcade had begun-
Scully pre-emptively denied posting to a post of mine in the Most Important Recent Evidence thread for personal reasons.
That’s not credible moderation, it’s carrying out a personal grudge against somebody you are aware can out argue you and is intellectually dishonest.
..”it’s carrying out a personal grudge against somebody you are aware can out argue you and is intellectually dishonest.”~Albert Doyle
And yet you have Scully moderating here and publishing this comment you just made. Is that an attribute of someone who is “intellectually dishonest”?
Tom can’t be all bad if he did that to you, Albert. You’re just a grudge for all concerned. I wouldn’t take it personally. You have that uncredible effect on JFK forums. You should be grateful for what you get. At least Duncan looks after you. You can always get a square meal at his joint. Why don’t you go and check your dog bowl over there and take your daily dump?
If Tom were more credible he would censor troll comments like these responses.
Those trolls obviously have no interest in the facts my comment possessed and are an example of the extraneous agenda I was pointing out. There’s too much of that in the assassination community and a lot of it is due to the ROKC troll pit polluting the level of serious conversation on the internet. Of course I could rip Peter Sellers a new one on a fair playing field of moderated discussion where the cheap tactics he employs were not allowed. I take exception to his using the name of a gifted actor I respect as a moniker for such churlishness.
You couldn’t rip tissue paper, Albert. Staining it is more your thing. You’re the troll to end all trolls. That’s how you see yourself and so does everyone else. Your ambition is to cut Prayer Man down to size but you won’t succeed because no one takes you seriously. Not even Tom.
I personally consider the PM topic to be of paramount importance to solving the murder of JFK and, potentially, exonerating the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. I also feel this topic should be on its own thread, as Tom S. has done. However, I would also like to see that thread brought to the fore front of this forum on a regular basis, just to see if there are any new developments, and to spark new discussion (civilized, of course).
Tom S. is doing okay in my books and, being human like the rest of us, he is entitled to a few errors in judgement. The same goes with the crew at ROKC, despite the differences I have had with them in the past. No one can say they are not passionate and earnest about their research, especially when it comes to Prayer Man, and their frustration about the rest of the JFK research community not sharing this passion about PM is understandable.
Let us let cooler heads prevail, and let us remember we are, after all, all on the same team.
Glad to see you moderating again Tom. I don’t think I could do it, it might get real nasty. They’re whining about your “data dumps” about marriage and death records in your days at EDU on ROKC. One of the best thing’s you’ve done here is the 500 word limit.
Your steering of the site towards Facts by asking for links or quotes is appreciated even though I speculate at times myself.
Checking IP addresses for double/fake posters is also appreciated.
To be honest I can’t say I haven’t had my had my toes stepped on a couple of times but I can say this to the rest of the readers/posters.
Tom may not have the charisma of say JFK but he is knowledgeable about the subject and cares enough about it to put up with all the crap related to moderating the site.
When personal grievances seeps into your moderating duties, then its fair game to be critical. Tom Scully is renowned for this behavior and its disingenuous to pretend it doesn’t happen on his watch. His history at the EF can attest to this type of personal biased moderating. I can recall many instances whereby Tom inserted his own narrative in place of what others had posted and set his own personal guidelines on discussion. He can’t help himself. Jfkfacts can have him. I wouldn’t trust him to moderate a game of checkers without him taking over the board. Anyone who actively seeks officialdom like he does should be automatically disqualified from the running. We have far too many personalities jamming up the JFK research community to be taken seriously by the public at large. The fact that Prayer Man after 4 years is still not mainstream news is embarrassing. Some of you serious researchers should take a long cold hard look at yourselves. We have an image that is more than likely Oswald on the steps just after the shots and no one is interested. Face it. Prayer Man is all you got to break through. This will go on another 50 years if you ignore him. Is that what you really want to happen? Sometimes I wonder. I really do. Do the right thing Tom and not what you personally think is right. Be a real moderator.
“Face it. Prayer Man is all you got to break through.”~Peter Sellers
When and more importantly IF you ever have an identifiable image, rather than a smudge, a blur, then and ONLY THEN will you have the proof you are prematurely heralding at this time.
Until then, you are participating in hysterical hyperbole and unjust accusatory behavior.
You’re just waiting around doing nothing, Willy, but complain that the image is smudged and too blurry for you to bother with. You’re more concerned with preserving good manners then breaking this case wide open. Did you ever ask yourself why the image is the way it is and not to your satisfaction? I’ll tell you why, Willy, its because the original Darnell frame, in all its clarity, has been kept from those who desperately want to prove Prayer Man is Oswald. You’re not one of them so you’re hardly qualified to ask me or anyone else about proof. You’re lazy and apathetic. 53 years of civility will do that to you. Ask Tom.
Let me get this straight. You’re angry because other people aren’t as passionate as you when it it comes to identifying PM? What would you like me to do? Jump up and down, holding my breath? I can no more force the release of the original Darnell film than you can. I wouldn’t even know to whom to direct my ire. BTW, call Mr. Whitten whatever you want, but he is neither lazy nor apathetic. Sometimes, with regard to one subject in particular (which will go unnamed,) I wish he was guilty of either insult. :.) (Just for you Willy.)
Name a common cause we can ALL get behind to prove Oswald’s innocence once and for ALL, John? Have you got any?
“its because the original Darnell frame, in all its clarity, has been kept from those who desperately want to prove Prayer Man is Oswald.”~Peter Sellers
I will forgo commenting on your continuing crude insults, and simply point out that since you have not actually seen the original Darnell frame, you can only assume it has “clarity”.
It is actually the Wiegman footage, you are so desperate to analyze.
Peter Sellers, what I know of the back-story of this drama would fit in a thimble but I argue that your personal issues with the moderator here belong elsewhere. If you want to challenge him as a fellow commenter, fair game. Otherwise, to coin a phrase, you’re a bore. ” From a personal perspective, who wants to wade through the muck of the death throes of Education Forum let alone the obnoxious language that filters through the posts at ROKC to decide who or what is fact or what is propaganda related to the Prayer Man theory? On that note, what’s the point of the gutter talk at ROKC? Sensationalism? Australianism? Boys working out their interrupted youth on the junior high school playground?
Logically speaking Peter, I wouldn’t be reading your comment if Tom Scully was what you scurrilously suggest – a biased moderator. He can correct me if I’ve made the wrong assumption, but apparently Tom has no skin in the game of who did or who did not assassinate President John Kennedy let alone whether or not there was a conspiracy. He pursues credible data that when compiled creates a database from which indisputable facts will or will not be extracted — sans emotionally driven conclusions let alone speculation. Hopefully you’re here in good faith to build your Prayer Man case brick by brick, and you’ll accept that the theory has a “thread” on this site. IMO, The Prayer Man campaign comes across as cultish not dissimilar to the Oswald Shot Kennedy/WC crowd; for instance, those who argue Oswald was standing on the steps have NOTHING other than FAITH supported by a suspicion that there is photographic evidence out there. This is not an uncommon practice in Kennedy assassination research. The Warren Commission, bottom line was, if Oswald didn’t do it, then who did. I hope you take my point, Peter.
Since his arrival, TomS has enforced a certain expectation … if you want to argue that Prayer Man was Oswald, present the testimony to defend your premise, build from there with credible support rather than lurching onto this site with adamancy you have solved the crime which oh by the way was juxtaposed with apologies that “oh by the way, we don’t actually have the photograph”, and expect a new reader to accept your theories. You might encourage others to join you in your demand that the 6th Floor Museum and / or NBC release the footage. I would be on board with that, with caveat — how could Oswald be the “Perfect Patsy” if he could be photographed by any number of citizen let alone professional photographers while in a location other than the sniper’s nest? I trust you’ll understand the issue Peter et al?
“On that note, what’s the point of the gutter talk at ROKC?”
Ignorance of history at play here?
Or just good old fashioned American Puritanism?
Struck a chord did I George? Are you saying that you and yours can’t develop an argument without resorting to degenerate thought and speech? The only thing puritanical here is the presumption that the concept of American democracy is worthy of elevated conversation, thought, expression of our higher angels; the assassination in broad daylight of an elected president which overturned our democracy – apparently a concept that you in the collective as subjects of the British Monarchy have yet to fully grasp – deserves a space free from adolescent indulgences. In other words, Greg, grow up.
You didn’t read the links, did you, Les? You can’t even conceive that you’ve been lied to about a lot more than just the assassination.
The history of swearing is rather instructive regarding class structures and hw people are are trodden upon.
But he y – you grew being told that certain language is “bad”. You never questioned why. You failed to inform yourself as to why. Blind acceptance of what you’re told…
Come on now. Educate me. Explain why certain words a re “bad”.
“Come on now. Educate me. Explain why certain words a re “bad”.”~George
It depends on the setting George. This forum has certain guidelines – it is really as simple as that.
Personally Lenny Bruce is a hero of mine. But he understood how to use such language for effect, rather than a habitual jejune guttural glossolalia.
Keep lauding, Tom, Leslie. He doesn’t get enough of it if you ask him. And stop theorizing about how to play the “Perfect Patsy” or you’ll talk yourself into being a Lone Nutter.
I suppose it is of some profit to hold a Kindergarten class on JFKfacts from time to time. When children show up in numbers, just set the discourse to their juvenile level and hand out crayons.
My first post was a simple one regarding the tapes vs Prayer Man. There was nothing in that anyone could take offence at.
Tom’s reaction? He moved the post to the PM thread on the completely bogus premise that it was off topic. He also added this:
Hey Greg! It seems JFKfacts.org was overdue to be the target of a prayerman saturation, and here you all are. Unlike on the forum you own and Bart is an admin of, all views are afforded visibility on this site. Your comments appear in this image format because several of you are determined to turn the
discussion here, https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870073 …in a direction completely away from the only details discussed in the article, the AF-1 tapes.
The above statement was nothing but a provocation. It also contains errors of fact. There is a comments facility for anyone to make any comment they want at my forum – including non-members, Tom’s membership was revoked because of his posting style which he refuses even now, to acknowledge, is an issue. Then there is the fact that he is opposed to our efforts to have the case reopened. Do you try and obtain membership in a club whose ideas you do not support?
If membership in other forums is now an issue here I fully expect this place to become a ghost town pretty quickly. But it won’t. Because membership in other forums is not the real issue. The issue is that Tom bears a grudge and is quite willing to wield his moderating powers to extract his petty revenge.
You WERE warned Mr. Morely. Yet I can see that I will continue to be accused of being the problem here… regardless of the facts. Par for the course in this “community”.
George and Peter Sellers,
May I remind you that these are Mr Morley’s words, not those of Tom Scully:
“And lay off the personal criticism. If you don’t, you’re a bore.”
I will also remind the both of you that it is Mr Scully that is approving your vicious defamatory commentary here.
Frankly, if you don’t like JFKfacts nor it’s moderator, I suggest that you take a hike and spill you bile and venom elsewhere.
Who said those words were Scully’s? That’s just you picking arguments that don’t exist.
Just as predicted… the fact that Tom was the one who created this situation, is being completely ignored.
Nothing AND I MEAN NOTHING was said by me about Tom — UNTIL HE raised his past grudges as his excuse for removing posts from the thread in which they were made.
Bore that FACT into your brain before responding again… if you can manage such a complex task…
“Who said those words were Scully’s? That’s just you picking arguments that don’t exist.”~George
The actual question here is who said that you said those words were Scully’s? I did not say that did I?
No I simply reminded you that it was Jeff Morley who wrote the message at the top of the thread.
. . . .
“if you can manage such a complex task…”~George
I do not have to point out the obvious fact that you have a bad attitude. If you would drop the pugnacious posturing and make your case for the Prayerman photo, you would do both yourself and the forum a favor.
If all you are going to do here is squall like a petulant child, there isn’t really much reason to engage with you.
“The actual question here is who said that you said those words were Scully’s? I did not say that did I?”
Look up the word “implied”.
“I do not have to point out the obvious fact that you have a bad attitude. If you would drop the pugnacious posturing and make your case for the Prayerman photo, you would do both yourself and the forum a favor.”
And here we go around and around again. I was in the process of making the case when Tom removed my post and dredged up his grudges as the excuse.
“Look up the word “implied”.”~George
Yes thank you George, since you will be weaving baskets for awhile, I would like to order three of them in Easter colors, about 14 inch in circumference with a tall arching handle.
What are the implications in that request George?
>That I don’t have access to a dictionary?
>That you walk to school rather than carrying a lunch?
>That you go by an alias and you are really a 12 year old girl?
It is multiple choice so you don’t have to think too hard to come to an answer.
I would like go record with my support for Tom. Jeff is right, these interlopers are frightful bores. I, for one, will not contribute to their convoluted, contrived, and concerted effort to hound Tom from this site. You know what they say…Don’t feed the trolls!
What have you done with Photon?
What, do you think he’s been “turned”? Ha!
somewhat repetitive, but I argue it’s worth repeating: TomS, welcome home to what hopefully will be an even stronger site for the experience.
seems to me that Tom does an exemplary job here. thanks!
and I agree that ‘personal criticisms’ are discourteous…as well as boring…
Are you back? Hooray!!!!!
Thank you for your reply to a question that has been floating in the ether Mr Morley.
Many of us have been very concerned for the last few days, as moderation is stuck. I want to agree here that Tom Scully is doing a good job and thank him personally for what is often a “thankless task”.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I get the impression that most of us commenting regularly are quite happy with Tom as moderator, and would be most disappointed (appalled) if he were to give up moderating.
Thank you again for your words of support.
Well, personal criticism here certainly has not been unique to Tom S, but this latest assault from Down
Under takes the cake. The only thing that bothers me is the mention of “banning” someone from this site; no matter how disagreeable ” George” may be censorship is never the answer. By being one of the most frequent participants on this site Tom S becomes part of the process-just like everybody else.