‘Common sense’ and comments

John Kirsch writes:

“I want to complain about the person who posts under “common sense.” His/her comments are generally ill-informed and contemptuous in tone. I get the sense that he/she is simply trying to be provocative. I don’t think he/she adds anything to the discussion. i don’t know if i have the ability to make this request but i will go ahead and ask if he/she can be banned or at least cautioned to be respectful.”

I find “common sense” is clearly well-informed about the JFK story but sometimes personally intemperate. I hope he (I doubt “common sense” is a she) will lay off the ad hominem commentary forbidden by the site’s rules. Common sense tells us this is the only way to have a useful discussion.

JFK Facts comment policy is found here. I welcome suggestions about how to improve it.

19 thoughts on “‘Common sense’ and comments”

  1. As one on the receiving end of the tactics of common.sense, I feel obliged to weigh in again. And I use the term ‘tactic’ consciously and cautiously for a very specific reason.

    Unlike President Kennedy or any honorable defender of the first amendment, common.sense was turning the amendment on its head. For example, when I was making my points in a respectful fashion, he would besmirch and belittle and then discard the continuity of our exchange, ignoring the very points he was challenging. I believe that is indicative of someone using tactics to distract and disrupt.

    He also took Jeff Morley’s introduction to a thread and altered the discussion from the outset, to the point that it never got back on track. That is subtle interference with my freedom of thought and expression. That is a tactic. Unfortunately others took the bait.

    His or her attempted bullying was one thing, but his or her extracting information and then leaving it to float in space with no response leads one to wonder what might have been hers or his purpose for doing that. A quick review of the particular discussion around the topic of Operation Paperclip will inform those who are not familiar with what I am talking about.

    The irony that I would support a ban on common.sense in light of his or her references to that subject and that period in our nation’s history is surely not lost on anyone here.

    If she or he wants to stand on the roof tops and shout obscenities, the first amendment protects that right. If he or she wants to engage in courteous, albeit lively and challenging discourse on this site, that is one thing as well. But I believe his/her agenda was to deny my right to express free thought, my right to speak the facts, and he or she attempted to do so through ridicule and intimidation. It did not work. Let’s not be so politically correct that we don’t see an agenda in this. We’ve lost one person. How many more was common.sense hoping to SILENCE? People working in this area should recognize a wolf in their midst.

    I stand on the side against banning anyone from this discourse because logic insists it would be a mistake. I also stand on the side of the ‘rules of this road’ being better defined. I would like to hear from Jeff Morley on this topic; I believe that this is his responsibility if he is interested.

    Common.sense provoked his own condemnation from John Kirsh. If you review that particular exchange you will see that Kirsh was the only one with the courtesy to suggest to common.sense was skirting on abuse. And yes I know we’re all adults here, but abuse is abuse – Jeff. Common.sense was determined to drive a wedge on this site, and he has succeeded. What a waste of precious time and good researchers.

  2. The person known as “common sense” can express his opinion. We may or may not agree. Thousands of Americans have died for “common sense” to have the freedom to express his opinions. Let’s refrain from ad hominem attacks that complain indirectly or directly about ad hominem attacks. The conflict in logic is clearly self-defeating and eventually self-cancelling.

    Political correctness sometimes can be used like a blunt instrument designed to assault personal thought. Contemporary sensitivities held by some viewers of jfkfacts.org are also free to range from agree to disagree with “common sense” on various points of view. Written words can be blunt instruments, but we’re all adults and should be able to cope with dissent.

    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies all, not just a select few. We should read and consider *all* points of view without slamming our intellectual doors shut when those points of view differ from our internal perspectives. As long as “common sense” complies with the posted rules of this forum, he should be allowed to express his opinions.

    JFK was murdered because he dissented against powerful interests that disagreed with his statements and actions. Let’s not commit a similar decapitation of dissent merely because we may not agree with the messenger.

  3. I agree with Mr. Kirsch. Here’s how ‘Common Sense’ hijacked the thread about ‘entrenched secret power’. The topic’s first post:

    >>The willing coverup by the press of JFK’s relationship with a woman who had clear ties to the Chicago Outfit? The secret power of JFK getting involved with an unstable and vulnerable Hollywood actress?<>-Lee Oswald was a horrible criminal who murdered an American President. Attempts to obfuscate that fact and minimize his crime do disservice to the legacy of John F. Kennedy and his memory.<<

    So the first post slurs Kennedy's legacy (and that's okay), while the second post wants to protect JFK's legacy and memory. That's just someone playing in the sandbox. It's a good way to quickly ruin a forum.

    I would like to have 'Common Sense' return and discuss 'specific' points rather than the scatter-shot approach. For example I'm interested in his interpretation of autopsy photo F8 and how it reconciles with the 'cowlick' photo that supposedly depicts the high, rear entrance wound.

    At any rate, John, there's no need to get sensitive about your request to Jeff, email or not. I was gonna do the same thing . . . or leave the forum.

  4. I would hope that both Common Sense and JK reconsider. In my view CS’s informed contrarian viewpoints are a necessary part of the debate. If the tone of delivery is off-putting, then rise above and address the substance of the argument. JK, I’m sure JM meant no harm (after all those of us who comment are usually fairly clear where we stand); let’s consider the entire episode part of the learning curve: in the future those writing JM may want to specify that they consider the communication confidential, and JM, if he quotes an email, may just want to say, “A reader writes…” So ends my two cents.

  5. I understand VB doesn’t have a computer. But some of these comments are almost identical to interviews on YouTube.

  6. This may be off the wall, but common sense sounds like a prosecutor to me. The way he throws out medical terms. The claim to know FBI agents. The comments about weapons and shooting.
    Much more like a DA or a cop than Marcus Welby.As a matter of fact his posts are almost like a printed style of the speech of a famous prosecutor and JFK author. Guess who.

      1. Eric Hollingsworth

        We should all remember that as Bugliosi establishes his bona fides with “serious” people as the author of “Reclaiming History,” he believes that the RFK assassination was a conspiracy. At least he used to.

  7. I certainly would defend his right to his opinion but he has shown his argument style to be one that can not be taken seriously.

    His style is to attack, argue selective points in a posting, make claims that he can not back up.

    I will give 2 examples,

    In a reply to Leslie Sharp, he claimed to know dozens of FBI members and asked Leslie if she knew a single one. Somehow trying to give the impression that making a claim that knowing some FBI agents, who go unnamed, strengthens his reputation or post. Also that, knowing an FBI agent is integral for having an opinion on this case.

    2. He asked me if I had ever fired a rifle. Again somehow insinuating that firing a rifle is essential to understanding the case.

    3. He also completely ignored the simple point of my post that Oswald by taking those 3 shots, did not take the simple way of assassinating Kennedy.

    He has to understand that no one is going to take him seriously and is doing nothing for the cause of defending the Warren Commission and Oswald as the lone assassin.

    I am new here, but what attracted me to the site, is that anyone no matter what their opinion was welcome to voice it.

  8. It’s Mr. Morley’s call, but I would like to see some middle ground established. Banning anyone seems somewhat of a contradiction of the purpose of the site. It’s not what we say, it’s how we say it. I for one should be reminded of that occasionally.

  9. Like most conspiracy fanatics Mr. Kirsch prefers censorship to facts and anything that might upset his fantasies. Just remember-Lee Oswald was a horrible criminal who murdered an American President. Attempts to obfuscate that fact and minimize his crime do disservice to the legacy of John F. Kennedy and his memory. You can now return to the Land of Fantasy. Goodbye forever

    1. I don’t think this comment is especially respectful. If you disagree with someone, just say, I disagree with this because of ___________. I haven’t seen anyone pile on someone for doing that around here.

    2. “Just remember-Lee Oswald was a horrible criminal who murdered an American President.”

      It is not a mutually exclusive concept for LHO to have been involved in the JFK assassination, either as a shooter or a facilitator, and *also* be a pawn/tool/fall guy in a high level domestic political conspiracy to murder JFK.

      Because Oswald was US intelligence, I do think he was involved in some way with the JFK assassination, but not as a shooter.

    3. Common Sense wants to believe Oswald killed the President, even though the evidence indicates that he was set up as a patsy, just as he claimed. My common sense tells me that Oswald fits the personality profile of a covert intelligence operative – just like Frank Sturgis and the Watergate burglars and others who are trained by the USMC and insert themselves into the political arena. Common Sense would have us believe that Oswald was a no-good, wife beating loser who couldn’t hold a job and couldn’t do anything right except kill the President. His voice should be heard but corrected.

  10. Common sense challenges accepted beliefs here, which is good. He or she has forced me to re-tread familiar ground so that I’m sure of my understanding of certain facts.

    I urge Jeff to keep common sense; and I urge common sense to share whatever knowledge or expertise he or she can bring to the table.

    The open market place of ideas is best raucous and robust.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top