The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[David Von Pein]

[Members] come to different and changed understandings of subject matter, especially when a thread evolves over months or years.

And one of the biggest "changes" in subject matter recently at the EF forum is this....

Three-and-a-half years ago, not a single EF member cared enough about my archived EF discussions to request that I remove the EF/CTer posts from my site, nor did anyone insist that I be banned from the EF because of my archiving. Nobody cared enough in 2016 to do either of those things. Nobody.

Fast forward to 2019 ---

"I want my stuff removed, NOW!" -- Bart Kamp; 8/25/2019

"Von Pein....TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!" -- Jim Hargrove; 8/25/2019

"If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here [at EF] and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein." -- Bart Kamp; 8/26/2019



What a difference three years can make.

And I think it's laughable to think that Internet conspiracy believers would be likely to exhibit ANY "changed understandings of subject matter" and have their minds changed by anyone when it comes to virtually any aspect of the JFK case. Unless, of course, it's a CTer who's willing to dive even deeper into the conspiracy pool than he already was. Because from my experience in dealing with them, JFK conspiracy advocates are certainly among the most rigid-thinking people on the planet when it comes to the topic of a "JFK conspiracy".

And, yes, it's also true that LNers are pretty rigid in their thinking too. But the difference is: LNers have a little something called "All The Evidence" and "Oswald's Actions" on their side to enhance their rigidity.

[Michael Clark]

And one of the biggest "changes" in subject matter recently at the EF forum is this....

Three-and-a-half years ago, not a single EF member cared enough about my archived EF discussions to request that I remove the EF/CTer posts from my site, nor did anyone insist that I be banned from the EF because of my archiving. Nobody cared enough in 2016 to do either of those things. Nobody.

Fast forward to 2019 ---

"I want my stuff removed, NOW!" -- Bart Kamp; 8/25/2019

"Von Pein....TAKE MY WORDS OFF YOUR WEBSITE!" -- Jim Hargrove; 8/25/2019

"If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here [at EF] and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein." -- Bart Kamp; 8/26/2019



What a difference three years can make.

And I think it's laughable to think that Internet conspiracy believers would be likely to exhibit ANY "changed understandings of subject matter" and have their minds changed by anyone when it comes to virtually any aspect of the JFK case. Unless, of course, it's a CTer who's willing to dive even deeper into the conspiracy pool than he already was. Because from my experience in dealing with them, JFK conspiracy advocates are certainly among the most rigid-thinking people on the planet when it comes to the topic of a "JFK conspiracy".

And, yes, it's also true that LNers are pretty rigid in their thinking too. But the difference is: LNers have a little something called "All The Evidence" and "Oswald's Actions" on their side to enhance their rigidity.

David, you shucked and jived around my whole point about context.  A forum is a context of ongoing discussion and debate. Your trophy wall takes those discussions out of that context. There is no getting around that.

[David Von Pein]

David, you shucked and jived around my whole point about context.  A forum is a context of ongoing discussion and debate. Your trophy wall takes those discussions out of that context. There is no getting around that.

You're being silly. I provide plenty of "context" on my site relating to the SUB-TOPICS being discussed.

But you seem to have this odd notion in your head that every single discussion I archive has been stripped of all of its context relating to those sub-topics being discussed. But as I said before, that notion is too ridiculous to contemplate.

Bottom Line---

Michael Clark and other CTers like him are just looking for a reason to bash an LNer. It's as simple as that.

[Denis Pointing]

I think some people take this little 'hobby' far too seriously. A 50-year-old murder shouldn't be the most important thing in someone's life. Addiction to the internet is dangerous and unhealthy. When it stops being fun..STOP!!

[Steve Howsley]

David, It is obvious that Kamp and Hargrove are among the biggest kooks at the EF. They have orchestrated your exit from that place so they can spout crap unchallenged by you. I'm afraid you are a victim of your own success.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David, It is obvious that Kamp and Hargrove are among the biggest kooks at the EF. They have orchestrated your exit from that place so they can spout crap unchallenged by you. I'm afraid you are a victim of your own success.

You have hit it on the head. They want a big sandbox where they can float their theories unchallenged. And David got in the way of that so he had to be gotten rid of and they finally figured out a way to do that.

[Peter Goth]

I'm a writer. There are basic rights of authorship, and courtesy among other writers.

Understanding David's process, This occurred member to member on the ED Forum.
He quoted the words exactly as written, posted them on to his own site, and added his own commentary to it.

So David --
If I said something to you that was CT (which, I'm not, by the way), and you took the words exactly as I wrote them.
And post them on your website, but then you went on to say,

"CTers are nothing but hypocrites when it comes to any discussion about JFK's autopsy report."

"And you know perfectly well WHY Humes started that fire, but, like all scumbag CTers, you'll totally ignore Humes' perfectly reasonable (and proper) reason for doing it."

"But it's par for the course for many conspiracy theorists. They couldn't care less how many people they accuse of being murderers and liars on the flimiest of evidence (which amounts, really, to no "evidence" at all --- a gut feeling is more than enough "evidence" for the John Armstrongs of the world)".

Here you have these actual assorted last word responses to an original post at the ED Forum. (not actually mine)
Insults really. How do you know what I know about, the autopsy of Pres. Kennedy?
Making blanket statements and insults such as these, without my ability to respond on your website, seems unfair, don't you think?
It also doesn't seem like it would be easy to find my post on your site, or to know if it was even there.

I'm troubled by, why you would not just extend the courtesy and take it down?
I see a lot of insults and bashing with a handful of the usual's at DVP, and that, seems to make it all like a game of spite in the end.

The context of the work was within the ED Forum.
It was a member to member discussion.  What you did, amounted to going behind his back.
There is no fair reason not to keep a member to member discussion on the forum.
There is no reason not to allow a fair response by the author to any of his words placed on another public viewed forum.

Any forum has the right to protect it's content from being taken out of context by another member of that forum.
It also has an obligation to post a statement promising the removal of any work, requested by the author of that work.
Public discussion forum or not, what you write on record belongs to you, unless you agree that your posts become property of the forum,
and that should be clearly stated on the site.

The actual filing of a copyright application is for the allowance of statutory damages, for that, you are protected for 3 months without it.
Any "original work of authorship" is subject to copyright protection the moment that it is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-say-my-blog-is-copyrighted-basics.html

Any author, of anything written, has the right to demand his work be taken down if he/she perceives the work is taken out of context.
If you did the above to me, I would complain to the ED Forum, and then first ask, then demand, you take my words off of your website.
Writers can file legal take down notice upon the webmaster, but again, why not just extend that courtesy?