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

[Bill Brown]

Rick. the relevant comment in your post  is " so long as it isn't taken out of context."  DVP take note.

Ray, maybe you can help me repair any "out of context" quotes that I have transferred to my website from the JFK forums. Would you be so kind as to provide a few examples of where you think I have quoted conspiracy theorists "out of context" on my website/blog.

After I take a good look at your examples, we'll see if I agree with you or not regarding the "out of context" matter.

In the event that I do agree with you on any of the quotes you cite, I will do my best to add more CTer "context" back into the quote(s) by checking out the complete original discussion(s) and putting in additional CTer quotes as warranted in order to enhance the "context" that almost all CTers at The Education Forum seem to think I have left completely out of virtually every single CTer quote I have ever transferred from the EF to my own site.*

* And that's how I can tell that this persistent "out of context" refrain has been blown up to ludicrous proportions by the CTers. Because to think that I have actually quoted the CTers "out of context" every single time I've quoted a conspiracist in the last 10+ years is, to put it bluntly, just plain crazy. A few CTer excerpts I've quoted on my site could possibly use a little more "context", I'll readily admit that possibility. But to hear the EF CTers tell it, I have never once quoted a CTer properly in my whole life. And that overboard notion is flat-out silly.

Crickets.

[Colin Crow]

Let me preface this by saying as with all things in life there are good and bad. I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years. Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.

As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?

I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.

PS Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.


 

[David Von Pein]

Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.

Yes, that's correct. And that is very disappointing to me too, because even though CTers evidently feel that I am making a deliberate attempt to quote them "out of context" (which I will vehemently deny until Hell freezes over), I am always displeased whenever I don't have a "Source" link to the original forum discussion to provide on my webpages. And, unfortunately, many of my archived links to Duncan's forum that previously worked before January 2018 are now dead and unavailable due to the crash/hacking.

I have many times searched the Wayback Machine to try and find a working "source" link for a thread that has died. And that technique has worked several times (mostly for deleted EF forum threads), but it often does not work and thusly I'm not able to always provide a link to the source conversation. Which, of course, means that in those instances, my webpages are likely the ONLY location on the Web where one can view ANY portion of the original forum discussion, which is kind of a GOOD thing---is it not? I think it is anyway.

[Bill Brown]

Let me preface this by saying as with all things in life there are good and bad. I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years. Also the material that David's website provides is an amazing resource for anyone interested in the topic and for that alone we should be grateful.

As  someone who occasionally found a quote of mine on his pages, (usually from a discussion I had long forgotten about), my thoughts were "big deal". Generally they appeared to be cherry-picked, without attribution (or link) to the original source to provide anyone interested with some way of balancing context, a modus operandi seemingly fashioned for maximum LN effect from my perspective. But then what more would one expect from a known, "dyed in the wool", WC die-hard?

I would prefer any publisher to use robust accreditation and to remove quotes if requested by the owner. I don't give much credence to the "but others do it too" type defence. Yet I would defend David's rights to operate his website as he sees fit. As with anything in life, surely "caveat emptor" applies after all.

PS Since the last crash of this forum it would be impossible to provide working links to the original discussion. Therefore posting the original quote from David's site into Google etc would not enable someone interested in discovering the original discussion.

I have never posted at the EF, as with this forum, the noise to signal ratio there seems to have increased over recent years.

Indeed.

(Bold emphasis mine, not Colin's)

[Colin Crow]

I have many times searched the Wayback Machine to try and find a working "source" link for a thread that has died. And that technique has worked several times (mostly for deleted EF forum threads), but it often does not work and thusly I'm not able to always provide a link to the source conversation. Which, of course, means that in those instances, my webpages are likely the ONLY location on the Web where one can view ANY portion of the original forum discussion, which is kind of a GOOD thing---is it not? I think it is anyway.

Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?

PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.

In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.

Just sayin’.

[David Von Pein]

Not sure I follow you there. Might need to explain why?

Because if it weren't for my archiving of those now-deleted excerpts, nobody could see ANY of it at all because it's been lost into cyberspace.

You think that's bad that at least certain portions of a now-deleted discussion are still available (at my site)?

PS Did you routinely post the original forum conversation link for each individual you quoted? I could see on some occasions but was far from the norm.

I don't normally provide a link to each individual post, no. But many times I do (if I feel it's warranted, mainly due to the long length of a post to which I am only excerpting a small portion). But I always provide a link to the original thread (or threads) where those individual quotes are located (if those links are available). I embed the link(s) inside the date(s) near the bottom of my webpages.

In any event, if they are no longer available at least a notification that these are selected (and assembled) by you and likely only parts of wider discussions from a number of JFK assassination fora.

Just sayin’.

And are there any additional hoops you think I should jump through in order to please the people who think I am a "scumbag" and a "disinformation agent" and "an accessory after the fact to murder"?

I could always bake each CTer a big cake and pretend that I have a huge amount of respect for the vast majority of Internet JFK conspiracy theorists, even though most of those CTers pretty much ignore every single piece of evidence in the JFK case which points to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

After all, we want to make sure all CTers are happy and content, right?

[Michael Clark]

It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his expulsion. Nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise.

That’s just ridiculous. A new guy was shocked to find out what David was doing, and that reinvigorated the debate about the issue. Then you have the fact that members stepped in to support the site recently and the atmosphere is affected by that. Your take on the conspiracy is pretty fun though.