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

[Mark A. Oblazney]

Can I be on your list too?

I've put Brian on my 'snore' list.  This means I read what he posts, but fall asleep in the middle of one of his many run-on sentences.......... zzzzzzzzzzz (gettin' some 'z's?)

Guess I can't call him Albert anymore, huh?

[Mark A. Oblazney]

I've put Brian on my 'snore' list.  This means I read what he posts, but fall asleep in the middle of one of his many run-on sentences.......... zzzzzzzzzzz (gettin' some 'z's?)

Guess I can't call him Briananymore, huh?  Wasn't there an existential philosopher by the name of Albert Camus?

[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?

[Steve Howsley]

Brian, Your last (very long) paragraph is well worth reading. You've summed it up rather nicely.

[David Von Pein]

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?

Hi Peter,

I suggest you do a little more work in order to get your facts straight before you come in here and start scolding me and hitting me on the hand with your verbal ruler.

First of all, two of the three quotes you cited above (#1 and #2) did not even originate at The Education Forum at all. (Not nearly everything I have archived at my site started out at the EF forum.) Those two quotes were made by me at another JFK forum entirely (the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup, which is an unmoderated forum). Hence, the word "scumbag" was being tossed around by both myself and the conspiracy theorist I was responding to (a person going by the name of "Boris"---which isn't his real name).

And as everyone can see (if they had bothered to look first), "Boris" started the "scumbag" insults. I merely reciprocated in kind in my next post, which is available in its original form at the Usenet forum HERE. And as you can see if you click HERE, I have merely transferred to my site the exact verbatim quotes that appear in the original discussion, which is what I always do when a discussion comes straight from a "forum" (vs. my quoting an "article" or a "book excerpt").

And the reason I could tell immediately that the "scumbag" post didn't originate at the EF forum, is because I would never dare call somebody a "scumbag" while posting at EF. The moderators would frown upon that severely. So I hold (held) my tongue a lot when posting there.

The "CTers are nothing but hypocrites" quote also appears in the same acj forum discussion as the "scumbag" quote---HERE. So, once again, it's not something that I added after the fact when I moved the discussion to my own website.

The third quote you used also first appeared on a JFK forum. It was, indeed, the EF forum this time, but since I was quoting someone (John Armstrong) who isn't a member of any online forum that I belong to, I added (at my site) a direct link to Armstrong's whole article from which I culled the quoted excerpt. Which everyone can see HERE (please note the blue link attached to the word "Said" within the words "John Armstrong Said").

So Peter Goth is just flat-out wrong when he says I take various quotes which first originated at the EF forum and then "added" my "own commentary to it". Talk about "misrepresentation". Peter just engaged in it himself in his last post. Because if a discussion started out at the EF forum (or any JFK forum), all I have done in those instances (as I just proved three times above) is to copy and paste the exact same words that I have already written at a JFK forum over to my own site. They're the very same (public) words---at both the JFK forum and then my own site. So I'd appreciate it if certain people would stop insisting otherwise. Because those people obviously don't know what the heck they're talking about.

[Peter Goth]

Hi Peter,

I suggest you do a little more work in order to get your facts straight before you come in here and start scolding me and hitting me on the hand with your verbal ruler.

First of all, two of the three quotes you cited above (#1 and #2) did not even originate at The Education Forum at all. (Not nearly everything I have archived at my site started out at the EF forum.) Those two quotes were made by me at another JFK forum entirely (the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup, which is an unmoderated forum). Hence, the word "scumbag" was being tossed around by both myself and the conspiracy theorist I was responding to (a person going by the name of "Boris"---which isn't his real name).

And as everyone can see (if they had bothered to look first), "Boris" started the "scumbag" insults. I merely reciprocated in kind in my next post, which is available in its original form at the Usenet forum HERE. And as you can see if you click HERE, I have merely transferred to my site the exact verbatim quotes that appear in the original discussion, which is what I always do when a discussion comes straight from a "forum" (vs. my quoting an "article" or a "book excerpt").

And the reason I could tell immediately that the "scumbag" post didn't originate at the EF forum, is because I would never dare call somebody a "scumbag" while posting at EF. The moderators would frown upon that severely. So I hold (held) my tongue a lot when posting there.

The "CTers are nothing but hypocrites" quote also appears in the same acj forum discussion as the "scumbag" quote---HERE. So, once again, it's not something that I added after the fact when I moved the discussion to my own website.

The third quote you used also first appeared on a JFK forum. It was, indeed, the EF forum this time, but since I was quoting someone (John Armstrong) who isn't a member of any online forum that I belong to, I added (at my site) a direct link to Armstrong's whole article from which I culled the quoted excerpt. Which everyone can see HERE (please note the blue link attached to the word "Said" within the words "John Armstrong Said").

So Peter Goth is just flat-out wrong when he says I take various quotes which first originated at the EF forum and then "added" my "own commentary to it". Talk about "misrepresentation". Peter just engaged in it himself in his last post. Because if a discussion started out at the EF forum (or any JFK forum), all I have done in those instances (as I just proved three times above) is to copy and paste the exact same words that I have already written at a JFK forum over to my own site. They're the very same (public) words---at both the JFK forum and then my own site. So I'd appreciate it if certain people would stop insisting otherwise. Because those people obviously don't know what the heck they're talking about.

Nobody is scolding you.

You've turned this into some other argument, nobody said you didn't quote the words.
It was my mistake about which forum, I'm new here.

I'm asking you why you wouldn't just take something down if the author requested it?
The fact that are calling all CTs hypocrites and scumbags, makes no difference to me if you posted it before or after.
It's just a dumb thing to say.

Do you add commentary to postings you take off other websites?
If so, do you give the author the opportunity to know it's there, as well as the chance to respond? how?
Do you let the author know it's there even without commentary?
If the author requests a take down, do you oblige?