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

[David Von Pein]

OK. Thanks, Rick.

[Ray Mitcham]

Also, a hastily imposed after the fact forum "copyright rule" in order to deter a person from using information has no grounds for "copyright". Gordon added a ridiculous "copyright rule" at the last minute after people complained about it. That is not a valid copyright. A person who's confident in their research should have no problem with others copying their info as long as it isn't taken out of context.

As long as you are using your writings on the site that's in conversation with another member, there is no "copyright" on that because, you're engaging in a discussion. Your own words belong to you and you are free to use your own words.

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

[David Von Pein]

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.

[Michael Clark]

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.

Hi David, I don’t want to belabor the point, but, the context in which members made their comments was in an active and ongoing debate. That context can’t be restored on your site, the subject can’t be revisited, discussion prior to and after your quoted material is part of the context that is not possible to reproduce in your format. Mambers come to different and changed understandings of subject matter, especially when a thread evolves over months or years. Your format strips the quotes, that you have captured, of that context. There really is no getting around any of these facts.

[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!!