DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I received this Private Message from Education Forum Administrator/Moderator James Gordon this morning (February 24, 2019), with James informing me that he "insists" that I offer up a "public apology" for a remark I made on Facebook on February 18, 2019 [see the image below].
And James told me that if I do not offer up this public apology within less than 48 hours, my posting rights will be revoked. Here are James' exact words:
"I insist that you give me a public apology. I insist that by the end on Monday you create a new thread within which you formally apologise to me for what you have said and done. If that is not carried out by the end of Monday I will remove your posting rights." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019 [Emphasis in original message.]
Here's the remark I made at Facebook that "came as a complete shock" to James and, incredibly, left him "speechless":
And after reviewing this forum's rules, I can now see that I was, in fact, in violation of the rule entitled "Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members", which states....
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership—either from within the forum or outside the forum—may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
Prior to today [2/24/19], I was not aware of that rule at all. And I'm pretty sure that this forum would probably resemble a ghost town if that rule were to be applied in every single instance where a current EF member "cast aspersions" on another member of this forum while posting at some other forum. That situation probably occurs on a regular basis at other Internet locations when this forum's members make critical or harsh remarks about other EF members.
In my opinion, that particular rule should not exist at this forum (or any other forum). I can understand having such a rule in place to keep this forum's members from "casting aspersions" on their fellow members within the posts that they make at this forum. But this forum is where that rule should begin and end. Dictating what people can say at other Internet locations is wrong, in my opinion. Some people might even argue it's a violation of their "Freedom of Speech" rights. After all, I didn't use that word -- "incompetent" -- at this forum when speaking about Mr. James R. Gordon. Therefore, what business is it of Gordon's (or anyone else) what I say at other forums (i.e., at forums that are not moderated or owned by the owners of The Education Forum)?
It's a very silly (and unfair) rule, IMHO. Are the Education Forum moderators really that sensitive that they feel they have to restrict what members can say at other Internet locations? I don't think it's fair at all. Nor do I think it's a reasonable rule for people to have to follow. You might as well call it the "Walking On Eggshells No Matter Where You Are Posting On The Internet In Order To Avoid Offending Any Other EF Member" rule.
But, since it is a rule that's currently on the books at this forum, I have to admit that I was, indeed, in violation of this forum's current rules when I posted that comment about James Gordon at Facebook.com last week. And, for the record, I removed the harsh language in that post this morning, and changed the wording to something much softer and less offensive. Maybe Bart Kamp, who seems to like to follow me around Facebook lately, can take a look to verify that I did change it today (2/24/19). :) [The change can be confirmed by clicking here and then clicking on the button marked "Edited".]
So, James R. Gordon, I do hereby officially apologize for breaking that rule (and the other "Posting By Proxy" rule too---which, as you can see in my Facebook posting, is something that I said would not happen again).
I look forward to that particular "Casting Aspersions" rule being completely eliminated in the near future. I'm not sure if other forums have adopted such a rule or not. But I'm guessing that I'm not alone when I advocate for its elimination.
Because, quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the things that I or anyone else have to say at other Internet sites that are outside the confines and authority of this forum are none of The Education Forum's business.
And I'll bet that most of the current population of The Education Forum agrees with me on that statement.
Respectfully,
David Von Pein
BART KAMP SAID:
How can I follow you when I do not have access to the groups you post in and therefore cannot see what you post?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's what I was wondering two weeks ago when you posted this message (which shows a post I made on a CLOSED Facebook group which I don't think you're a member of).
But as far as this other Facebook post that has James Gordon "shocked" and "speechless", that post was posted at my own JFK Facebook group, which is a "Public" group, which can be accessed and read by everybody, with no signing up or "membership" required at all to see all the posts there.
BART KAMP SAID:
Also, I am too busy to follow you, so don't get ahead of yourself. And that is all I am going to say about this, as it is possible you inserted that remark to me to goad me.
This is all you are going to get from me.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Promise?!
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
David,
You have complied with my instruction - and indeed an instruction it was.
I see you have not commented that I informed you that I had “discussed” with other members that they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum. Indeed, I have effectively removed one member from this forum for treating you in this fashion. And you are well aware when fellow members treat you this way because you have often commented about whether the moderators will respond to the insult.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And I appreciate that, James. Thank you.
But note your language there --- "they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum."
Don't you think that should be where YOUR responsibility begins and ends ---- "THIS forum"?
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
You appear to believe that this kind of disparagement is acceptable and ought not to be criticised. As you comment, “In my opinion, that particular rule [to be courteous to fellow members] should not exist at this forum.”
Well, the rule does exist, and will, so long as I am the owner of this forum. And when I am aware it has been breached, I will deal with the member. If you are unable to debate and converse with fellow members in a respectful fashion, then action will be taken against you.
James Gordon.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
James,
As I said, I can certainly understand having the "Be Courteous" rule here at THIS FORUM, and that it must apply to the posts written by Education Forum members at THIS FORUM. That's totally understandable that such a rule would be in place at a forum like this one. All forums have such rules in place, I'm quite sure. But I was talking about your forum rule which is, essentially, telling everyone they have to play nice-nice at ALL OTHER Internet locations whenever talking about an EF forum member. That, IMO, should not be a rule at this forum---or any forum.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
When that rule was put in place it was in response to ROKC [Re-Open Kennedy Case forum].
What I find curious is that you want the rule removed - and it could be because its reason of origin no longer exists.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The ROKC forum still exists. Why you're saying it doesn't is a mystery to me.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so, so you can feel free to disparage fellow members - as and how you like - when outside this forum. It is clear that what you really think of fellow members is not described on the EF, but instead displayed by you when outside this forum.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, most of the time that's certainly a true statement alright. But that admission I just made can't possibly come as a surprise to you, can it? If it does come as a shock to you, you must be the most naive person on the planet. (But, come to think of it, based on that over-the-top Private Message I received from you early this morning, you do seem to "shock" pretty easily.)
Also, you aren't really so incredibly naive (are you James?) that you think that every conspiracy theorist who posts at The Education Forum actually displays their true feelings for "LNers" like me and Francois Carlier and Tracy Parnell when CTers post their messages here at the EF, right? The CTers, due to having to walk on the same "moderated" eggshells that I must walk on as well when I post here, never show their true opinions of the LNers that they are conversing with....and everybody here knows it. So there's no sense pretending otherwise, is there?
And are you so naive that you think that no Education Forum CTer has ever trashed the hell out of me (or Francois or other EF LNers) at other forums around the Internet? Get real. It's happening practically every day. I've become immune to it. And I have never felt compelled to try and have any of those CTers banned from this forum as a result of their behavior on other forums. Although, as I said earlier, I really had no idea that the silly "Other Forums" rule we're discussing here was even in existence at EF until just today. But now that I know it does exist, I can guarantee you that I will never ever attempt to use that "rule" to promote the idea that a CTer at this forum should be expelled or punished in some fashion. That's an incredibly silly idea. And I've certainly got plenty of "other forum" LN-bashing ammunition that I could use if I wanted to use it, that's for sure.
Just go to that ROKC link and take a look at a few recent LN-trashing examples. (If you can stand the stench that that place emits, that is.)
Or, you can take a quick look at any of the hundreds of intense battles that I have had with several EF members, most of which I have archived at my website/blog. Such as the 130+ dogfights that I've had with James DiEugenio since 2008. (And we're not exactly patting each other on the back in any of those frays, I can tell you that.)
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them.
If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
James,
Make sure to remember your above words the next time you read some of the vile LNer-bashing comments that have been posted by current EF members at ROKC and DPF and Facebook and Amazon (or any other Internet locality). Okay?
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Based on James R. Gordon's comments above and his remarks and actions in this 2015 discussion, I think it's time for James to purchase a thicker skin. (Do they sell those at Amazon? I'll go check.)
LAWRENCE SCHNAPF SAID:
I hate to say this, but I agree with David that the obligation to be courteous should be limited to this forum. People should be free to express their opinions on other internet platforms so long as those comments comply with the rules of that particular group.
Why should a conversation or even screaming match elsewhere be a concern to the administrator of this group so long as the conversation in EF remains civil?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bingo!
Thank you, Lawrence.
DENIS MORISSETTE SAID:
If you guys were moderators here and one member here was saying somewhere else that you are a [**blank**] and a [**blank**], would you not ban him?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I certainly wouldn't. What people say at OTHER forums should not concern the owners/moderators of THIS forum (as long as the members of this forum abide by the rules while they are posting at THIS forum).
Such restrictions on free speech OUTSIDE of these forum walls is downright ridiculous. And I think everybody here really knows---deep down---that it's "ridiculous".
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I am totally in understanding with Mr. Gordon here.
This is why very few, if any, ROKCers are here today. The only one I can think of is Vanessa Loney.
Secondly, it's one thing to argue with someone on this forum about certain pieces of evidence. But there are rules one has to uphold in that arguing.
When one goes elsewhere, the rules are usually not being upheld. So one is free to vent at will--while still being a member here.
And I also agree with the proxy rule. It's one thing to quote from a book or an essay. It's quite another to use yourself as a funnel to someone who has been banned. We just had this issue come up a rather short time ago when the same person was using Jim Hargrove.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jim DiEugenio, deep down, has got to know that I'm right about this "Posting At Other Forums" matter, but I guess he feels obligated to stick up for the EF owner anyway because DiEugenio apparently doesn't possess the gonads to speak up for what everybody knows is right concerning this situation, which is --- this forum has no right to dictate what I (or anyone else, including you, James DiEugenio) have to say at any other forum or website.
If you, Jim Di., want to rip me a new anal cavity at the Deep Politics Forum (which you have done on occasion, and I have the links to prove it), then you have every right to do that without having to walk on the eggshells created by a silly rule that exists at a different forum.
And I'm not sure if such a rule is even constitutionally legal. It might not be legal. (Any lawyers present?) But even if such a rule is constitutionally legal, it is still an unfair, petty, and downright childish rule to have on the books of any Internet forum. And even James Gordon himself realizes that it is a rule that probably doesn't belong in the "Terms Of Forum Use" at the EF site, otherwise he would not have said this to me yesterday:
"Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so. .... You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them. If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019
So, as we can easily see, Mr. Gordon has come right out and admitted that pretty much the only reason he's keeping the "Do Not Cast Aspersions At Other Forums" rule on his Rules page is to simply spite me.
What a sweet guy!
MICAH MILETO SAID:
Anybody who wants to ban anybody is ugly on the inside. As long as it's not spam or advertisement, free speech is more important than hurt feelings. People will just find more ways to insult each other's intelligence, ad hominem is a lot easier to spot than most [of] the other common discussion-sabotaging tactics.
And anybody who isn't living under a rock understands that freedom of speech is a hot button issue on the internet. Some see online censorship for what it is, some don't care about anybody but themselves.
ANDREJ STANCAK SAID:
I find it incomprehensible that someone would issue some very derogatory statements about the administrators of this forum on some other platforms. If an administrator is at low esteem in a member's eyes, that member should consider leaving the Forum. While differences in views among two members of the Forum can be heated at times, none of the members should go to a different forum and write derogatory evaluations about the other member there, administrator or not.
Such rule protects this forum and it can be required from any EF member. I see no problem saying "We differ with XY in this and that point" on Facebook or some other forum, but I find it unacceptable to see statements portraying another member of this Forum as a coward, liar, fraud, dishonest, incompetent, you name it.
My comment does not strip anyone from the freedom of speech because it is possible to express differences of views without questioning the character or abilities of any of the forum's members.
I should also add that an administrator does not need to be an expert in a particular aspect of the case, and administrators seldom take part in actual exchanges in threads. They are here to moderate, to check that we abide by the rules. Admins are arbiters in the matter of conduct on this forum.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for your opinion on this matter, Andrej. I will respectfully disagree with you, however. The rule that is in place here [below] restricts freedom of speech at other Internet locations, and this forum's owners do not (or at least should not) have a right to place such restrictions on anyone outside the purview of The Education Forum (IMO)....
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum – may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
And just "for the record"....
James R. Gordon has posted 935 times [as of this moment on 2/25/2019 AM] since he registered here on August 1, 2004.
KATHY BECKET SAID:
I don't understand why anyone would say things about someone who allows you to post here. Posting is a privilege, not a right. And for many months James paid for this forum by himself so folks could post here. I wouldn't think anyone would talk about him and continue to post here. Why would you stay if you thought he was ignorant?
David, you said James is continuing the rule because of you. It looks to me like from your FB post the only reason you are staying here [is] because of your posts you've made in the past. We don't delete posts. That was done a few years ago under different admins., so that's done, and you can relax about it.
Also, I found some free websites where folks could start their own forums, if need be. Who would want to stay in a place where the owner is not liked and the admins are ugly on the inside?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greetings Kathy Becket,
Yes, James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives---and I was very glad to hear that because it wasn't like that at all under John Simkin's pre-2013 ownership.
And I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike).
So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views. And the EF site has good functionality too. It's simple to navigate and I like the look of the design and the pages. So that's another "plus".
Also --- Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway. Most of my discussions here have been with people other than James. So I really can't see why my problems with Mr. Gordon should make me want to quit the forum entirely. That doesn't make sense to me. I've been able to archive many good EF discussions (covering several different JFK sub-topics), and 99% of those discussions haven't included a single post by James R. Gordon at all.
Plus, I think you missed my main point, Kathy. Which was (again) --- I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members. And my opinion in this regard has got nothing to do with my disagreements with Mr. Gordon as far as the Single-Bullet Theory or any of the other evidence in the JFK case.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
I am sorry, I am not going to budge on this point. You are free to commend and praise whatever EF member you wish on whatever forum you wish to choose. The rule does not prohibit you doing that in any way whatsoever.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Duh!!
I wonder why there wouldn't be a forum rule saying: "Forum members are prohibited from saying really nice things about other EF forum members and its admins. on other Internet forums."
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
However, I am gaining the opinion that you want this rule removed in order that you are free to criticise members as and whenever you wish. You want me to remove this rule in order you can freely express what you really feel about this forum and its members. I will not agree to that.
It appears you are followed quite widely, so I understand that if on another forum you abuse this forum and its members, I will quickly hear about it, and you have been advised what will happen were I to hear such reports.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I can only sit here and shake my head in disbelief that someone who owns and moderates an Internet forum in the year 2019 AD could possibly utter the words that James R. Gordon just uttered above. Absolutely incredible (and pathetic).
DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:
Although not sure I agree with the rule that you can't criticize the forum at other sites, I don't understand why if you like being part of the site and the debates you would want to go trash the site elsewhere. I am part of the FP for JFK FB page and do not love everything that gets posted over there, but I don't rip that page here. I don't see a point in it. If I don't like something then I should debate it. Seems like a lot of wasted time and stress to go and bash a site you like. IMO
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're missing the basic point (and principle) too, Derek. I'm not saying I have a burning desire to go all around the Internet saying rotten things about The Education Forum and its members. That's not the case at all. But the EF forum should have no right to dictate what I can say at non-EF localities. And I shouldn't have to make a special effort to always "watch what I say" at other sites whenever the topic of an EF member comes up. I should be able to say what I think. But that's not currently possible (if I want to stay an active EF member, that is)---especially after today, because Kamp's spies will now be on the constant lookout for any "anti-EF" remark that I might make anywhere on the Internet.
But I guess I'll just have to accept this ridiculous situation if I want to be able to continue to post here (which, I'll admit, I do).
DAVID G. HEALY SAID:
Pleeeeeeze, Your one and only goal in life, based on my witness of your posting actions over the past few decades, is to support the conclusions of the 1964 WCR, PERIOD! Whenever, wherever that takes you. Of course you'll post and adhere to ridiculous situation(al) *required* demands. It's your job!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bzzzzz!! Forum Violation Alert!!
Looks like Healy is not aware of this forum rule:
[Quote On...]
"Accusations of Member Credibility: Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at [this] forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum. Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum."
[Quote Off.]
David G. Healy,
Please very carefully read all of these Forum Rules before you ever again attempt to speak to me via the pages of this forum, lest the Wrath Of Gordon befall you.
CORY SANTOS SAID ALL THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What a bunch of ridiculous hoops to have to jump through....just in order to avoid violating a forum rule that shouldn't be on the books in the first place.
Geez Louise.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
FYI ---
On the afternoon of February 25, 2019, EF Administrator Kathy Becket decided to lock this EF thread so that no more posts could be made to that discussion.
Gee, what a surprise.
David Von Pein
February 24-25, 2019
[2/27/2019 DVP ADDENDUM -- This additional thought occurred to me a few days after the above bizarre situation took place....
You would think that after writing his crybaby-ish Private Message to me at
The Education Forum website, James Gordon would have been satisfied with a private apology from me.
And if Gordon would have handled the matter in that "private" manner, then that would have been the end of it and no one would have had to know about this minor skirmish except James Gordon and myself.
But nooooo!
A private resolution wasn't nearly good enough for Mr. Gordon. Instead, in heavy-handed and petty fashion, Gordon decided he wanted to construct a public mountain out of a private molehill, with Gordon "insisting" that I not only give him a "public apology", but he also "insisted" that I "create a new thread" at the forum in order to showcase in even more dramatic and unnecessary fashion how I was grovelling at his dictatorial feet.
Nice, huh?
The more I think about this event and the way Gordon handled it, the more burned up I get.
So, I think I'll stop thinking about it now.
Anyway, thanks for reading my comments about this goofy situation. If you've actually had the desire to read all the way to the bottom of this webpage, I commend you for your stamina. 😁]
