(PART 1330)


WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This! ....

David Von Pein is taking selected excerpts of your words posted here--along with your names--and pasting them on his “DVP's JFK Archive” website, in episodes that usually end with his self-proclaimed victory over any and all others.

Among the people whose words he takes are Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer, Sean Murphy, Thomas Graves, Greg Parker, Sandy Larson [sic], Jon G. Tidd, me, and many, many others.

The excerpts are sometimes short, sometimes VERY long, but always, in their totals, far beyond what anyone would consider fair use.

Here are some examples of what he is doing:




Did you give your permission to Mr. Von Pein to use your words on his website? Did he ask you if the selection he took was accurate, complete, and a true representation of your feelings on the matter in question?

Posting on the internet does not put anyone's original words in the public domain, unless it is explicitly stated that the work is intended to be in the public domain.



Everyone here has consented to be in the public arena.

The stuff anyone posts here is non-copyright material unless so designated.

No one who posts here can maintain a libel action against one who falsely portrays what was posted unless the false portrayal was made with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity.

In any event, it sounds to me that DVP is preaching to the choir. Which is OK.


Mr. Von Pein is a man with a GREAT imagination! He takes all kinds of things many of us post here, shuffles them up into whatever order appeals to him, and then reassembles them into imaginary conversations on his website, always, I'm guessing, proving whatever point he wishes to make about how great the Warren Commission was.


"Imaginary conversations"? Maybe you'd better choose some other words to describe my verbatim quoting of CTers on my website, Jim. Because those two words you just utilized are just plain ridiculous.

You're going to have a tough time finding anything "imaginary" about the conversations on my site. (I always provide a link to the source conversation, if available, as well. So if somebody wants to check out the original thread, they can do so.) And you'll have an even tougher chore trying to find where I have misquoted someone on my site--ever.

And if you're also implying that I don't permit CTers to have their say or get in their licks against me when I transfer written material to my site---think again. Because you'd be dead wrong if you were to think anything like that.


Hmm. So Davey's piggybacking and "recreations" are a violation.


Yeah, sure, Jimmy. And you've NEVER copied anyone's posts from JFK forums to use in the articles that appear on your website, have you? Like, say, this little smear piece (below) against "Disinformation Dave", as you called me....


Pot meets Kettle (again).

And I sure hope to God that Jimbo got bank supervisor "Craig's" express written approval before quoting him earlier in this thread. If not, a lawsuit will surely be pending!


The first idea, that I somehow use quotes from this site in any real or significant way at CTKA/[Kennedys & King] is so ridiculous as to be bizarre. But that's Davy. His usual breadcrumb mode in order to distract from his wholesale use of quotes in large sections of his site.

Craig said what he said. And there is nothing in any way wrong with me using him as a source since there was no qualification as to the information.


I didn't say that my quotes you used (without my permission) in your 2-part smear piece against me in 2010 came from THIS site, Jimmy. I think most of the quotes you used came from Debra Conway's old Lancer forum. But, so what? The point is still the same. Lancer undoubtedly had about the same "Terms of Use" rules in place as The Education Forum does, right?

So, did you get Lancer's express permission to use my quotes in your DVP smear piece? Of course you didn't. Nobody ever does. Who would? They're posts on a public forum. And I'm pretty certain Jon Tidd's first post is accurate. It's not illegal to copy quotes from any public forum or website and use them elsewhere on the Internet.

Can you just imagine the massive number of lawsuits that there would be if "copying & pasting" Internet quotes to other sites suddenly became a major violation? There wouldn't be enough lawyers in the world to handle all the cases. It's absurd.

Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter -- and for NO other possible reason.

To prove I'm right, just ask yourself this question----

Do you think Hargrove would have even considered (for even a brief instant) starting up a thread like this one if it was Jim DiEugenio or John Armstrong or Mark Lane or Greg Parker or Jon Tidd who had copied posts written by other people to their websites? (And, of course, DiEugenio and Parker HAVE done just that--many times--in the past. What person who owns a "JFK" website HASN'T?)

I rest my case.



Nice pirouette, but in that case, I did talk to Debra about that incident over there. In fact I told her I was surprised that she did not eject you sooner and I told her I was working on an essay about you. BTW, she said she knew you would hang yourself, and she let you do so. To the uninitiated, Davey was banned from Lancer when he accused most of the people there of being psychologically afflicted and needing to read books like "How to Cure Your Paranoia". This is because they thought Oswald was not guilty of killing anyone.

Your other point is just as superfluous. What you do is this: you extract from this site on a wholesale scale, and I mean wholesale. You then pull all these quotes--literally hundreds of them, probably thousands--and you put them on your site, and then you embroider them, so you can get the last word.

Which is deceptive in itself since no one can contravene that last word.

And the idea that this complaint is new is thoroughly disingenuous on your part. And you know it.

Because Lee Farley complained about this vociferously many years ago when Simkin had the site.


You think I "embroider" the direct quotes I get from The Education Forum?

Your imagination is a remarkable thing to behold, Jimmy.


...so you can get the last word. Which is deceptive in itself since no one can contravene that last word.


And you think you DON'T get the "last word" when you write an article for your website?

So tell me....what's the major difference (in a "last word" fashion) between the way I cull a conversation for my blog and the way you structure an article for your website, such as your 2-part smear piece on DVP?

Answer---there is no difference at all, and you know it.



​Pure Davey. I mean can you really be this ignorant? Really?

​You are not aware of the replies on the web to the reviews we have posted at CTKA? Really.

​By people like Janney, like Hankey, like Nelson. Most recently Fetzer. I think he did it twice.

What was that tune from the fifties from Rawhide? Roll em, roll em, roll em. That's Davey.


Are those replies hosted on YOUR site?


We don't have correspondence on CTKA. And you know that, don't you?

You do.

CTKA also does not host a forum. So there is no parallel.

The bottom line--the one you wish to avoid--is that you have been doing this for years and years and years. You have been heisting people's quotes from this forum at length on a large scale.

You know people don't like it, because Lee Farley was very angry about it. But you do it anyway and endlessly. And you do it to create a false image of yourself in the eyes of the very few people who may not know how bizarre your ideas are.

Roll 'em, roll 'em, roll 'em, Rawhide.


My blog's not a forum either, Jimbo. But you know that, don't you? (And, no, I don't allow comments, even though I could allow them. Should I be sued for that too?)

This thread is a joke. And the two Jims are competing as the top act in the big tent.


It would also be helpful if Larry Hancock or Debra Conway could weigh in on this issue as it relates to archived JFK Lancer Forum posts. And, for that matter, Robert Harris regarding the rules for his old JFK History Forum.


Ken, I really have no idea as I was never involved with the administration of the Lancer web site....posted a lot of times but I assume the rules are much the same. To tell the truth, I've never worried much about posts, as I assume that anyone can and probably will grab something off a public forum. For that matter, I assume the same for my blog.

Protecting something personally posted on the internet is pretty problematic. Reminds me of telephone calls on the old party lines, you just assumed somebody had their phone picked up on your call.


...how bizarre your ideas are.


Mister Irony strikes again. Hilarious.


FYI / FWIW....

If anybody cares about the reason WHY I archive so many forum discussions on my own site, I explained it in this exchange at Duncan MacRae's forum in 2014....



Just for clarity: It is not widely known that the original Copyright Act was intended less to discourage the use of protected material than to encourage the propagation of knowledge, especially informational works as opposed to creative works (fiction, art, music, etc,), in a structured manner.

If you post it on the internet (which implies consent), it is generally available for another person to quote (to propagate knowledge), but not if that other person makes profit from it. There is no magic formula, but a person may use reasonable quotes (much like a book briefly quotes another book) but (1) not in large proportion, (2) not for profit and (3) not if it diminishes the profit potential of the protected material.

I relate this with a sigh, as I was the victim of wholesale theft of intellectual property in recent years.


Most people do not have any hint at all as to the extent that DVP heists their posts and reposts them.

It's really kind of shocking.

Roy above uses as one of his strictures that the heisting is of reasonable length. Sort of like fair use.

What DVP does is not in any way, shape or form reasonable length.

I held my nose and was just over there, and it's not at all an exaggeration to say that if he did not steal others' posts, his site would be 1.) About half as large, and 2.) Of little or no interest.

Why the latter? Because he does no original research that I can find. So he leeches off of controversies he can find and then steals other people's posts as to an incredible length. And he then adds his own last words. Saying something like, "So much for that."


Oh, stop the feigned "shock", Jimmy. Your phony dramatics are quite transparent.

The stuff I save on my site is mainly (as I said in my 2014 post above) for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)?

Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? One year? Two years? Who knows? All Lancer Forum posts are now gone forever, except for perhaps a few that are recoverable via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.

IMO, it's just dumb to take that risk. So, I archive my own material at my site. And if "my material" is in the form of a REPLY to a conspiracy theorist on a JFK forum, then (of course) it makes sense to bring the CTer's words that I'm replying to along for the ride too.

And since I'm an "LNer", I naturally am going to think I have outlasted or defeated the CTer I'm battling. Just as you, Jimmy, undoubtedly think YOU have won every single war you've ever waged online. Right? (Have you ever admitted that you've been "defeated" by a lowly LNer like me? Of course you haven't.)

So why not stop the preaching, Jim? You're looking silly (yet again).


So in addition to knowing with metaphysical certitude that the Magic Bullet hit Kennedy and wounded Connally, now Davey--who I, fortunately, have never met--can read my mind from Indiana. Must be from serving all those KFC dinners and glad handing customers.

​The idea that I am familiar with Davey's site is loony tunes. I have been there maybe four times since it's been up.

​I went over there today, and I was really stunned as to how expansive is its use of other people's quotes. Much more than it was before. I really do not think it's an exaggeration to say that no other JFK site on the web even comes close to what he does. I mean, not even in the same ballpark.

That's a fact. If someone can dispute it, please do, I would like to see it. But really, as I said, that is what his site is about. It's about him processing other people's work since he is not a researcher.

This one is funny, as usual unintended:

DVP: "And, naturally, since I'm an "LNer", I naturally am going to think I have outlasted or defeated the CTer I'm battling. Just as you, Jimmy, undoubtedly think YOU have won *every* single war you've ever waged online. Right?"

What a cardsharp. See, as I said, no one I know does what Davey does, and he does not want to admit that. And no one I know does it to the mountainous heights that he does. See, he guarantees he gets the last word. So to equate what I do with what he does, I mean that is simply a cardsharp technique. And he hopes no one notices.

​Unfortunately, since I have a lot of experience with the guy, I do notice. I don't mean unfortunate for him, but for me.


Oh, brother.


See, he guarantees he gets the last word.


And you NEVER get "the last word" in any of your CTKA articles, do you Jimmy?


No, Mr. Von Pein, I started this thread because you posted three links to the imaginary conversations on your website in your post #105 on my "John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle 'evidence'" thread.

I followed those links that you posted, read a bit of your material... and was appalled!

The links to your website I put at the top of this thread are the very same links you first posted in the John Armstrong rifle evidence thread.

And that's why I started this thread.


Why are you telling the blatant falsehood about the stuff on my site being "imaginary conversations"? That's an outright falsehood. Please stop saying such crap. OK? There's nothing "imaginary" about a single conversation I have archived at my site.


Because it's not a blatant (or outright) falsehood.

Anyone can see that, in many cases, after you heist the exchange, you yourself add to these dialogues--sometimes at very long length.

In some cases you have disguised the names of people you quote, and then you add in information provided by you to attack their arguments. Thereby setting up a paradigm: "See how stupid this guy is? All critics are just as dumb."

Always giving yourself the last word.


How would you know all that, Jimmy? You hardly ever go to my site. Right?

"​The idea that I am familiar with Davey's site is loony tunes. I have been there maybe four times since its [sic] been up." -- J. DiEugenio


In some cases you have disguised the names of people you quote.


Wrong again.

If the person I'm quoting has decided to remain anonymous on the Internet (by using an obvious fake name or just a series of numbers or letters as their username), then I will identify that person on my site as simply "A Conspiracy Theorist" (or "CTer"). But I'm not "disguising" them. They've already disguised themselves by using an alias.

I await your next silly and childish complaint.


Uh, Davey, why do you have to act like a kindergarten teacher?

I just said yesterday that I had been at your site then. That was one of the four times.

Is this your way of trying to show that, hey, I am right and DiEugenio is wrong?

Because it does not. Only in your solipsistic world does that happen.

Which is made more solipsistic by the techniques you use on your site to "win" arguments against people who are not there anymore.

Which is one definition of "imaginary".


Yep. I was right. It was silly.


What was silly about it?

It's your site. Jim Hargrove pointed this all out and I am glad he did.

Because now it shows you are even in denial about your own site.


Yeah. I should be locked up for life for the dastardly crime of voluntarily posting a lot of comments written by CTers on a site run by an LNer, thereby providing an additional Internet location where many many conspiracy arguments can now be viewed. (And providing links to the original full discussions, if anyone wants to view them.)

Yes, I get the "last word" in those arguments after I transfer the portions of the arguments that I have been involved in (which is the only part of the discussions I have any interest in archiving on my website). But since I'm an LNer who thinks all conspiracy theories are bunk, what in the heck would you expect, Jimmy? It's my site. Get real.

I should be getting an "Attaboy!" from CTers for voluntarily posting on my site hundreds of different arguments presented by the "other side" (which I certainly don't have to do).

Instead, I'm treated like a dirty thief who robs people blind and skips town with everybody's money and jewelry.

Geez Louise. Ridiculous.



Thanks for this thread, Jim Hargrove. I was considering starting one exactly like it.

If DVP is allowed to continue this practice, as apparently he is, I think this thread should be a sticky to warn others. I know I would have thought twice about joining this forum and ever posting here had I known I would be unwittingly creating content for an entirely different website without my knowledge or permission.


I agree.

From my understanding, EF has a copyright for the stuff posted here. Would they not have to extend copyright for reprinting at DVP's?

And if they did that, would they not have to ask the posters' permission?

I do not think fair use would cover it. Fair use only involves using short snippets from a book, a play or film. DVP uses huge quantities of material from this site to transplant to his own site.

In fact, I would argue that is the main reason he is here.

I might have an attorney look at this for me.


You don't have to argue that point, Jim. I've already argued it for you....

"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." -- DVP; February 25, 2019


No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂


Exactly. So, given the fact that I am nothing but a useless and lowly "LNer" in their eyes, I'm wondering why any of the CTers here give a damn what I do at my own website?

Oh, wait.....I know the answer to that one. I answered it myself in this very thread three years ago. And nobody here can possibly deny I'm speaking the truth here....

"Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter -- and for NO other possible reason. To prove I'm right, just ask yourself this question ---- Do you think Hargrove would have even considered (for even a brief instant) starting up a thread like this one if it was Jim DiEugenio or John Armstrong or Mark Lane or Greg Parker or Jon Tidd who had copied posts written by other people to their websites? (And, of course, DiEugenio and Parker HAVE done just that--many times--in the past. What person who owns a "JFK" website HASN'T?) I rest my case." -- DVP; February 20, 2016


A perfect example of how Mr. Von Pein's imaginary conversations promote his own viewpoint and distort the truth was offered in this very thread by Sandy Larsen on 2/24/2016. To read Sandy's post, CLICK HERE.


And to read my rebuttal to Sandy's post, GO HERE.


It definitely is unethical to take a debate and move it into a non debate format, in the way that DVP does this.


As I explained earlier, it's merely an attempt to archive MY OWN POSTS AND COMMENTS at my OWN site. What is so "unethical" about that?

And since forums like this one are seemingly always on the verge of collapse, the best way to make sure my thousands of EF posts are not lost forever when this JFK forum eventually does collapse and fold up (which it probably will because James Gordon isn't going to pay the bills any longer) is to copy my posts (and the associated comments by other posters which make MY posts coherent) to my own site, which is a blog site that does not require financial aid to maintain.

And I shall stress this important point yet again as well --- I always provide a direct link (if it's available) to the complete forum discussion(s) at the bottom of every one of the pages on my site. So the complete and unedited discussion is always easily accessible on my webpages.


I wonder if there is a legal remedy to this?


I'm wondering if you can whine any louder.

(Also read my last post above and see if you can understand the point I made there.)


I see no problem as long as he [DVP] is accurately quoting the EF conversations. I doubt there would be any "legal remedy" since, as David points out, forum conversations are no doubt quoted on various CT websites without complaint. David's website is a tremendous resource and he is often complimented even by CTs.


There are two issues here.

The legal one about copyright, and the ethical one about distortion and giving oneself the last word in an argument you already lost.


Geesh, Jim's arrogance could fill up a baseball stadium.

I've "distorted" nothing (of course), even though DiEugenio will forever insist I have.

And the part about "an argument you aleady lost" is, of course, a totally subjective opinion. I don't think I've "lost" any of my LN-favoring arguments. CTers, naturally, will always disagree. They win every argument, right Jimmy? Per CTers, they couldn't "lose" one if they tried.

And Jim's obsession with "the last word" is just plain silly. On Jim's site, if he's quoting some LNer (which he has) on a particular topic, guess who will get "the last word"? Answer: Jim. And I'd EXPECT that to happen, for Pete sake! It's DiEUGENIO'S site. And at MY site, guess who's going to get the last word? What would you expect at MY site?

Jiminy Xmas, how silly Jim's "Last Word" complaint is!


The very fact that you cannot see the difference in what you are doing, vs. quoting an author in a critique of a book or film, shows just how far around the bend you are.


Who said I couldn't tell the difference between those two things, Jim? I certainly never said I couldn't.

Maybe you should read this post again, Jim. As I've said multiple times now, the issue is mainly about archiving MY OWN POSTS, not somebody else's.

Get it yet?


Free speech is a more important code of ethics than taking down DVP.


Absolutely right. I think what is happening here is an effort to silence David and that is not a good thing even for his opponents. Some of the CTs want this to be a "sandbox" where they can float even the most preposterous theories (H&L [Harvey & Lee] is still being discussed almost daily) without being challenged. While that may be an enjoyable exercise for them, they presumably want those theories to be taken seriously by other researchers and eventually the public at large. So, people like David and Lance [Payette] perform a service to everyone by refuting the more ridiculous theories and debating the enduring ones. Those serious about finding the "truth" should welcome such scrutiny.


Well, Ok, took about only 2 minutes to get thru 3 "pages" of this thread, what time wasting nonsense when we, at least think, there are interesting and potentially topics to collaboratively explore!


When someone takes your work, designed for a Q-and-A format for this forum, over to his own forum and then misrepresents it and cuts it up into pieces so that it can look like he has the facts and won the argument--when it was really the opposite, I don't think that's "nonsense", Bruce.

DVP has a whole sub section of his site devoted to me with my name on it. As of now it has over 100 chapters to it. There is no moderation over there of course, so there is no referee.


Well, let's just examine the flip side to a portion of Jim's argument here....

When Jim DiEugenio posted his 2-part smear piece about me in April 2010 at his (then) CTKA site, there was no way for me to directly comment on the things that I think Jim "distorted" and "misrepresented" about me in that smear campaign, which Jim promoted on his site at the time as being a destruction (more or less) of "Disinformation Dave". (And that snide "Disinformation Dave" remark—all by itself—is, IMHO, a "distortion" and a total "misrepresentation" of the facts.)

But at the time I couldn't directly attack and counter the things Jim was saying about me in his smear piece, because it was posted a few months before both of us joined this forum. Therefore, I posted my rebuttal comments on my own website (blog), which kicked off the sub-section at my site Jim referred to above.

And, of course, just like my blogs, there is no "referee" at Jim's CTKA (or Kennedys And King) sites either.

Now, yes, it's true that Jim's site isn't in a "Q-and-A" (or "forum") format. But the fact remains (in my opinion) that Jim engaged in a little bit of "distortion" himself when he wrote that two-part smear piece about me in 2010.

So, once again when we're dealing with the utterances of James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, the Pot is calling the Kettle black.


And I think we all know what his [DVP's] standards for fairness are about. His ideas about research and scholarship are, well, not exactly out of Cambridge or Oxford. I just wonder if DVP had a subsection titled "Von Pein vs Bruce Fernandez", with 100 chapters of distortion and editing from this forum, if you would feel the same way.


I shall again stress this important point....

The portions of any Internet forum discussion that I copy to my website are almost always only the portions that I myself have CHOSEN to participate in --- and no more than that. If I have chosen not to respond to various points being made in the same thread, then (naturally) there will be nothing in those particular sections of a discussion that I would have a desire to transfer over to my site --- because my main goal at my site is to archive my own comments and posts (so that my posts won't be lost to the dustbin of the Internet junkyard should the forums I'm posting on go belly-up in the future). But the entire discussion is always made available to view via a link that I always include (if it's available) at the bottom of each of my webpages.

And it is my firm opinion that I have not "distorted" or "misrepresented" anyone's comments that appear on my website. (James DiEugenio's constant protests to the contrary notwithstanding.)


This is utterly ridiculous and it shows how far around the bend he is.

He calls my article a two parter. It was originally just a one parter. But he replied to it and so the part 2 is my reply to him.

If you go ahead and measure how many words are in that article and measure it against his over 100 chapters on me, well, give me a break. As for name calling, DVP wrote the book.

But I will propose a deal right now and this will show the difference. If he drops that sub section on me, I will drop that article on him. Deal? I will give you 72 hours to reply.


No way. Not a chance. My DiEugenio sub-section is one of the best tools on the Internet to illustrate to any ordinary "lurkers" who might be reading my webpages just how far "around the bend" many conspiracy theorists truly are (particularly Mr. James DiEugenio).

Somebody, in fact, once told me I should publish my "DVP Vs. DiEugenio" series in book form. That's not a bad idea either. Maybe it could partly counteract DiEugenio's smelly 548-page smear campaign against Vincent T. Bugliosi known as "Reclaiming Parkland".

And isn't it sweet of Jimmy to offer to delete TWO whopping pages from his website if I would agree to delete 133 pages of mine?

Who would benefit more from such a lopsided transaction, Jim? (Geesh.)


It's disgusting and shameful that DVP is allowed to continue this practice and remain a member of this forum.

David, you're a thief and you should be ashamed of yourself. Create your own content.


I do. Lots and lots of it, in fact.

Not nearly everything on my site is a "debate" between me and CTers. I have written many stand-alone articles on various aspects of the JFK case.

And your use of the word "thief" is preposterous. I haven't misquoted anyone. And I haven't distorted anything either. (Although some CTers will continue to argue that I have.) But if a CTer's meaning of "distortion" is that I have not replied to each and every word uttered by the CTers whom I have quoted at my site, then that would be true. But EVERYBODY here does that. I know of no one (except perhaps Anthony Marsh at McAdams' Usenet forum) who spends their whole day--every day--taking the trouble of responding to every single word written on JFK forums. That's just not going to happen (unless, as I said, your name is Tony Marsh, who is in a league of his own as far as wanting to get in "the last word" on EVERY single thread at the Usenet aaj newsgroup).

I don't feel like a "thief" at all, Denny. And I don't want people to think of me as a "thief". As I've said numerous times now, I merely want to archive my own writings at my own website so they won't get lost forever. And via a "forum" format (which is where a lot of my "writings" are located), archiving my own words is not really practical to do unless the comments of the people I'm responding to are also transferred to my site as well. If I transfer just my words, there will be no context at all most of the time, which is not a good thing.

And I cannot believe that anyone here (even the conspiracy theorists) would have a problem with what I just said above.


What he [DVP] does is to change the form of what was posted.


Oh good! Another outright lie being told by a CTer tonight.


Here is an example:


The idea that he [DVP] was quoting me completely here is nutty. But that is what I think he is saying. But further, go to the link at the bottom, which one would think takes [you] to the EF dialogue, click it.

It does not take you there. It goes to a post by him. And you have to click again to take you to the EF dialogue.

To use one of his cliches, pot calling kettle.


Jimmy is hilarious with this supposed "Gotcha" above. The webpage he cites is a discussion from early June of 2010, twenty days BEFORE DiEugenio ever joined The Education Forum for the first time, and two months before I re-joined. So my "source" link to an alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup post is entirely appropriate and accurate, because that link, in fact, IS the original "source" location for that June 2010 material. I originally posted it at the acj newsgroup.

And if Jim would have just looked at the very first paragraph on that "Part 37" webpage, he would have seen this (which even includes a link to the EF post in question by Bill Kelly!)....

"At The Education Forum, William Kelly is apparently serving as one of James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants (since DiEugenio will never lower himself to post on any Internet forums [as of early June 2010 anyway; but I will amend that previous criticism, because DiEugenio did join The Education Forum as an active participant on June 22, 2010]), with Kelly posting this message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010...." -- DVP; June 2010

Another part of my webpage that I guess Jim D. didn't bother to read (or comprehend) is the part where I said this....

"Allow me to highlight some of DiEugenio's latest blather from the above-linked article:..."

So I wasn't even attempting to tackle ALL of the silly things Jim might have written (and which were posted by Bill Kelly by proxy)....hence I wrote the word "some" above.

Try again, Jim. This last effort of yours was a definite bust.


To [be] fair to David, he appears to be trying to establish a chronological argument. But it appears he is doing so by editing the views of fellow members - as opposed to a full copy of their views. And the complaint is that the edit has changed what members both believe and said.


Incorrect. I've "changed" neither.

With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on (at both The Education Forum and then at my site when I transfer that material over there so that I know my own remarks are in a safe place that won't disappear when this forum goes down the tubes due to a lack of funding), I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum.


The essential point is that fellow members do not have editorial access to their work on David's site. On his site, David is the editor of EF members' ideas and views and the complaint is that David is misrepresenting their position.


And that complaint is also untrue, insofar as (again) the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on.

There has been no "misrepresentation" on my part with respect to the topics that I have CHOSEN to talk about with the conspiracy theorists at The Education Forum (and then over at my own site when I copy those exact same discussions there).

As for the topics at The Education Forum that I have not chosen to engage the CTers on, I always provide a link (or links) to the full and complete forum discussion on my webpages at my site. So, as I've pointed out numerous times previously, if someone wants to read the full thread, they can easily do so from my site (if such a link is available, that is, which sometimes it is not, but that's beyond my control because the thread was deleted by the moderators, and in such a case, then my site is now the only place to read any part of those deleted threads).


No need to delude yourself any longer. Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway. 😁😝😂


If Von Pein does not remove this crap from his website pronto then I have no interest in being here and will ask for the removal of all my posts/material since it gets misrepresented and twisted by Von Pein.


What a difference three days can make, huh?



I have grave reservations that you print everything a member says.

In this page from 2010 there is screeds from you and a small paragraph from James [DiEugenio]. Are you arguing that the small section you published from James was all he had to say?


No, I never said anything of the kind. And I never said that it was ALL Jim had to say in a particular discussion.

Again, the aim is to archive MY OWN WORDS first. And since I choose not to engage CTers on every crackpot idea they post on the forums, then of course there IS going to be "editing". ALL CTers "edit" here as well. They don't respond to each and every comment made by somebody else.

And, BTW, that "DiEugenio Part 1" page doesn't concern you or The Education Forum in any way at all. That material did not originate at the EF forum.


The Bill Kelly post is a six page thread. Please provide the link to your site which demonstrates that you published every word.

From looking at your site, it appears to me you edit.


See my last comments.

Of course I haven't responded to every single post on ALL SIX PAGES of a thread. (Who does?) But I've linked to the complete discussion (as mentioned many times before).


I attempt to archive the portions of discussions that I myself have participated in. Nothing more. Nothing less.



By your own admission, you are copying members work and editing it. In the case of the Bill Kelly thread, you have selected what you feel is pertinent to your purpose.

I am sorry, that is wholly unacceptable to copy EF work, edit it, and place it on a foreign site for which no member of this site has editorial access.

I am sorry to have to say this, but tomorrow I will remove your access to this site. I will not allow this behaviour to continue.


Yeah, that's what I figured.

For more than three years this thread has been here, and in that whole time not a SINGLE person asked to have their content removed from my site. Now, suddenly, CTers are crawling out of the woodwork with complaints. Even just 3 days ago, Bart Kamp couldn't have cared less about what I did on my rinky-dink little blog. Now, three days later, he's ready to leave the forum and demand that all of his own posts be removed because of my site that three days ago he didn't care about at all. Unbelievably fickle.

And, again, can you just imagine this thread existing if a "CTer" had archived some of his posts at his website (which likely has occurred somewhere online)? It never would have been started in the first place, of course.


Enjoy your fickleness until this forum goes belly-up in the near future. And when that happens, you might even find yourself wanting to seach my site for your forum posts that have been lost for all time because of the fact that Internet forums rarely last forever.


That’s ironic. It sounds like a death wish for a platform that gave you such enjoyment for so long.


Not a death wish at all. Just a fact of Internet life. Virtually every forum I've ever posted on is now gone --- e.g., JFK Lancer, Amazon's Discussion Boards, the "old" Duncan MacRae forum (due to a hacker that time), Bob Harris' forum, and Rich DellaRosa's forum. All have died. And it's a shame. Because there was a lot of good stuff on most of those forums. Which is one of the main reasons I make an attempt to archive (i.e., save) my own contributions at my own website.


Remember, David, that your flaunting of your foul behavior is what raised the ire of the membership.


I've provided (i.e., "flaunted", if you will) links to many of my "Assorted Assassination Arguments" dozens of times over the years here at this forum. Never once, prior to yesterday, did anyone ever ask me to remove their content from those pages. (I guess you'll say that nobody ever once clicked on any of them, right? But I know that's not the case.)


You've worn out your welcome here, David.

Take a hint and take a hike. You will not be missed.


Of course he won't be missed. He wins constantly and that is what is really behind all of this.


Mr. Gordon, would the forum care if I published a book called "a collection of forum posts". This book would verbatim quote debates between members. I would add my commentary regarding the posts. I would charge $29.99 and of course give no member or the forum any royalties or license payments. If the forum is ok with this, I will get my book published asap. Is there a difference between publishing a book or on a web site? There was some dangerous ground here. You made a tough call.


David has sunk pretty low. He may have earned respect for his debate skills, but his website, as attested here, is a stab in the back to everyone that did not appreciate his self-promotion and pernicious proclivities.


I have merely copied the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS I have put on the table at The Education Forum over to my own site (for the reasons stated). The arguments that I have archived at my site are NO DIFFERENT than they are at the EF forum. For some reason, the CTers here seem to think otherwise. But they're wrong.


You made a choice. You chose your trophy wall over being welcome.


You must be joking with that "being welcome" stuff. That's a real laugh.

You think the majority of CTers here have put out the welcome mat for me (or any LNer) at any time in the past, eh? Such as this "welcome" I got from Mr. Kamp earlier this year....

"Go home Von Pein. You have no right to be in here sharing your dross."
-- Bart Kamp; February 9, 2019



I am very sorry that this has happened. I am of an earlier "generation" of LN researchers and I got away from Internet debating about the time you were getting in. Back in the day I debated more frequently--I even remember debating Cliff [Varnell] back then (yes he was singing the same tune) and Gary Aguilar, Lisa Pease and others. Now I am more of an "interjector" I guess you could say--I just speak up if I see something blatant in my particular areas of interest. I find that debating on Internet forums takes a great deal of time and I am more jealous of that time as I get older.

Your debates over the years have been memorable and you have shown amazing debating skill and a depth of knowledge that is only rivaled by McAdams and a few others. Unlike many who use the cozy confines of certain forums to promote various theories that really go nowhere, you have co-authored a fine book (and few here can say that). Of course, I know you will still be around the Internet and your outstanding website will endure as one of the great resources and will continue to be praised by both sides. Best wishes and thanks.


Thank you very much, Tracy. I appreciate those words of support.

I have no desire to leave this forum at all, and I do not consider myself to be a "thief" in the slightest way. In fact, I had never even considered the notion that the act of copying to my website the already-published words of various posts that are freely available on the Internet would be frowned upon so vigorously by anyone. I just never gave that idea a single solitary thought. I truly didn't think it was any kind of a "problem" at all (and I really still don't, particularly since I have never once intentionally misquoted anyone on any of the pages on my website).

I guess I was being too naive, huh?

But, as I said before, you can bet your last greenback that none of this turmoil would exist in the first place if I had the words "Conspiracy Believer" printed next to my name. I don't think there's even a shred of a doubt about that fact. This is all about "CTers" lashing out against an "LNer" --- and everybody here knows it.


I just found out about this a few hours ago. Wasn't sure why everyone was upset, since this has been David's MO for years, and 'twas an old thread resurrected, yes, 'twas. I understand it has to do with changing posts of members(?) and publishing them, or leaving things out. I'm going to have to look and see at some examples of this.

I have to think that some of the hub bub is because David is a vocal LNer, and he may rub some the wrong way because of that. I'm jus' sayin'.

Hopefully, he has provided links to the conversations he's had in the past as a sort of a "works cited" page. If not, then no one is sure who said what, or if it was said at all.

The "authors permission" is a good idea, to keep the integrity of the posts.

As for showing himself the winner of debates, I think most of us think we won any debate we have been in. I know I have 😁, so that's not a bone of contention. OTOH, yes it is but only for the beholder.


I am of two minds on this subject.

1. Yes, DVP's extracts were edited to help his arguments. That is annoying. But at least he quoted his discussions accurately. As a result, a number of his extracts showed his short-mindedness, to the extent even that a newbie stumbling on his site would undoubtedly side against him.

2. The idea that one can not quote public statements without the approval of the person making these statements is short-sighted, IMO. And extremely damaging to the goals of the members of this forum. If someone writes something outrageous, or dead wrong, these statements should not be withheld as personal property, or any such thing. I make dozens if not hundreds of references to online discussions on my website. I quote online discussions with LNers and CTs alike. Some of the quotes involve eyewitnesses (I met so and so and they told me such and such). But most of them reveal mind-set. I use McAdams' own words against him. I use DVP's own words against him. And yes, I use the words of CT's like Fetzer against them.

It should be noted, moreover, that among the best quotes I've been able to get via the various JFK forums are quotes from Dale Myers, in which he (badly, IMO) defends his SBT animation. I received these quotes via a middleman who took my complaints about Myers' animation to the source, begged for a response, and then posted Myers' response on the forums. This middleman--David Von Pein.

It should be noted, furthermore, that at least one blogger who is not a member of the forums picked up on my online discussion (via DVP) with Myers, and exposed Myers' questionable methodology to thousands of readers who presumably never read the forums.

So...to my way of thinking, this is how it should work. Anyone who is a public figure (which perhaps should be defined as anyone who has written a published book on the subject, made a TV appearance on the subject, or even, written extensively on a personal website on the subject) is fair game, and has no real gripe when they are accurately quoted extensively. But anyone who is not a public figure (i.e. the majority of those on this forum) is not fair game, and should only be quoted by name with permission, should they ask this to be the case. This does not, to be clear, prevent someone such as DVP from quoting them anonymously, moreover. In such case, an extract or article could be written exposing inaccurate CT thinking or inaccurate LN thinking by attributing the quote to "anonymous CT" or "anonymous LN."

My two cents.


This forum was conceived as a place where people can share ideas about the assassination...and have them read by people from all over the world. When it was set up, there were a number of "private" forums, where people shared ideas with a small group of people. Most of those forums have since disappeared, along with the vast majority of the posts on these forums. Those wishing to join private forums now join Facebook groups, and have their posts read by perhaps as many as 20 or 30 people, as opposed to the 100 to 1,000 that are likely to read a post on this forum.

Taking this forum private so no one can copy the words of those uncomfortable with the idea someone might copy and paste their words elsewhere on the internet would be silly, IMO. It's WHY this forum was founded, for crying out loud. John Simkin used posts from this forum to fill in blanks on his Spartacus website. He never asked for permission to quote posts on his website. It was John's hope this website would become a Spartacus-like resource used by people around the world. So he contacted a number of researchers, writers and witnesses, asked them to join, and allowed newbies like myself to join in the discussion. Thankfully, the vast majority of these posts are still available for study.

Feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere you like.


The Education Forum is having a total Meltdown!

The ED Forum only exists to be ridiculed. It's just a bunch of angry old men who will throw anybody and everybody under a bus just to defend Oswald. I even recently read DiEugenio getting stuck into Bugliosi's private life. If attacking the messenger is your best argument, then maybe it's time to get a life.

Now it's David Von Pein's turn, the Faux Outrage regarding David's web site is seriously over the top. As far as I can tell, nobody gave a shit two minutes ago and it's not like David was trying to hide anything because he was constantly linking to his site and promoting it every chance he had.

I'm guessing David doesn't receive a cent from his fabulous JFK resources, his YouTube channel, or from his web site, and let's get real--all David is doing is posting verbatim quotes of a members questions or doubts and his reply based on the evidence. Why should David post another 500 replies that don't involve him, don't involve the evidence and basically boil down to "anything is possible, speculation, trust no one, etc etc..."?


The ED Forum is a echo chamber. They do not want anyone questioning their CT fictions and I'm sure they've been wanting to throw DVP off the site for a very long time. They could never mount a case to do so without looking ridiculous, but it looks like they have decided that looking ridiculous is something they can live with.

The team that operate that site (Jim Gordon and Co.) have allowed DiEugenio to push them aside and it's he that now seems to be running the show. Now that Kamp is injecting his special brand of insanity into the site, it has lately become the Mad Hatters Tea Party.


My thanks to John and Steve for their support.

BTW & FTR [For The Record]....

Forum owner/moderator James R. Gordon officially kicked me off of The Education Forum (and prohibited me from logging in and posting any additional comments) as of approximately 11:40 PM EDT on August 26th, 2019.


It is more than ironic that they banned you for unethically manipulating quotes when they themselves committed a much worse offense when they banned me for posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man that they didn't want to hear.

If you want to see some real rippers, go look at what Kamp does with my posts on his website and see how much worth his complaints have against you. No problem when he does it much worse depending on who it is done against.

The JFK internet is now run by gangs of cliques.


Oh, it's all about WHO it's being done against, that's for sure. The ONE AND ONLY reason Hargrove started that "Warning" thread against me is because I'm in the "LNer" camp. And everybody knows it (although no EF member would dare admit that obvious fact).

I have thought of two other CTers who have utilized my words on their own CT websites in order to bash the living daylights out of me and my arguments --- Ralph Cinque and Judyth Baker.

But I have never once felt the need or even the slightest desire to cry my eyes out and complain to the Blogger/Google management (where both of their sites are located) about how unfair it is for Cinque and Baker to have copied my words from my blog to theirs. Never have I felt like doing such a thing. And Cinque has copied quite a few of my quotes to his blog site too. But I couldn't care less about him doing that. I really don't care. In fact, I kind of like it when a person (even a dreaded outer-fringe conspiracy fantasist like Ralph Cinque) wants to copy my material and put it on their website. I actually take it as a compliment. (Am I nutty to feel that way? Well, maybe so, but it's the way I feel nonetheless.)


Lord Gordon has issued a new edict, aimed at David von Pein [sic]. It is now "enshrined" at this link, that Gordon himself does not consider David von Pein [sic] to have committed any offense prompting his banning.

It is silly, giving in to what amounts to mob rule. Forums do not want to be responsible for the content of posts of members in consideration of potential liability.

This ill-informed action taken against you was taken despite emphasizing the posts in the threads represent no ownership interest by the forum owners.

The decision was contrary in that it goes against the stated, intentional arms-length relationship of the forum vs. the posters and their posts. They are clearly in the public domain after they are posted since the stated policy of that forum is non-ownership of them. Attribution when you copy and paste them is not an obligation, it is a courtesy.


Thanks for the information, Tom.



Is there anything the EF crew can do to prevent you continuing to provide a counter argument as you've always done?


I really have no idea.

But whatever action Jim Gordon took against me tonight at 11:40 PM hasn't had the effect he thinks it has had --- because I can still access the EF forum and all of its threads (as a non-logged-in visitor). I guess he didn't press the right "Let's Keep DVP Out Forever" button or something.


Now that presents them with a problem, doesn't it? Effectively they've achieved nothing other than to smear a bucket load of crap over the EF forum's reputation. :)


Yeah, well, I was probably stupid for even mentioning that I can still view the EF forum. Because now somebody from EF will likely see my post here and run to tell Gordon about it, with Gordon then realizing he didn't press all the buttons he needed to press to keep me out.

Oh, well. :(


I think everyone has a right to post here [at The Education Forum]. I think DVP and others, including sometimes myself, have a useful critical function that is otherwise lacking here. I understand people don't want to be quoted out of context. Though it happens all the time in forums like these. The only way it can reflect badly is with other LNers who might frequent DVP's site. Do we have to take ourselves that seriously? Why do we really care that much about what they think?

Still, because I look at DVP's website very infrequently, I can't say how fair he is in these reconstructed arguments. I can imagine some might feel like they are unfairly quoted out of context to be used as a foil for DVP. After all, DVP's central aim is to gain a following by using chosen examples to portray himself as a credible critic of a JFK conspiracy who wins every argument, so what is the purpose of using his opponent's names at all? A compromise could be that DVP agrees to release the forum source, but not specifically the names of the people he was debating unless specifically given consent.



I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material. As Bart has posted above, DVP was asked to remove the material. On its own, I understand that would have ended the matter. DVP refused to comply.

True, DVP has done this for years, but I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used. Because of this argument I have looked at DVP's site. It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context and edited by him to support the thread he is creating. In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum.

Hopefully the EF will now make it impossible for him to continue to do this.

Finally Kirk, you are absolutely right, everyone has a right to post their opinions here. But DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website.


Since I can no longer respond directly to the numerous lies that James Gordon just gushed forth, I'll post my response at Duncan MacRae's forum instead....

Gordon said: "I do not believe DVP credits the source of his material."

That's Lie #1. I give credit to tons of "sources" for the material I post, with links being presented by the dozen. But, actually, I'm not sure what kind of "source credit" Gordon is even referring to here. If he's talking about sourcing the original discussion threads from which I copy posts from the EF forum, then it's an even bigger lie being told by Gordon, because (as I have said many times before) I always provide a link to the original (source) EF thread at the bottom of all of my webpages.

Gordon said: "I believe the atmosphere has changed and members are now much more guarded about how their material is used."

Yeah, that must be why Bart Kamp said this to me just three short days ago:

"Not many care what you yack about in the first place anyway." -- B. Kamp

Gordon said: "It appears to me that the material DVP copies is taken out of context. .... In doing that he is clearly changing what the EF members originally thought and believe and therefore DVP has changed what EF members posted on this forum."

I strongly resent such a charge. Furthermore, it's a really stupid charge in the first place. Since I am merely taking verbatim quotes from the EF forum over to my own site, Gordon must actually think I'm some sort of Houdini or David Copperfield, in that I am apparently able to take those verbatim CTer quotes and (somehow) change the entire belief structure of the conspiracy theorist being quoted. Even though, keep in mind, the quotes are the EXACT VERBATIM WORDS that were written by the CTer at the EF forum before I copied them to another Internet location.

I guess I'm more powerful than I thought! Unbelievable!

In other words --- James R. Gordon is full of shit. It appears to me as if he has been significantly influenced by the other conspiracy theorists at the EF forum who also contend that I have taken things "out of context" and have literally "changed" what CTers have posted at the EF forum. But regardless of which CTer utters such garbage, it's still going to be garbage (and a lie).

Gordon said: "DVP has two opinions. There are the posts he used to make here on threads here. Then there is the opinion that is shaped by him - using EF members contributions - to create a narrative on another website for which we have no editing rights. And the narrative on his site does not reflect what was originally said on this website."

More lies. See my last comments above. Plus, Gordon should re-read this comment I aimed at him earlier today at the EF forum....

"With regard to the particular JFK sub-topics that I have chosen to engage various CTers on...I have "changed" NOTHING that was in any original quote written by any CTer on The Education Forum." -- DVP

And the bunk about me having "two opinions" on various JFK matters is just...well...bizarre (to say the least).

Where on this Earth did Gordon get the idea that my basic "opinions" about any aspect of the JFK murder case somehow change between the time I post my thoughts at The Education Forum and when I re-post those EXACT SAME VERBATIM COMMENTS at my website?

The only response I can possibly muster after reading such a bizarre allegation is this one....



When the conspiracy types don’t believe they’re getting enough confirmation bias over their pet individual theory, they jump ship like rats, infesting other domains with their poison. Dark, brooding and paranoid, they haven’t changed in some 55 years. DVP has the patience of a saint.


David, I want to commend you on your outstanding site with all the JFK material you archived, including all the amazing Cincinnati Reds games you assembled. Great stuff you have and I plan on viewing more of it.

Seems to me, that a certain couple of individuals were using your taking of posts off the site and archiving it on your site as an excuse to remove you as a member. There are no "copyright laws" when an individual posts on a public forum. Anything they choose to post is fair game and can be used by anybody who views that site. Just like when a individual sends out a tweet on Twitter, any person can quote the tweet and offer their own rebuttal. Not sure why they would be angry over that fact, unless they didn't like appearing to be wrong on your site for all to see.

Gordon trying to add his own "copyright law" is a total joke and basically they have no right to remove you as a member on the grounds they claim presents a "violation". There is nothing that is prohibited by using quotes from what another person posted.

Anyway, if you still want to view their site, you can use a free VPN and they won't be able to block you from viewing any material. Gordon has failed and clearly doesn't know what he is doing.


Thanks, Rick. But I'm still able to view the EF site (as of right now anyway). Evidently Gordon didn't block me like he thinks he did. I can't "log in", but I can view every thread.

Re: Copyright....

What do you say about this?

Does that apply to people posting stuff on "Internet Forums" or not? ~shrug~


People's opinions on a public forum are not copyrighted. If you want to copyright a song or poem you just wrote, you have to physically get a copyright for it. If someone posted lyrics to a song they wrote on a forum, there is no copyright since they didn't obtain one. It just isn't automatically copyrighted after they posted it. As long as you don't alter their comments and provide a link to where it's from, there is no claim for copyright for them to claim. Just like what people post on Facebook or Twitter, their quotes can be used and copied for other users as a rebuttal to what they write.


Well, that's what I have always thought too.

But if what you just said is truly the case, then explain this....

~bigger shrug~


If a person on a forum in conversation wrote the word "LOL", they wouldn't have a copyright on that. If they were presenting their own works that had a copyright, then yes, but not for a forum discussion. If that was the case then nobody could use quotes or info on the net.

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.


OK. Thanks, Rick.


I wish our resident LN attorney Lance [Payette] would weigh in with a legal opinion on this mess.


Alas - or perhaps not, depending on your perspective - there is no legal issue. I investigated in depth, including taking various legal actions, against a mega-site (much larger than this) that repeatedly banned me for expressing Christian sentiments at the atheist-dominated "spirituality" sub-forum. If you substitute "JFK conspiracy theorist" for "militant atheist," the debates were essentially identical.

Because this is a privately-owned site, there is no legal basis for a claim of discrimination, selective enforcement, violation of free speech or whatever. (You could incur liability for defamation on a privately-owned site, but that's a different issue.) On the other hand, the notion that any of us have a protectable "privacy" or "intellectual property" interest on what we post on Internet forums strikes me as hysterical - not as hysterical as Harvey & Lee or the notion of Ruth Paine as a CIA operative, but pretty hysterical nonetheless. No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality.

Edit: Because lawyers have to be paranoid about this sort of thing, I should point out that I am no longer a lawyer at all and the above is simply my experience. I retired in 2018 and resigned from the bar in 2019.


Anything we post on this Forum and on [the] Internet in general, e.g., a novel idea, theory, or an original image illustrating a theory, is an intellectual property of the poster. It can be referred to in texts if properly quoted, not altered and not misinterpreted by the second author.

It is very difficult to ensure that this general principle is followed. In practice, people copy and misinterpret the work of others without giving it any thought. However, this is a private Forum (although visible to a large audience) and it now has a rule that no member of this Forum can re-post full or large parts of other member's posts on another internet server. It is a good rule. It can be applied retroactively and therefore, David was rightly asked to remove the posts or parts of posts he copied along his posts on his own website. After he does it, his access to this Forum can be reinstated and I would be glad if this would be the final outcome and David would resume his posting here.


I appeared on this thread, emerging from my self-imposed exile, only because someone told me my legal expertise had been requested. Here’s what I would say in terms of a resolution:

1. If there was a clear term of service that no member may do what DVP has done, or DVP had received previous specific warnings, then warn or ban him if you wish. If not, there is nothing illegal or immoral about what he has done. I personally have no problem with it whatsoever - as I had previously told DVP.

2. If there was no clear term of service, then it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to ban DVP or require him to “undo” what he has done. If it is the wish of the site administrators, a clear term of service should be adopted for future application, to wit:

No member shall quote or reproduce, in whole or part, the post of another member on any blog, other forum, other website or anywhere else outside this forum, without the express written consent of the member being quoted. A violation of this rule may, in the discretion of the Administrators, result in discipline up to and including a permanent ban of the violator.


Too bad DVP won't be here anymore, if he won't, because I can't imagine anyone else good-natured or patient enough to put up, over and over, with the embarrassing lack of logic and critical thinking - and, indeed, almost willful stupidity - that characterizes Conspiracy World.

Have a nice day.


This is a private forum. It is not a public venue. You have to join, be cleared, supply a photo and obey rules.

When I slightly objected to what was done to Alex Jones, that is what I was confronted with.

According to those rules, we own what we contribute. DVP never asked permission to reprint. Probably because he knew what the reply would be.

And now he has chosen to leave. Doesn't that tell you something about why he was here in the first place.


I've made no secret of the fact that a primary motivation for my posting stuff at The Education Forum has, indeed, been to archive more material at my own website. And I told EF moderator Kathy Becket that very thing during yet another battle that I was having with owner James Gordon—this one—back in February of 2019. Here's what I said at that time.


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.


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.

[DVP NOTE: The response I received from Ray Mitcham to the above request was --- dead silence.]


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. Members 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.


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 Education Forum 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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


It sure sounded like it to me.


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?


Because, to get down to the brass tacks of the matter, I truly don't think for one minute that the quotes/excerpts that I have archived at my site really bother the CTers enough for them to start insisting I remove their quotes from my site. And to see the virtual proof that what I just said is the truth, just look at the first three pages of this EF thread. That thread was started in February of 2016, and it took a resurrection of the discussion in 2019 for anyone to even begin to demand that their posts be removed from my site (plus to demand I be kicked off of the EF forum, to boot).

That three-year delay that it took for a single CTer to give a damn is telling me something right there.


The fact that [you] 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.


Many (many!) conspiracy theorists that I have encountered are hypocrites. (Without a doubt.)

And some CTers are scumbags. (Such as "Boris" at acj, plus a few others I won't mention here.)

I guess sometimes the truth can hurt.

But, like you said, you're new here. It takes a few years of regularly dealing with Internet conspiracy theorists for the true nature of them to finally sink in.


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?


Yes, I certainly have added my commentary to things I've grabbed off "non-forum" websites. And CTers do the exact same thing. (Go HERE and HERE and HERE to read some examples of CTers doing it.)

Conspiracists have quoted me (and many others) on their own websites, which are non-forum websites that I cannot respond to. But I couldn't care less about the fact that they have done that. I've always thought of it as a compliment if someone wants to quote me on their site. I never once felt the urge to gripe about it in even the slightest way --- even though I do think I've been quoted "out of context" on occasion. But I still never felt compelled to throw a hissy fit about the mere fact that I have been quoted on somebody else's website without my express "permission" being given. I've never expected someone to ask for permission to quote something I have already written on a public webpage.

And I sure don't recall ever getting a heads-up from the CTer who was quoting me to inform me that they have just quoted me on their site. Why would that ever happen anyway? In my experience, it never does. And I'd never expect such a "heads-up" to be written either.

So maybe CTers should get the idea out of their heads that a guy named DVP is the only person in the world who has ever copied the public words written by another person to use on his own personal website. Because, let's face reality, such a thing is happening thousands of times every day. And the only people I've ever heard complaining about it are a few outer-fringe JFK conspiracy theorists.


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.


Regarding the last paragraph of the post above....

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 MacRae'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 [located at Archive.org] 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.


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?


The EF is an evidence free zone. BS is allowed to take wing and evidence is buried deep underground. Whatever useful purpose it once served it is now redundant. DVP was pretty much told, several times, by several prominent posters at EF to piss off and there wasn't a single voice of rebuke from a moderator or administrator. 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 place (EF) is an echo chamber or--just as bad--it becomes a silent place where even the most outrageous theory is presented without even a murmur of a challenge referencing evidence.


When Steve Howsley said this....

"It became obvious months ago that there was a plan forming to create a situation that would result in his [DVP's] expulsion."

....he might have been referring (at least in part) to the absolutely absurd "Forum Rule" that led to this February 2019 discussion (archived at my website, of course), during which I was literally ordered by the EF owner to start a new thread at the EF forum and apologize to the forum owner for something I said at a completely different Internet site.

That's how ridiculous the EF Forum "rules" are. And, IMO, that whole bizarre episode was "created" totally by the forum owner. It wasn't created by me. It was an over-reaction by Mr. Gordon. And I think even a lot of CTers would agree with that assessment.


I'm amazed he [DVP] thinks he can bash the moderator elsewhere, and then expect to continue to post there.


Because that moderator has no right to restrict what I choose to say (even about him) on another Internet location. It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And I cannot believe anyone (even a staunch CTer) would be defending such an incredibly unfair "rule" as this one which is on the books at The Education Forum:

"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 keep in mind that the above idiotic rule also applies to merely "casting aspersions" about the FORUM ITSELF (as a whole)! Not just about its individual members.

It's mind-bogglingly Unconstitutional.


Bash your employer on Facebook and see what happens. That's free speech, isn't it?

The key is, "...expects to come back and post."

Do you think posting is a right? Or a privilege?

You're being allowed to post here, aren't you?

Could you bash the management here on [Facebook]...and expect to post?


You don't get it at all, do you?


What don't I get? You don't own this platform.


How about this...

If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks. One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.

Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?


But in that example, I'm not an employee of Olive Garden. So how is that situation analogous to the situation with me at the EF forum?


IMO, your above example would have been more akin to the "EF / DVP" situation if you would have had me (as a disc jockey) bashing my boss at the radio station, instead of bringing in a third party (Olive Garden) for me to bash.

~a second shrug~


It has nothing to do with who it is you bash.

Do you think you can go on my air and bash Olive Garden?

And yes, you can say whatever you want and here's the key part, expect to come back to work tomorrow?

You can't. You don't get that?


After having thought about your "Olive Garden" example for a few more minutes....I'd say:

The radio station was definitely wrong to fire me for merely expressing my opinion about the bad experience I had at the OG restaurant. It's not a valid enough reason for firing a disc jockey (IMO). Not nearly valid enough. Again---it's Free Speech. As long as I didn't get TOO severe in my OG criticism (such as threatening to kill the lousy waitress or blow up the building), I'd say that my on-air criticism of the Olive Garden Restaurant located at 10206 North Michigan Road in Carmel, Indiana, would not be enough of a reason for being axed by the radio station (where I had been employed since 1971, btw).

Do you think my negative comments about a restaurant was the FIRST TIME in the radio station's history that an on-air personality went "off script" and said something of a "negative" nature about a restaurant or another person or a Government or an automobile manufacturer or anything else? Come now, my good man. Let's get real.

Tomorrow (if I'm re-hired at the station), I'm going to bash O.J. Simpson, because I think he was a murderer. Will I be fired for a second time for expressing another of my opinions?



Here we go out of context. You turned bashing into merely expressing an opinion -- not what I'm talking about.


Huh? They ARE the same thing. The BASHING is the OPINION.

You need sleep I think.


We are talking about bashing. What did you say about the EF moderator?



Would the moderator here allow that from a member to another platform?


If that moderator believes in Free Speech, yes, of course he would allow it.


I wouldn't allow you to come back.


Then you're not a very good (or fair) moderator.


As per Mr. Crow's recommendation, I dropped by Von P's salvage yard and took a look at three random junk piles:

#193 is prompted by Rob Caprio asking VP to prove Oswald owned a 40.2 inch rifle before proving Oswald lied. The response is essentially a rant with no reference to any evidence to support the VP claims (straight out of the WC report). Link at bottom of pile shows that excerpt originated from a google group and that Caprio responded in detail to the rant; #193 on its own is utter trash.

#809 starts out with a quote by a B. Lecloux (context unknown as Amazon link is dead) presumably related to Bugliosi on the Tippit murder. Standard rant about CTs claiming all evidence is faked which derails into more alleged CT assertions related to the Bethesda autopsy....WTF? Useless trash.

#1307 surprise, this pile contained a nugget: link to Ian Griggs' interview with Johnny Brewer. Deep pile related to Postal/Brewer interaction and their description of Oswald, context unknown as link to ED forum is dead. Somehow the discussion digresses into the Carcano/Mauser dispute! VP tries to attribute Postal quote "ruddy looking to me" to Brewer as Postal didn't really see Oswald slip in to the TT. Doesn't really work as Brewer knew Oswald from selling him a pair of shoes and would know he didn't have a ruddy complexion. The Griggs link certainly outweighs the time otherwise wasted.

There are currently 1331 of these ASSORTED ARGUMENTS....good luck!


One man's "junk piles" and "useless trash" is another man's gold mine.


DVP nor I, on this forum, has the right to say whatever he/she wants on a medium he/she doesn't own. That is not a valid violation [of] free speech.


Peter Goth still doesn't "get it". Incredible.


Please tell me. I've already asked twice.


You apparently "don't get" my argument about how I think it's not right for the owner of a forum to be able to tell a forum member what they can and cannot say at ANOTHER Internet locality.

You think it's perfectly fair and proper for James R. Gordon to be able to dictate to me what I can say on Facebook (or any other website that is NOT OWNED by Jim Gordon)?

If you answer "Yes" to my last inquiry, maybe you should think about moving to a country where the term "Freedom Of Speech" means nothing at all.


Not what I said.

You can say whatever you want, anywhere you want.

He has no requirement to allow you to remain as a consequence of that action.


Sounds to me as though you still don't "get it".


Hmmmm...but taking parts of conversations on other forums and placing them on your propaganda site for you to attack and ridicule whatever and whenever you want without the other persons involved in the original conversation having any access to your site to reply ..... that's freedom of speech in your mind?


Yes. And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well. I.E. --- the CTer will quote excerpts from somebody's posts [including mine] and put them on their own sites and then the CTer will comment on those quoted excerpts. Happens every day. And always will, of course. Such as at CTer Pat Speer's website. I wish there were more sensible CTers like Pat Speer. (Not that Pat doesn't have some really goofy notions about the JFK case at times too [he surely does]; but, overall, he's certainly one of the more reasonable and sensible "CTers" to occupy the planet. Such as when he said these things at the EF forum recently.)



"Feel free to copy and paste this post anywhere you like." [-- Pat Speer]

How does the feeling of having the consent to do what you do compare to your theft and betrayal?


Hilarious misdirection (again) by Clark.

Speer's "Feel free to copy..." remark at the bottom of his second post above was obviously made tongue-in-cheek. He was MOCKING the rule that he clearly thinks is wrong.

Time for Michael Clark to get new reading (or comprehension) glasses I guess.



Is that your argument? "Gordon doesn't own the site", so then to you "it's not fair"? And on facebook too??? Are you serious? You sound like a 5th-grade girl. Internet Locality??? Sounds important. I think your problem has something to do with a lack of attention in your younger years, I am sure you would agree, reluctantly.


Oh good! Another CTer who has decided he's going to play dumb and pretend not to understand what I'm talking about when it comes to James R. Gordon's dictatorial and (very likely) unconstitutional EF forum rule.

Anything else you want to pretend not to "get"?


"Very likely"? You mean maybe or perhaps unconstitutional? What is the problem Diamond Dave, you are not sure?


Exactly. I'm not sure. Hence the words "very likely" being utilized in my prior post. Anything wrong with that?


You are an amazing man, one could even say well-read, a publisher, a plagiarist I have heard, a detective, and now a constitutional lawyer.

Did I miss anything? Plumber? Aerobics instructor??


Yeah, you missed:

Purveyor of actual evidence and common sense relating to the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

The "plagiarist" crap is pure nonsense (of course).


As already exemplified in assortment #193, all Nutter-speak, zero evidence.


Good boy! Just pretend that each of the points I presented in my Part 193 are based on "zero evidence" whatsoever. After all, that's what CTers do best---ignore the actual verified evidence of Oswald's guilt. Why should Otto Beck be any different, right?


Coincidentally (or maybe not) the crushing rebuttal only two days later by Rob Caprio was not included in the installment.


I'll provide the link below to Caprio's "crushing rebuttal" that Otto Beck seems to have a hard-on for. It's actually an embarrassingly flimsy "rebuttal", with Caprio (as usual) merely ignoring the evidence once more. Plus, Caprio even flat-out lies at one point in that "rebuttal" (re: the prints of Oswald that were found on Rifle C2766, with Caprio lying and insisting that no LHO prints were found on the gun at all)....


Fellow AAJ [alt.assassination.jfk] forum members,

I'd appreciate it if some of you would provide your opinions regarding the situation that I have documented at this link, which is a rather odd situation that resulted in my being banned from The Education Forum on August 26, 2019.

And if you feel compelled to call me a "thief", feel free to do so. My feelings won't be hurt. (I'm getting used to it.) 😉

Thank you.



So, you are in fact banned from the Education Forum?

I browsed through stuff at the link above. Arguing with those idiots seems to be a waste of your very considerable intelligence.

But then, I've been known to screw around with stuff that doesn't tax my intelligence, too. :-(



Yes, John, the owner/moderator of The Education Forum (James R. Gordon) finally found a trumped-up excuse to toss me out the door, which (IMO) is something he has been anxious to do ever since I embarrassed the daylights out of him during this heated discussion we had in 2015 concerning the Single-Bullet Theory.


Sorry of the loss of an excellent place for you to offset silliness. In due time they will find excuse to get rid of the EF's other LN's. This sort of tribalism that squashes opposing views is part of a growing and alarming trend across the country. Not just in all too many JFK assassination venues.


I see absolutely nothing wrong with your copying message board thread debates from the Ed forum and posting them on your website, so long as you credit the source site and provide a link.

Original message board (or newsgroup) content does not have any copyright, and is fair game to be used elsewhere. The only exception would be if the website were a pay site, in which users must pay a subscription fee to access the content. Even in that case, there's no legal repercussion for someone copying the message board content and posting it somewhere else. But I'd certainly say that it is the prerogative of a subscription site's owner to ban someone for posting their content on other sites.

Our good friend Ralph Cinque was doing exactly what you were doing, taking debate material he had with others on this site (including myself) and posting it on his own website. No harm no foul in that.

Take solace David in knowing that you were doing such a good job at exposing the lunacy of some of the [CTers], that they had to resort to the petty act of banning you in an attempt to stop you from continuing to embarrass them. If they were winning those debates, they would love to have you around.


No matter how silly you are, I don't see why they won't let you quote their discussions. Do they think that you are devaluing their product with free advertising? They should learn a lesson from our Dear Leader, Trump. All publicity is good publicity.


Allow me to repeat something I said to the Education Forum crowd three years ago:

"Yeah. I should be locked up for life for the dastardly crime of voluntarily posting a lot of comments written by CTers on a site run by an LNer, thereby providing an additional Internet location where many many conspiracy arguments can now be viewed. (And providing links to the original full discussions, if anyone wants to view them.) Yes, I get the "last word" in those arguments after I transfer the portions of the arguments that I have been involved in (which is the only part of the discussions I have any interest in archiving on my website). But since I'm an LNer who thinks all conspiracy theories are bunk, what in the heck would you expect? It's my site. Get real. I should be getting an "Attaboy!" from CTers for voluntarily posting on my site hundreds of different arguments presented by the "other side" (which I certainly don't have to do). Instead, I'm treated like a dirty thief who robs people blind and skips town with everybody's money and jewelry. Geez Louise. Ridiculous." -- DVP; February 21, 2016

David Von Pein
February 20, 2016—August 26, 2019
August 27—September 4, 2019
September 16, 2019