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

[Peter Goth]

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

[David Von Pein]

I'm amazed he 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 EF:

"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.

[Jerry Freeman]

Constitutional  free speech does not apply on internet forums. I refer to Alex Jones vs. YouTube as an example.

[Peter Goth]

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

"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 mgmnt here on fb..and expect to post?

[Michael Walton]

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

"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.

Dave - did you see my post above before it got buried by rambling? Do you care to reply?

[David Von Pein]

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 mgmnt here on fb..and expect to post?

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

[David Von Pein]

Dave - did you see my post above before it got buried by rambling? Do you care to reply?

Yes, I saw it. I'm working on it right this minute.

[Michael Walton]

To Dave VP,

I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.

You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.

But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?

Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.

So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.

Dave - here is my earlier post.