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

[Duncan MacRae]

From the EF Forum.....

KIRK GALLAWAY SAID:

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.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Kirk,

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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. (Thank you, Duncan.) ....

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 spombleprofglidnoctobuns. 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....

WTF?

Just what one would expect from someone who allows many foul mouthed members of (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) to slowly infiltrate and virtually take over the Ed Forum.
Just what one would expect from a proven Jim DiNobrainio admirer and Bart " Shut That Door" Kamp Bootlicker.
If Gordon was consistent and honourable, the rule he has applied to ban you and others would also apply to DiNobrainio and Kamp.
I'm guessing they might have made large donations to protect their membership.
Money Talks.

[Thomas Graves]

I see EF moderator and JFK Assassination Forum member "Kathy Becket" is presently lurking on this thread.

I wonder if she'd like to express her opinion on the issue?

-- MWT 

[Kathy Becket]

Did so on the Forum.

[Tom Scully]

Are forum discussion participants required to obtain permission before even quoting each other, in the same thread? Is that a "feature" of the latest mandate?

Consider whether it seems more important to you to continue to be allowed to participate vs. what is considered reasonable restriction. Are the rules an affront
to your sensibilities? Do you expect you can endure participating when the goal posts seem to be moved almost hourly under the influence of the loudest demands
of forum posters opposed to your POV?

In the U.S.A. :

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2016/05/26/fair-use-in-the-age-of-social-media/#7a407a1d3300
May 26, 2016, 09:34am
Fair Use In The Age Of Social Media
Oliver Herzfeld    Contributor
…...
What Is Fair Use?
The Copyright Act codifies the judicially created “fair use” doctrine. Courts have long recognized the need for such a defense because not every act that might violate an owner’s copyrights should amount to an infringement. The fair use defense was created to limit the scope of copyright through an equitable rule of reason. The statute provides, in relevant part, that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies…, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research” is not considered an infringement. Fair use is not, however, limited to the listed purposes. Rather, courts examine the facts of each particular case and weigh and balance the following four factors to determine whether the particular challenged activities constitute fair use or infringement:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

…...
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.....

[Sean Kneringer]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Libs don't want to debate; they want to shut you up. Now they get to ban you while still enjoying the fruits of your website. Cowardly, but that's who they are.

[Royell Storing]

   Some of You are More concerned with your feelings being hurt/reputations besmirched vs actually solving this case.  You should be bigger than this, but as they like to say in the South, "You ate up with it". Get over Yourself and get back to work. This case has NEVER has been about You.

[Tom Scully]

Did so on the Forum.

It seems fair and certainly reasonable to consider a "do over". Delete the Gordon posts, restore David von Pein's login/posting access and endure the protests
of the agenda driven, ignorant, falsely indignant regardless of the intensity of their vitriol, but that will not happen, will it, Kathty?

Why do I assume I have standing to post such a moderate suggestion? John McAdams has damned me with faint praise!:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/cAsvprrKbUQ%5B1-25%5D
Jeff Morley Won't Let Me Comment on JFKFacts
John McAdams
On 7 Sep 2016 19:55:16 -0400, TJ Scully

….While I had some major issues with you -- particularly you calling me
a racist merely because I come from Alabama -- it was true that when
you were moderator debate was quite wide open.

It's really poison when moderation is used to enforce a particular
substantive position on the assassination.

.John

The core, applicable point for this specific issues David finds himself caught up in is excerpted from the excerpted article immediately below this excerpt.:

If you need someone’s permission to quote them in order to argue against their position or expose them as a liar, you would likely never get that permission. And this type of criticism is precisely the purpose of Free Speech and Free Press rights in the first place.…...

https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/
Copyright Law In 2019 Explained In One Page
by Frank Moraes   Last updated: June 27, 2019

…Why you should care
If you run a website you may have to deal with copyright law and related issues from two different sides: as a producer and as a consumer.
If you blog, take photographs, publish music, or otherwise produce copyrightable content, you legally own that content. Whether you want to let other people use it or not is your decision, and there are things you need to know and do in either case.…..

…Intellectual Property and Ownership…..

…This is the situation modern copyright seeks to correct, and it does so by assigning the exclusive right to make use of a work to the one who created it. It acts as a necessary and justified infringement on Freedom of Speech.….

…Copyright is automatic..

...Copyright happens automatically, the minute you set something into a “fixed form” — even if that fixed form is pen scratches on a legal pad. You automatically own the copyright to any creative work of art you produce, the minute you produce it....

….That © sign..
…The copyright symbol carries no legal weight and has no magical effect on the status of your copyright. Forgetting to use it does not cause you to lose your rights related to something you created.…..

…Registering Copyright
Copyright happens automatically, so you don’t need to register a copyright. However, you may wish to do so....

…..Take legal action against someone who infringes on your copyright.
That last one is key. You cannot sue someone for infringing your copyright unless your copyright is registered.
If you expect to be suing people for infringement, you may want to register your copyright. Likewise, if you have no other way to prove the date of your creation (which may be the case for unpublished works), registration may be a good idea.
Registration of a copyright does not need to be immediate. If you can definitively establish the date of your authorship by other means, you can (in theory) wait to register your copyright until there is a reason to sue (that is, once someone has begun infringing on your work).

…Poor Man’s Copyright.…
…The US Copyright office is very clear that mailing a copy of your work to yourself has no legal effect.….

……Copyright is a restriction on free speech.

…However, the restriction carries its own costs which may be harmful to society.
If you need someone’s permission to quote them in order to argue against their position or expose them as a liar, you would likely never get that permission. And this type of criticism is precisely the purpose of Free Speech and Free Press rights in the first place.……

….Fair Use is gray
It cannot be stressed enough: fair use is a gray area. There are some uses that are clearly Fair, and some that are clearly infringement, but ultimately Fair Use is determined by a judge if and only if a case is brought to trial, which rarely happens....

…..In England and the United Kingdom, the guidelines are more specific than in the US or Canada, similar to the Australian rules. Fair Dealing there is limited to:
Non-commercial research and private study
Criticism, review, and quotation
News reporting
Satire and parody
Illustration for teaching.

A snapshot in time of the page including your comment, IOW, not a "live" link to the page.:
http://archive.is/yGe5Y

(I assume Wikipedia has consulted lawyers who approve of this resource...)

Begs the question...can a non-U.S. person residing outside the U.S. declare content created by a U.S. person located in the U.S., copyrighted in the U.S.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_archive.is#Copyright_and_robots.txt
…..
Copyright and robots.txt[edit]
Archive.is removes archived pages by request of copyright holders per the U.S. DMCA;[5] requests can be made with the "Report abuse" link on archive.is archived pages. …...

Re-hosting U.S. copyrighted material without permission may be a violation of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) – for this reason, to avoid implicating Wikipedia in violations of copyright laws and incurring DMCA take-down requests, archive.is should be used with some caution regarding U.S.-copyrighted content.

[Kathy Becket]

Quien sabe.?