One poster created 52 percent of our 208 threads. A concern? Do we have to beg?

[Tom Scully]

Unfortunately, 108 threads (of 208 total), in this, the discussion section of this forum
have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.

His latest features discredited  Rose Cheramie as an informative and constructive element of JFK Assassination
research. It would be troubling, even if a reasonable poster posting reliably took it upon him or herself to
take advantage of the void here resulting from the sudden recent data loss, to overwhelm this forum
by a single thread author.

Until enough threads exist here to make it unlikely one poster could author even ten percent
of all threads, is it not reasonable to limit each member to 30 new threads, escalating to a ten
percent individual cap until the total number of threads exceeds 2000?

Or....sit idly by and watch the ivy obscure the other foliage.

[John Mytton]

Unfortunately, 72 threads have been created by one poster with a penchant for never correcting an
inaccuracy or conceding, even in the face of overwhelming posted evidence, that he is mistaken.

His latest features discredited  Rose Cheramie as an informative and constructive element of JFK Assassination
research. It would be troubling, even if a reasonable poster posting reliably took it upon him or herself to
take advantage of the void here resulting from the sudden recent data loss, to overwhelm this forum
by a single thread author.

Until enough threads exist here to make it unlikely one poster could author even ten percent
of all threads, is it not reasonable to limit each member to 30 new threads, escalating to a ten
percent individual cap until the total number of threads exceeds 2000?

Or....sit idly by and watch the ivy obscure the other foliage.

I wouldn't worry too much Tom, Caprio's threads disappear quickly with bugger all views. The main problem I find is that his thread titles say nothing about the contents, maybe if he told us what we might find within then we may click on them but otherwise it's most likely another Caprio fabrication so why bother!





JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

No, it's not a concern.  If you don't like them, don't read them.

I do agree that it would be helpful to have a summary in the thread titles, like there is for the newer ones ("#441 McDonald pulls gun").

[Tom Scully]

..... He could counter what I post with evidence, but alas he can't since none exists. So he claims that I lie instead. Standard LNer tactic.

I won't bother posting even a few of the many examples of how evidence influences you.
Evidence has no effect on you, yet you keep on demanding it of others.

[John Anderson]

But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.

[Michael O'Brian]

But Oswald wasn't seen in the 6th floor window with a gun in his hand so he didn't do it.

Is it not a bit strange to you Anderson that off all the people standing around where Brennan was, that only he could see anyone who had allegedly fired 3 loud shots directly in front of them?
Go careful now or I will add you to the W.A.S.P= Lner thread, Where I think you belong

[John Anderson]

Is it not a bit strange to you Anderson that off all the people standing around where Brennan was, that only he could see anyone who had allegedly fired 3 loud shots directly in front of them?
Go careful now or I will add you to the W.A.S.P= Lner thread, Where I think you belong

Go careful yourself crazy man. I'm white not Anglo Saxon and not protestant. Don't give up the day job.
As I've posted before. Brennan got the shooters location right so he obviously saw something.
The detail he provides is exaggerated though in my opinion.

[Tom Scully]

Incorrect. I have never seen you cite the evidence. You can't because you either don't know it or you realize that it doesn't support your claims. There is no reason not to cite evidence IF you have it. This is simply a cop out because you don't want to admit that you have none.

John Iacoletti gave an accurate description of what you do here.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150508145751/http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com:80/index.php?topic=5132.48


....and, in the now lost Zangretti fable promotion thread you authored, this was your reaction to my original research which overwhelmingly impeached
Penn Jones's fairytale.: (You had been shilling that Penn Jones BS since at least 2008.: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MgvVGfm6RtU )



I put that BS out of its misery, even as you resorted to your denial (Sgt. Schultz) mode.:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,32.msg3289.html#msg3289
Re: Was Jack Zangretti Off Base Or Not?
? Reply #9 on: January 31, 2018, 02:21:55 AM.....