+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Where the heck is Albert Doyle? (/thread-15588.html)
Where the heck is Albert Doyle? - Peter Lemkin - 16-10-2017
Richard Gilbride Wrote:Well. I was fooled into thinking that Doyle had his posting privileges re-instated. I do not understand why the moderators allowed Doyle's post #72 of October 3rd, yet continue to suspend him- 6 months now. I ask the moderators to please re-read, with care, post #72 (which presents a summary of Doyle's case) and present a valid reason for his continued suspension.
In this case the moderators have acted in blatant violation of Deep Politics RULES OF ENGAGEMENT #1 and #13.
#1) You will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, hateful, harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, pornographic, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
#13) All members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement.
They have protected the shoddy PrayerMan evidence as well as the inaccurate DiEugenio claim that Kamp's essay helps determine Oswald's whereabouts- which Doyle has correctly debunked. And for which he gets railroaded.
As far as I know he can post, subject to the posts being moderated. After several posts approved he'd get back normal non-moderated posting privileges. You and he seem to want the Forum to delete content/posts of others based on their opinion. That is not our job and don't/won't. I would suggest he post and and stop telling you he can't and you posting that untruth here. The forum has 'protected' nothing and no one, as you cite above. This is a total mis-understanding of our role and rules.
IMO, your citing of Rule 1 as meaning that the Forum through the moderators should delete material or cite for moderation or other censure anyone who may have made a written statement that we or some unknown consensus feels is false [not factual] is way way way way way off the mark. What was meant, I believe, was posting knowingly false statements [that the poster knew or felt was not as stated for the purpose of doing harm to the Forum, to other members, to the research community at large]. I know I try my best to abide by #13, but remember that that applies to ALL members. I can not speak for others.