16-09-2011, 06:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-09-2011, 06:08 PM by Albert Doyle.)
I'd like show a good example of the current murder that is occurring in this matter. The only Hendrix website on the internet is called "Crosstown Torrents". The moderator is a brit with a clear national bias against murder evidence for Jimi Hendrix. Here is what he wrote in the thread discussing Caesar Glebbeek's bogus attempt to disprove the murder:
My Reply (that will soon be deleted by that same moderator):
I have to say up front that moderation that seeks to preclude discussion as a sort of decreed edict is contrary to all known forms of free speech. The imposition of completely unnecessary subject control stands out and grinds against the obvious. I say that persons who haven't answered any of the criticisms to show there's serious argued reasons to see the murder evidence has not been overturned by Caesar's input, who then admit they haven't read or answered any of the factual arguments, who then turn around and call for a pre-emptive shutdown of the thread, are persons who are not sincerely addressing the real facts of this matter or open discussion of it. I think it is kind of obvious that these people guard their opinions with forced shutdown of the topic and cite site rules violations that don't exist and aren't being violated. It makes no sense to me to have a Conspiracy Theory branch that is so strictly guarded, not for site rules reasons, but political ones being posed as violation. To force a decision that one side has been satisfied before even giving the other side a chance to speak is rogue censorship. The goal here is clearly not being able to address all the facts of this case but to reach the conclusion of some people with the intention of shutting down the topic as soon as possible where no real need to do that actually exists. There's no doubt whatsoever that an opinion is being forced here under the guise of site authority. That goes for the general Hendrix Community as well. This is evidenced by the fact that some very real and genuine counter arguments already presented in this thread could not be answered by those claiming to prove the non-murder position. Discussing the facts of this case and the flaws in people's arguments is not a violation or any wrongdoing that needs to be controlled. That's silly and grinds against the most commonly-accepted forms of free speech and normal internet discussion. Some try to force this into the right of opinion, but all known forms of civilized conduct recognize that facts and reason come before right to opinion. Anyone can see that a certain camp is avoiding facts and provable arguments they don't prefer. To call this 'right to opinion' is not honest in my OPINION. But, more importantly, in reality's opinion. It's all too predictable that those who don't believe in the murder would see right away that Caesar's publication trying to disprove the murder has failed to do so badly. And if you look at the level of scrutiny these people normally impose on the evidence around Jimi's death they hold back and don't apply it to Caesar's mess here. That to me is not honest which means the overall opinion about the subject itself is not based on honest reasoning. It's all too predictable that an early call for shutting down of the topic would come from this camp and citing site rules as a reason is totally dishonest in my opinion. It's all too clear that these people know they've suffered a bad set-back as far as their position and are seeking to avoid that by shutting down the thread before the discussion has even started.
Again, this is incredible and most people would see this kind of intrusion into basic free speech to make a rational argument as ridiculous. It is only tolerated because of the overt bias of those who want to hamstring those with good arguments and evidence for the murder. To say it is "unsound reasoning" is preposterous. Actually using all the references you can to prove something is accepted as good and sound research and reasoning out in the normal world. I would think Hendrix fans would want people to find-out exactly what happened to Jimi and fight for justice for him using all possible resources. Again, I think some people are convincing themselves their unfair restriction of normal free speech is somehow justified, or serves a good purpose, when it is really just them making-up excuses to not hear what they don't want to hear. That's ridiculous and it should never happen on a Jimi Hendrix website. If you look at the content of what has been written here no great violations have occurred that merit this kind of invasive overcontrol of normal discussion. It think deletions and punishments have occurred under false pretenses that were not deserved. The continuation of this subject is no offense and doesn't violate any site rules. I don't think the restrictors detect that it's rather preposterous to have a Conspiracy Theory branch where ever time you try to discuss the murder evidence it gets quickly shut down at first excuse. It can honestly be said that this is being used to prevent the murder evidence from being made obvious. I think it is very clear that this is being justified by an ambiguous, arbitrary claim that everyone has a right to their opinion. But that can only be true if those who present the murder evidence are also allowed their opinion. In my mind this right to opinion is being used to shut down better arguments for the murder. It's being used as an excuse. The outcome is that people who can present good arguments for the murder are not being allowed their right and opinion to fully prove the case. In the normal world toleration of difficult discussion in order to establish facts trumps those who dislike it and the decision usually errs in favor of airing facts and arguing truths. It's the whole basis of free speech. To serve exclusion of factual argument in favor of non-specific reasons that can only limit the information needed to understand this matter, before allowing the actual subject matter to be discussed, is really a violation of all accepted forms of civilized conduct and should be what is precluded here. It's clear to me the other side realizes it's done badly by this publication and needs to get-out quickly. That's intellectual and moral cowardice in my opinion, and is just as dishonest as it is unfair. In the end this all comes at the expense of Jimi Hendrix, which is, really, it's worst offense. The moderator is not the site's dictator, and never should be. Especially one with such an obvious bias on the subject, which is, in itself, a violation of most understood moderator neutrality ethics.
Jimi was murdered, I assure you. For some reason most Hendrix fans don't want to hear that - or, more importantly, the evidence that proves it. Shame.
Quote:Until We Meet Again. Caesar Glebbeek 2011
OK, I have to admit I have yet to read the entire publication and that when I do it'll take some time to digest and more importantly cross reference some details.
So here are a few thoughts from reading "end results".
Is it worth the cost? No, well at least not for me cause it simply confirms what I already "know", reaches the same conclusion(s) I had formed over the intervening years since James Marshal Hendrix died. Died, as in "NOT MURDERED".
It appears that we could have had more detail in the publication, as in facsimile of certain documents. That is a major downside to this publication.
Some statements would have been better supported. As an example, C.G states that no insurance payment was made to MJ in his life time. This sort of statement requires clear support. When we have unsupported statements we result in the "you can't believe everything you see and hear, can you" scenario.
Given the EVIDENCE we have / they had at the time, then the coroner could have only have arrived at one of two outcomes, accidental death or open verdict. We are aware of the one attained.
Now, I do feel we will continue to have different OPINIONS here of the publication and of Jimi's death. But if you have no firm EVIDENCE to offer I see no reason to continue the debate, attempting to force any individual opinion on others is futile, no matter who loud you shout.
Finally, do you need to read this publication, is it essential reading? Well yes on both counts. Even when I'm critical of lack of supported statements, I have to say that at least Caesar has worked hard and in an objective manner, to produce this publication, a lot more than any of the rest of us has done.
Looking forward to hear what the rest of you think of the publication and how you feel of the "end result", but as a continued debate of if's, but's and maybe's along with blame and who should have done what, when and where I do feel this issue has run its race.
Just a final comment. If anyone here feels the need to question the contents of the publication then please do but not on the basis that you believe other publication you have read. That is both unfair and unsound of reasoning.
My Reply (that will soon be deleted by that same moderator):
I have to say up front that moderation that seeks to preclude discussion as a sort of decreed edict is contrary to all known forms of free speech. The imposition of completely unnecessary subject control stands out and grinds against the obvious. I say that persons who haven't answered any of the criticisms to show there's serious argued reasons to see the murder evidence has not been overturned by Caesar's input, who then admit they haven't read or answered any of the factual arguments, who then turn around and call for a pre-emptive shutdown of the thread, are persons who are not sincerely addressing the real facts of this matter or open discussion of it. I think it is kind of obvious that these people guard their opinions with forced shutdown of the topic and cite site rules violations that don't exist and aren't being violated. It makes no sense to me to have a Conspiracy Theory branch that is so strictly guarded, not for site rules reasons, but political ones being posed as violation. To force a decision that one side has been satisfied before even giving the other side a chance to speak is rogue censorship. The goal here is clearly not being able to address all the facts of this case but to reach the conclusion of some people with the intention of shutting down the topic as soon as possible where no real need to do that actually exists. There's no doubt whatsoever that an opinion is being forced here under the guise of site authority. That goes for the general Hendrix Community as well. This is evidenced by the fact that some very real and genuine counter arguments already presented in this thread could not be answered by those claiming to prove the non-murder position. Discussing the facts of this case and the flaws in people's arguments is not a violation or any wrongdoing that needs to be controlled. That's silly and grinds against the most commonly-accepted forms of free speech and normal internet discussion. Some try to force this into the right of opinion, but all known forms of civilized conduct recognize that facts and reason come before right to opinion. Anyone can see that a certain camp is avoiding facts and provable arguments they don't prefer. To call this 'right to opinion' is not honest in my OPINION. But, more importantly, in reality's opinion. It's all too predictable that those who don't believe in the murder would see right away that Caesar's publication trying to disprove the murder has failed to do so badly. And if you look at the level of scrutiny these people normally impose on the evidence around Jimi's death they hold back and don't apply it to Caesar's mess here. That to me is not honest which means the overall opinion about the subject itself is not based on honest reasoning. It's all too predictable that an early call for shutting down of the topic would come from this camp and citing site rules as a reason is totally dishonest in my opinion. It's all too clear that these people know they've suffered a bad set-back as far as their position and are seeking to avoid that by shutting down the thread before the discussion has even started.
Quote:Just a final comment. If anyone here feels the need to question the contents of the publication then please do but not on the basis that you believe other publication you have read. That is both unfair and unsound of reasoning.
Again, this is incredible and most people would see this kind of intrusion into basic free speech to make a rational argument as ridiculous. It is only tolerated because of the overt bias of those who want to hamstring those with good arguments and evidence for the murder. To say it is "unsound reasoning" is preposterous. Actually using all the references you can to prove something is accepted as good and sound research and reasoning out in the normal world. I would think Hendrix fans would want people to find-out exactly what happened to Jimi and fight for justice for him using all possible resources. Again, I think some people are convincing themselves their unfair restriction of normal free speech is somehow justified, or serves a good purpose, when it is really just them making-up excuses to not hear what they don't want to hear. That's ridiculous and it should never happen on a Jimi Hendrix website. If you look at the content of what has been written here no great violations have occurred that merit this kind of invasive overcontrol of normal discussion. It think deletions and punishments have occurred under false pretenses that were not deserved. The continuation of this subject is no offense and doesn't violate any site rules. I don't think the restrictors detect that it's rather preposterous to have a Conspiracy Theory branch where ever time you try to discuss the murder evidence it gets quickly shut down at first excuse. It can honestly be said that this is being used to prevent the murder evidence from being made obvious. I think it is very clear that this is being justified by an ambiguous, arbitrary claim that everyone has a right to their opinion. But that can only be true if those who present the murder evidence are also allowed their opinion. In my mind this right to opinion is being used to shut down better arguments for the murder. It's being used as an excuse. The outcome is that people who can present good arguments for the murder are not being allowed their right and opinion to fully prove the case. In the normal world toleration of difficult discussion in order to establish facts trumps those who dislike it and the decision usually errs in favor of airing facts and arguing truths. It's the whole basis of free speech. To serve exclusion of factual argument in favor of non-specific reasons that can only limit the information needed to understand this matter, before allowing the actual subject matter to be discussed, is really a violation of all accepted forms of civilized conduct and should be what is precluded here. It's clear to me the other side realizes it's done badly by this publication and needs to get-out quickly. That's intellectual and moral cowardice in my opinion, and is just as dishonest as it is unfair. In the end this all comes at the expense of Jimi Hendrix, which is, really, it's worst offense. The moderator is not the site's dictator, and never should be. Especially one with such an obvious bias on the subject, which is, in itself, a violation of most understood moderator neutrality ethics.
Jimi was murdered, I assure you. For some reason most Hendrix fans don't want to hear that - or, more importantly, the evidence that proves it. Shame.