The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Jim Hackett II]

Blocking too when it fits the occasion.

[Lauren Johnson]

I propose that this failed discussion between Josephs and Drago be taken offline by mutual consent and be subject to mediation by mutually trusted and sufficiently expert persons. The result would be a report back to the DPF community as to the status of the discussion showing strengths, weaknesses, misinterpretations and suggestions for moving the discussion forward.

Bless your cotton socks Lauren. I love your spirit and intention. All interactions on the forum would proceed smoothly if we all just keep to the forum rules and decorum. Stick to the research/points/facts/hypothesis. Make your definitions as clear as possible so we are all reading from the same book. Keep the personalities out of it. If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

Magda. What a great idea. Sadly, I need a break from the Josephs/Drago nexus. I say, sadly, because every once in a while, Mr. Charlie comes out with an eye popping, jaw dropping comment. But in between those times, Mr. Charlie, you are like a cat toying with the unfortunate spider that happens to cross the floor.



In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

First, I suggest that there is a 'hypothesis committee' of two to three persons.

Second, there is one hypothesis at a time for consideration to cut down on the workload.

Third, the hypothesis has to meet certain standards before going up: it must possess a statement of relevance (what is at stake to clearly avoid JFK assassination porn); it must have some criteria around falsifiability and its opposite; it must convince the 'committee' that it is ready to go up; if the person wanting to submit does not like the decision of the committee, then it goes up anyway if that is the desire, but without approval and a statement as to why it is not an official DPF topic -- i.e. back to the usual crabbiness.

Fourth, all responses are subject to moderation around clarity, relevance, politeness, etc.

Fifth, at some point, the hypothesis is subject to evaluation: is it considered proved, has it been falsified, and/or how can it be strengthened and made even better (this is the most important one, in my view).

Finally, a final statement is posted summarizing the progress or lack thereof regarding the hypothesis. The thread is then marked as closed.

This proposal is more of a thought experiment than a polished product. But Adele's admonition is what got me going on this and deserves more attention and creative thinking. (To Adele: I suggest reading The Crisis of Democratic Theory, by Edward A. Purcell, Jr. Robert Hutchins is a key figure in this provocative book.)

For example, Charlie Drago's hypothesis about PDS's theory about the two-stage cover-up could have used editing before it went up. Frankly, I am still not clear about what was at stake and whether it could have been verified or falsified. To put this another way, Charlie, when would you have been satisfied that your hypothesis was proved or disproved? Oh, I forgot, I am putting you into time out for a week or a month or a year.

[Magda Hassan]

.....
In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

I think this is what Adele was referring to earlier in this thread as well. And I would nominate Adele to any such role if she wished to take it up.

[Charles Drago]

.....
In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

I think this is what Adele was referring to earlier in this thread as well. And I would nominate Adele to any such role if she wished to take it up.

I won't have any part of this -- and not because of Adele, whose commentary on any position I might take or hypothesis I might offer always will be welcome.

To do this would be to dumb down the process. And why? Because Josephs doesn't get it?

And what's the distinction between "consideration" and "discussion"?

And I won't submit to anyone's judgement about my "accountability to truth."

Search for my Chicago "plot" hypothesis thread. If memory serves, none of the many correspondents who considered AND discussed my original premise failed to understand the nature of hypothesizing.

What's next? Putting a limit on syllables per word so "Albert Doyle" can keep up?

No thanks, Maggie.

I'll address Lauren's post in detail next.

[Charles Drago]

Meow.

First, I suggest that there is a 'hypothesis committee' of two to three persons.

Lauren, I think you know that I respect and honor your contributions here. So PLEASE don't be offended as I now characterize your "hypothesis committee" idea as something more suited to a Politburo wet dream than the DPF I helped found!

Second, there is one hypothesis at a time for consideration to cut down on the workload.

For whom and for what should we dumb down this forum?

What is so FUCKING difficult about the concept of "hypothesis" that it requires explicative structures and processes?

Third, the hypothesis has to meet certain standards before going up: it must possess a statement of relevance[.]

To WHAT? Who becomes the God of Relevance?

"Certain" standards? Whose?

t must convince the 'committee' that it is ready to go up[.]

Calling all commissars ... calling all commissars ...

Fourth, all responses are subject to moderation around clarity, relevance, politeness, etc.

"POLITENESS"???

FUCK politeness.

Did the shooters say "Excuse me" before they blew Kennedy's fucking brains out?

Fifth, at some point, the hypothesis is subject to evaluation: is it considered proved, has it been falsified, and/or how can it be strengthened and made even better (this is the most important one, in my view).

Who is going to do the judging?

Whose consideration will carry the most weight?

This is growing more insane with every passing word.

Finally, a final statement is posted summarizing the progress or lack thereof regarding the hypothesis. The thread is then marked as closed.

On WHOSE authority?

For example, Charlie Drago's hypothesis about PDS's theory about the two-stage cover-up could have used editing before it went up.

My friend, I pray that you live long enough to see me permit my work to be edited by anyone who posts on this forum and would agree to take part in this ... I don't know what to call it ... tribunal.

Frankly, I am still not clear about what was at stake and whether it could have been verified or falsified.

Not my problem.

To put this another way, Charlie, when would you have been satisfied that your hypothesis was proved or disproved?

Within the context of this thread: NEVER.

It never was my intention to have it "proved or disproved."

Oh, I forgot, I am putting you into time out for a week or a month or a year.

I'd appreciate it if you share with me the reason why you use the term "time out."


If any such system is initiated on DPF, I will see myself out the door. Permanently.

Is everyone clear on this?

[Magda Hassan]

.....
In the meantime, here's another idea that I got out of my random proposal generator: any hypothesis put up for consideration (not discussion) is treated with a specific set of standard and procedures. (I am making this up on the fly, but the basic intention is about accountability to truth, while recognizing how difficult it is to arrive at truth in a blogging format.)

I think this is what Adele was referring to earlier in this thread as well. And I would nominate Adele to any such role if she wished to take it up.

I won't have any part of this -- and not because of Adele, whose commentary on any position I might take or hypothesis I might offer always will be welcome.

To do this would be to dumb down the process. And why? Because Josephs doesn't get it?

And what's the distinction between "consideration" and "discussion"?

And I won't submit to anyone's judgement about my "accountability to truth."

Search for my Chicago "plot" hypothesis thread. If memory serves, none of the many correspondents who considered AND discussed my original premise failed to understand the nature of hypothesizing.

What's next? Putting a limit on syllables per word so "Albert Doyle" can keep up?

No thanks, Maggie.

I'll address Lauren's post in detail next.

Personally, I value Lauren's and Adele's attempt to get some mutually agreeable structures and standards of definitions to work with so that constructive and civil progress can be made. It helps when we are talking about black spots or black dots or black circles.

[Charles Drago]

Oh, I forgot, I am putting you into time out for a week or a month or a year.

I'd appreciate it if you share with me the reason why you use the term "time out."

I'm re-posting this section for emphasis.

I ask the question respectfully and for good reason.

Why did the term "time out" cross your mind?

[Magda Hassan]

Oh, I forgot, I am putting you into time out for a week or a month or a year.

I'd appreciate it if you share with me the reason why you use the term "time out."

I'm re-posting this section for emphasis.

I ask the question respectfully and for good reason.

Why did the term "time out" cross your mind?

What is so difficult to understand?

Magda. What a great idea. Sadly, I need a break from the Josephs/Drago nexus. I say, sadly, because every once in a while, Mr. Charlie comes out with an eye popping, jaw dropping comment. But in between those times, Mr. Charlie, you are like a cat toying with the unfortunate spider that happens to cross the floor.

Lauren, like so many, is tired of cat antics. Basta ya. Nunca mas. Over and out. Adios muchachos. The members here are not the assassin of JFK. Stop treating them as if they are. Nor are they dragons or windmills with razor blades on them.

[Lauren Johnson]

To do this would be to dumb down the process. And why? Because Josephs doesn't get it?

Referring to #145: all your points minus the hyperbolic ones (you know, like with the words, FUCK, etc.) are of course quite valid. My view is that adopting some kind of formal discussion forum to the occasional topic would in fact make it far more informative -- and less caustic.

Time out = giving my brain a rest from the nastiness. I feel nasty and want to stop feeling that way. DPF at times makes me worse.

[Dawn Meredith]

Jan I totally agree that DPF is worth fighting for. And I appreciate all efforts that went into (attempted) constructive solutions to the sheer insanity of these last few pages.

Has anyone but me noticed that we are losing members and I attribute it to all the hostility.

Where are the grand intentions that were carved out back in 08 when we began this forum?

One can disagree without resort to ugliness.

But, sadly, not everyone.
Dawn