Posts: 44
Threads: 4
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2015
Hi all, I'm a n00b and I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but this thread caught my eye as I was searching for the appropriate sub-forum.
I could use a little advice from the wise and seasoned on this one, because this kind of stuff really bothers me (and I'll tell you why, below - but first let me tell you what happened).
I was banned from Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum this morning because I discovered his underhanded little forum hack.
Which, curiously enough, has to do with Greg Parker. It seems Duncan MacRae has some kind of automatic software that prevents people from posting Greg Parker's name. No matter how many times you edit the post, "Greg Parker" comes out as "Peg Barker".
And, I'm a n00b, I don't know from personalities. Whatever war may have been going on in the past between Duncan and Greg, I'm completely in the dark and know nothing about it. I discovered this by pure chance, because I had reason to mention some of Greg's research in one of my posts.
Now.... I don't know about you all, but I consider myself a "researcher". Nothing more, nothing less. I do research, I "check out" stuff, I "investigate" things. That's what I do. That's me.
I have no agenda, whatsoever, when it comes to JFK or the people in the JFK "research" game, other than simply a desire to know the truth - and to be perfectly honest that's mainly for historical reasons, although it would also be nice to expose some of the corruption underlying certain parts of our history, but that latter part is just a "nice to have" compared to what is "essential" about American history. That's my view - it's kind of an "academic" view, I suppose you could aay.... but that's where I'm coming from.
And as a n00b, I obviously have a thirst for information, and I have a need to bounce my hare-brained n00b ideas off the seasoned veterans like yourselves. I'm not "entirely" naïve, my first post here on this forum was about someone no one's ever researched before (Boise B Smith), and I figured I could maybe bring something to the table research-wise. So the research community benefits from my participation, kinda thing. This view comes from my past incarnation as a research scientist, and a development engineer working on some very large teams. I don't believe there's an Einstein who's going to solve the JFK case all by himself or herself, so far it's been more of a slow collaborative effort, one tidbit at a time.
So like, if I'm on a forum that purports to be part of the "research community", and suddenly I discover that I can't type in one of the researchers' names.... that is perceived as... petty. And extraordinarily underhanded. It destroys the credibility of the people doing this, they can no longer be considered honest brokers of information.
And that, is my question. In my n00b opinion, it's the information that's valuable. I can tell you one thing from my own personal experience, Greg Parker has been nothing but friendly and very helpful to me, he's one of the people who helped me out when others wouldn't, when I was first starting out in "JFK research" and didn't know anything about anything, he was one of the people who was patient and helpful, as distinct from some of the people on Duncan's forum, who were calling me names before I even said anything.
Perhaps what it was, is I tried to show a genuine interest in research, and I tried to bring something to the table. (Even if it was just a first n00b effort and it didn't entirely succeed, but anyone who was looking could see at least a little effort there).
I was on Duncan's forum for barely a month, and my view is, it's not a research forum. Rather, it's a cesspool for all manner of misinformation and disinformation, and personalities to match.
On the other hand.... there's a bunch of Aussies on Greg's forum and they can be a little direct sometimes but I actually like that, I have a thick skin when it comes to the models I'm presenting (that is, I'm not emotionally attached to any of 'em, and I'll be the first one to admit it when a model turns out to be impossible), and also I need the checks and balances (especially as a n00b, that's why I'm up here seeking dialogue on internet forums in the first place).
So, I just noticed this thread about Greg, and once again I'm a n00b and I'm completely ignorant of the history, so the point I wanted to make and seek your input on, is that while I feel it's okay to ban someone (because that's overt, you look in the ban list and there's the member's name), once you start executing sleight of hand on the information itself you've crossed the line, in fact you've way crossed the line, to the point where you need to exposed. You can have whatever personal view you want of the personalities in the equation, but if you start mucking with the research information then in my opinion the exposure is merited and you can no longer represent yourself as a credible broker of research information.
In a milieu where research "is" the game, such exposure generally equates with some form of career-ending discredit. I used to see it all the time in scientific research, they'd deal with all kinds of abrasive personalities and there's as many pompous arrogant pr*cks in that direction as any other, but at the end of the day it's all about the information and if people are contributing to the research then they're allowed to speak at the gatherings and they're allowed to publish their research in print. The last time a journal refused to publish a scientist for personality reasons it became a huge scandal, and the particular journal ended up going out of business (it didn't take long, either).
So, like, I don't want to take myself too seriously as a researcher (especially being a n00b and all), but this whole thing with the personalities bothers me greatly. How can anyone expect to get any meaningful research done when the whole team is constantly fighting itself?
Speaking as a n00b, I like this forum, and I like Greg Parker's forum, because you're both into research. In both places, I can have intelligent discussions about actual evidence, and I'm allowed some reasonable latitude in terms of juggling crime scene models. I don't like Duncan MacRae's forum because they're "automatically censoring the research information". If I can't type in the name of a JFK researcher in the context of discussing his work, that is censorship plain and simple, and in my opinion that is much much worse than any act of banning. I can live with having to go two different places wearing two different hats, to get two different views of the evidence. However if I'm never quite sure the forum admins haven't tweaked the actual text of the post I'm reading, then it becomes an economic equation because my work gets multiplied and I end up having to spend more hours teasing apart what's real from what's not.
What say you?
