Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Mark Knight Should Never Be Allowed To Be A Moderator
#1
Knight wrote:


" I'm agnostic as to whether there's any "there" there in the Harvey and Lee story. Here's why.

I was born and grew up in a county in southern Indiana. I married a girl from the next county to the east, and we lived most of our married life in the second county to the east of my home county. A few years into our marriage, my wife was a patient in the local hospital. When I was getting her registered, the registrar asked me if I'd ever been a patient in the same hospital. I had not, and when I inquired why she was asking, I discovered that there was ANOTHER Mark Knight, down to the same middle initial, who had a substantial outstanding bill. Only after giving her my Social Security number did I establish in her mind that I was a different Mark Knight.

So I started asking questions. I discovered there was another Mark Knight, same middle initial, who had graduated high school the same year I had graduated, but in the county in which I was then living. We had grown up 25 miles apart, we weren't related as far as I'd been able to determine to date, and neither of us has ever met the other. But his credit problems came up every time I applied for credit, and I've had to dispute numerous items on my credit report over the years.

So as far as Harvey and Lee go, perhaps there's nothing nefarious involved. Maybe there are just a lot of coincidences such as what I discovered with my own "namesake" in southern Indiana. To this point, I remain unconvinced that the Harvey and Lee case involves a great depth of subterfuge. "



Any person who is qualified to post on the Education Forum as a JFK Assassination researcher would understand what is wrong with the above statement and why Mark Knight should not be allowed to be an Education Forum moderator...Remember, the Education Forum is a website that goes out of its way to host Lone Nutters in some kind of dubious attempt at free speech...So right at the start it is a wheel-spinning forum where, no matter how strong a case of conspiracy evidence you present, the format of the forum is going to allow the deniers to ignore it and argue against it by structure...It is this kind of bogus format that generates moderators like Mark Knight and James Gordon...Why Mark Knight is a moderator or what qualifies him is unknown, but that doesn't stop him from having the final word without review or making self-exposing comments like the one above...To think that the brilliant, near-genius work of John Armstrong could be reduced to the moronic analogy Knight produces is an insult to the intelligence of any credible researcher...Armstrong's work on Captain Westbrook alone cracks the assassination...My brilliant work being reduced to "a shit-poster who doesn't work well with people" while ignoring my substantial, historical gains in JFK research, is also proof of Knight's lack of qualification and bias in favor of Gordon...All it really takes to be an Education Forum moderator is agreeing with Gordon all the time...

Jim DiEugenio also uses the exact same "I'm an agnostic" cop-out when asked to put some skin in the game on Harvey & Lee...He gets away with pretending he doesn't possess his usual expertise when it comes to certain issues...

It's time for a moderation shake-up in the research community...
Reply
#2
It used to be against the DPF rules to side against a DPF member who was posting correct Conspiracy evidence in favor of an Education Forum moderator...

10 years ago it was clear that the Deep Politics Forum was created as a counter and sanctuary against unfair Education Forum moderation...The site rules spelled-out in clear black and white letters that if you were moderated unfairly at the Education Forum, and could back-up your evidence arguments with intelligent proof, that the Deep Politics Forum was the place where good evidence would be promoted and protected...

Whoever gave me a 1 star review for my protest against Mark Knight's corrupted moderation of myself is actually breaking the previous DPF board rules...I assume the moderators are the only persons with access to the star ratings...Which would mean an anonymous moderator is carrying out personal grudges under the guise of moderation while breaking the rules in the process...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Moderator Sandy Larsen Brian Doyle 13 647 Yesterday, 07:02 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Steven Gillon:Mark Lane Equals Trump Jim DiEugenio 0 1,611 03-12-2020, 03:07 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump Jim DiEugenio 6 4,310 08-11-2019, 07:19 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Documentary on Mark Lane by Pauley Perrette Lauren Johnson 4 12,644 10-11-2017, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Martin White
  Mark Lane Scott Kaiser 26 12,957 27-05-2016, 05:17 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Mark Lane, Abe Bolden and films Martin White 10 5,672 02-10-2014, 03:08 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Mark Twain on Journalists Bob Prudhomme 1 2,585 09-07-2014, 10:03 PM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Don DeLillo, Errol Morris, and Mark Danner discuss the Z film Joseph McBride 0 2,180 04-12-2013, 07:18 AM
Last Post: Joseph McBride
  Exhibits, talks and films will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination - Washington Post Bernice Moore 0 2,511 16-10-2013, 05:31 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Letter from Mark Lane on the 50th Peter Lemkin 9 5,975 17-03-2013, 03:17 AM
Last Post: Jim Hackett II

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)