Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Mark Knight Should Never Be Allowed To Be A Moderator
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...
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...
Mark Knight wrote (Thusly proving the point of this thread):

    "As one of the forum administrators, I must point out that discussion forums such as this one are about discussing what one believes and why one believes it. The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own.
And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum (pending his agreement to follow EF rules on discussion decorum).
So far as I can see, Pat and Keven are merely interpreting Jenkins' statement and the photos connected to them differently. 
Remember the "Mystic" paint Ford used on their Mustang a few years back? At different angles the car looked purple, green, or gold. So if two witnesses viewed an auto accident involving said Mustang, and one said the car was purple and the other swore it was green...which one is lying? Since they're directly contradicting one another, one of the witnesses HAS to be a liar...right?
To me, that sums up this entire thread so far. But I'll read on."

I never saw the hypocritical and sanctimonious Knight come in and defend me when I was being ran out of town on a rail from the Education Forum for posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man back in 2016...I was set upon and lynched by the Prayer Man mob that happened to have an abusive moderator (James Gordon) as one of their members without any such call for fairness coming from anyone...The two members who stood up for me, Richard Gilbride and Thomas Graves, were also banned by Gordon who was just banning anyone who pointed-out that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton and that I just so happened to be correct...

Knight fails to realize that he, and his woefully inadequate moderation, are the problem here and not the solution that he seems to credit himself with...Pat Speer has been getting away with research murder on the Education Forum for decades because of Knight's feel-good agenda that substitutes for good moderation...The problem with the Education Forum is the attempt to allow Lone Nutter opinions has created an excuse for the moderators to neglect judging the quality of content and claims...As Knight shows here, this has led to the moderators self-excusing themselves from weighing judgment on bogus claims and false representations of evidence...In a situation where Speer is clearly guilty of lying and misrepresenting claims in order to come to his usual useless middle ground, like he does on every subject, Knight comes in and applies the EF's self-excusing equal access rule and completely fails to make the right call...The Prayer Man subject was the epitome of this syndrome and Gordon knew it, but being a power-abusing coward and incompetent, Gordon saved his own skin by banning the victim and making easier for himself with the Prayer Man majority...
When I applied for re-admission to the Education Forum Sandy Larsen told me it was denied because Mark Knight claimed I called Kathy Beckett a bad name on the McAdams website...What Knight is really saying there is that he is willing to run someone out of town on a rail for personal spite in order to maintain his 100% record on backing all of Gordon's wrongful moderator actions...What Knight is dishonestly dodging there is the fact I never broke any Education Forum site rules when I was a member in 2016 and posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man...Knight is refusing to address the real issue that my evidence was correct and no credible moderation could justify censoring it and banning its source in such an unfair way...Gordon is a real son of a bitch because he goes after his victims with defamation in order to make them look like they deserved to be banned - furthering his abuse of his moderator power...What Knight was indirectly saying there, in his denial of my re-admission, was that I had done nothing wrong on the Education Forum and that he had to desperately search for an excuse for not allowing the correct researcher back on the forum like his research had earned...Larsen, Gordon, and Knight are the problem here...They refuse to account for their censoring of the correct Prayer Man evidence and are the main reason why EF members are still allowed to claim Prayer Man is Oswald even though any competent oversight would have concluded by now that Prayer Man was a refuted theory and that I had proven Prayer Man was Stanton...Knight is a Gordon suck-up and isn't qualified for academic debate moderation...He is a guardian of the exclusion of competent Peer Review from the JFK internet as his tolerance and apology for Speer and his false evidence claims shows...

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Moderator Sandy Larsen Brian Doyle 27 1,218 Yesterday, 12:03 AM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Steven Gillon:Mark Lane Equals Trump Jim DiEugenio 0 1,650 03-12-2020, 03:07 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump Jim DiEugenio 6 4,371 08-11-2019, 07:19 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  Documentary on Mark Lane by Pauley Perrette Lauren Johnson 4 12,703 10-11-2017, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Martin White
  Mark Lane Scott Kaiser 26 13,066 27-05-2016, 05:17 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Mark Lane, Abe Bolden and films Martin White 10 5,703 02-10-2014, 03:08 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  Mark Twain on Journalists Bob Prudhomme 1 2,615 09-07-2014, 10:03 PM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Don DeLillo, Errol Morris, and Mark Danner discuss the Z film Joseph McBride 0 2,204 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 2,531 16-10-2013, 05:31 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Letter from Mark Lane on the 50th Peter Lemkin 9 6,042 17-03-2013, 03:17 AM
Last Post: Jim Hackett II

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)