Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Greg Parker has been banned

  1. #1

    Default Greg Parker has been banned

    Following continuing complaints from other members about his combative, argumentative and disruptive style and for sowing discord, Greg Parker has been banned for trolling.

    David
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  2. Default

    In all honesty,I thought Greg was putting up a fair debate.And,the argumentation and disruption came from both sides of this debate.And,I wonder who could be these invisable complainers?Part of some facebook group or something?They should have had the guts to respond on the forum.

    Sorry but it seems a bit unfair to me......

    Just my two dongs worth
    "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
    Buckminster Fuller

  3. #3

    Default

    While I think Greg has a tendency to not fully explore all the evidence validating Armstrong and that even his best efforts have not refuted or overturned Armstrong's thesis I kind of agree with Keith that he hadn't really reached the severe point of banning. Though I also think he needed to drop the attitude and show some respect for Armstrong and the good proof he did discover.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Millea View Post
    In all honesty,I thought Greg was putting up a fair debate.And,the argumentation and disruption came from both sides of this debate.And,I wonder who could be these invisable complainers?Part of some facebook group or something?They should have had the guts to respond on the forum.

    Sorry but it seems a bit unfair to me......

    Just my two dongs worth
    No none are from facebook but longtime members here who were going to leave. Unless they themselves reveal themselves I am not comfortable doing so. I have been receiving PM's and emails since my return fro Costa Rica, 3/24. I tried to ask each of them to simply not respond but I cannot make anyone reply or not. Faced with the decision of losing longtime members vs. Greg Parker the decision was made to lose GP. The issue was taking up so much time it was reminding me of all the zillion emails re CD. Parker has his own forum and anyone is welcome to join. You must be a member to even post, so I will not be joining. I have problems keeping up with this. My job is VERY time consuming and since returning from CR I have spent all my forum time on this sole issue. This is NOT the reason I co-founded DPF.
    We cannot please everyone.

    Dawn .
    Last edited by Dawn Meredith; 04-13-2014 at 04:36 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    I made a mistake defending Greg Parker. I've read his site and determined he is a person with no honor and low character. He's basically a troll pretending to be a person of high argument and approach. A serious researcher would not need to use the personal abuse he employs to make their material work.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Doyle View Post
    I made a mistake defending Greg Parker. I've read his site and determined he is a person with no honor and low character. He's basically a troll pretending to be a person of high argument and approach. A serious researcher would not need to use the personal abuse he employs to make their material work.
    Thanks for saying that, Albert. GP had every opportunity to enrich the DPF community. Instead, he went after certain members in order drive them away and therefore silence them. He chose the latter route despite every opportunity to pursue the first.
    "We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

    "We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl

  7. Default

    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •