09-28-2016, 08:44 PM
John McAdams Wrote:Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's JFKFacts site.
They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more recent comments have been approved.
So I wrote him, asking "Why are my comments not being approved?"
And adding "perhaps there is some explanation."
After a few days, and no response, I wrote him again, saying I deserved an explanation.
He agreed, and then didn't provide any.
Finally, he said:
Quote:John, for a man with deserved reputation for rudeness and recent
professional rebuke for uncivil behavior, you are mighty quick to
demand respect. Excuse me for ungenerously ignoring your imperious
tone.
I recently suffered a serious injury to my Achilles tendon. The
Comments Editor submitted his resignation. I have not picked a
successor. The Comments section has suffered as a result.
That is the explanation I owe you.
In the first place, somehow, in spite of his injury, he has managed to approve many comments. But none of mine.
As for "rude:" anybody looking at JFK Facts can see that Jeff's moderators have routinely approved very nasty comments directed at lone assassin people.
We have routinely been accused of being CIA stooges.
It seems Morley has turned into a bitter buff. Bitter buffs are people who not only believe in a conspiracy, they believe that everybody else *must* believe in a conspiracy. They believe that if enough people believe in a conspiracy the evil conspirators will be discovered and virtue will return to this Republic
Thus people who disagree with conspiracy are not merely people with a different opinion, they are evil heretics.
This is the level that most believers have sunk to... they cannot debate the evidence, so they are forced to rant at the critics. This forum is an excellent example - forbidden from the only tool they have left, ad hominem attacks - believers are simply silent.
Patrick, for example, has often made this accusation of "differing opinions" being the cause... yet he knows quite well that I label people as liars only when they provably lie about the evidence, or about what someone stated.
There are many critics with whom I differ when it comes to this case... people can easily come to different conclusions about the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of differing bits of evidence.
What liars do is simply lie about that evidence. Patrick, for example; won't argue the relative merits of evidence credibility, he'll simply lie about the evidence itself.
Such as the recent example where he applauded Dr. Baden in saying that the large skull wound on JFK was not located in the Parietal-Occipital...
Of course, these non-stop lies concerning the evidence point thoughtful readers to the truth.