[Ben Holmes]

Interestingly, after Mark asked to have his profile removed, and I removed it, he went to another forum asserting that he'd been "banned".

Here's his post:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience. 

A couple of examples: 

1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas. 

2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense. 

After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.

Mark is certainly welcome to login again, and begin posting - I've not banned ANYONE from this forum. I find it interesting that once again, a believer has proven himself dishonest.