Justice Watch Support JW "Is this still the JfJBR Forum" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Is this still the JfJBR Forum, Watching you, 04:40:17, 5/05/2001 Well, Watching you, 04:58:28, 5/05/2001, (#1) Wy, Twitch, 05:57:45, 5/05/2001, (#2) I don't want to, Watching you, 06:04:28, 5/05/2001, (#3) WY, Jellyjaws, 06:38:19, 5/05/2001, (#7) PTL all over again..., Greenleaf, 06:16:45, 5/05/2001, (#4) Thanks WY, Bobby, 06:26:03, 5/05/2001, (#5) I agree, Harley, 06:36:29, 5/05/2001, (#6) My advice:, Grace, 06:53:41, 5/05/2001, (#8) Grace, Watching you, 07:00:39, 5/05/2001, (#10) Grace, Twitch, 06:58:48, 5/05/2001, (#9) Thanks, Grace, mary99, 07:09:42, 5/05/2001, (#11) Mary, driver, 07:21:22, 5/05/2001, (#13) Mary, Watching you, 07:14:23, 5/05/2001, (#12) Well, darby, 07:50:34, 5/05/2001, (#22) My Vote, Midnight_Wolf, 07:28:53, 5/05/2001, (#15) since you ask..., mary99, 07:27:03, 5/05/2001, (#14) mary, Twitch, 07:30:33, 5/05/2001, (#16) mary, Twitch, 07:48:59, 5/05/2001, (#21) Pleeeze, Sabrina, 07:42:08, 5/05/2001, (#19) well, the problem , mary99, 07:38:49, 5/05/2001, (#18) WY, Grace, 07:36:19, 5/05/2001, (#17) I think...., Frank, 07:52:53, 5/05/2001, (#23) Grace, Watching you, 07:47:28, 5/05/2001, (#20) WY, Grace, 07:56:00, 5/05/2001, (#25) Mary99, 1000Sparks, 07:54:26, 5/05/2001, (#24) Well..., A.K., 01:50:09, 5/06/2001, (#109) Move on or be used, Ginja, 08:45:08, 5/05/2001, (#36) LET'S MOVE IT! , darby, 08:20:18, 5/05/2001, (#28) 1000Sparks, Frank, 08:16:14, 5/05/2001, (#27) Grace, Watching you, 08:03:55, 5/05/2001, (#26) Please, Tricia, 08:33:12, 5/05/2001, (#32) WY, darby, 08:24:24, 5/05/2001, (#30) Darby, Watching you, 08:22:31, 5/05/2001, (#29) darby, Grace, 08:33:23, 5/05/2001, (#33) I also agree, FT, 08:31:52, 5/05/2001, (#31) Forget it, , Phantom, 14:23:47, 5/05/2001, (#100) I guess, Watching you, 08:39:11, 5/05/2001, (#34) Good plan Darby, Florida, 08:45:52, 5/05/2001, (#37) Could we also include, Watching you, 08:43:06, 5/05/2001, (#35) I think , v_p, 08:48:16, 5/05/2001, (#39) Thank you darby., Twitch, 08:47:47, 5/05/2001, (#38) Sex rings, Grace, 08:52:58, 5/05/2001, (#40) Theory?, freebird, 08:58:41, 5/05/2001, (#42) freebird., Holly, 11:42:44, 5/05/2001, (#82) Yes!!!!!!!, freebird, 11:53:43, 5/05/2001, (#85) freebird, Grace, 09:04:47, 5/05/2001, (#43) No, Grace, Watching you, 08:56:45, 5/05/2001, (#41) For What It's Worth, JR, 09:44:34, 5/05/2001, (#56) Watching you, Tricia, 09:16:24, 5/05/2001, (#44) whoa, mame, 09:27:39, 5/05/2001, (#46) There you are Tricia :o), v_p, 09:20:58, 5/05/2001, (#45) Grace, Morgan, 09:38:05, 5/05/2001, (#50) Censorship?, Ginja, 09:32:58, 5/05/2001, (#48) Ginja, Morgan, 09:49:08, 5/05/2001, (#58) Is that a no, Watching you, 09:29:21, 5/05/2001, (#47) Censorship?, Watching you, 09:33:52, 5/05/2001, (#49) Give it up, WY, Morgan, 09:41:14, 5/05/2001, (#52) watching you, mame, 09:38:16, 5/05/2001, (#51) WY, LurkerXIV, 09:48:54, 5/05/2001, (#57) Mame, Watching you, 09:43:43, 5/05/2001, (#55) Watching you, mary99, 09:54:46, 5/05/2001, (#59) ginja, mame, 09:42:36, 5/05/2001, (#53) My position -, Holly, 09:42:51, 5/05/2001, (#54) I would like to thank, Watching you, 09:56:05, 5/05/2001, (#60) my phone, mame, 10:03:19, 5/05/2001, (#61) oh lurker, mame, 10:30:13, 5/05/2001, (#62) Holly..., szundi, 10:41:05, 5/05/2001, (#64) Szundi., Holly, 11:24:02, 5/05/2001, (#75) WY is gathering opinions, not suggesting we burn t..., Venus, 10:49:04, 5/05/2001, (#67) oops, venus:, LurkerXIV, 10:57:00, 5/05/2001, (#70) Mame, JR, 10:36:54, 5/05/2001, (#63) My phone..., Ginja, 10:43:48, 5/05/2001, (#65) now you grow a conscience, mary99, 11:02:56, 5/05/2001, (#73) Amen, ginja!, LurkerXIV, 10:54:45, 5/05/2001, (#69) JR, mame, 10:47:52, 5/05/2001, (#66) Recent case law..., LurkerXIV, 10:52:25, 5/05/2001, (#68) well, mame, 10:57:56, 5/05/2001, (#71) Oh,mame..., LurkerXIV, 11:02:41, 5/05/2001, (#72) I agree-, Texan, 11:35:13, 5/05/2001, (#79) Censorship?!, JR, 11:27:26, 5/05/2001, (#77) well,, mame, 11:18:27, 5/05/2001, (#74) Mame, freebird, 11:24:52, 5/05/2001, (#76) Mary, janov, 11:41:29, 5/05/2001, (#81) I'm not sure a compromise, Holly, 11:41:23, 5/05/2001, (#80) Holly, freebird, 11:45:43, 5/05/2001, (#83) freebird, Holly, 12:02:09, 5/05/2001, (#86) Phone callers., Holly, 11:33:15, 5/05/2001, (#78) Well, DuBois, 11:48:13, 5/05/2001, (#84) I say, listener, 12:28:44, 5/05/2001, (#89) Note to Lurker -, Holly, 12:08:02, 5/05/2001, (#87) compromise?, mame, 12:24:43, 5/05/2001, (#88) splitsville, fly, 13:43:48, 5/05/2001, (#97) Just one last thought., Holly, 12:37:21, 5/05/2001, (#90) Janov, Greenleaf, 12:59:44, 5/05/2001, (#91) Compromise, censor and paranoia, Ginja, 13:03:17, 5/05/2001, (#92) I've seen how..., Ginja, 13:08:05, 5/05/2001, (#93) Here, here, Anton, 13:09:08, 5/05/2001, (#94) Discussion, JR, 13:13:04, 5/05/2001, (#95) who's your hero?, Edie Pratt, 13:39:54, 5/05/2001, (#96) Good post, edie, LurkerXIV, 13:45:11, 5/05/2001, (#98) It seems..., Phantom, 14:15:10, 5/05/2001, (#99) mame, Scully, 15:21:06, 5/05/2001, (#102) To answer, watchin', 15:19:22, 5/05/2001, (#101) Chris, Twitch, 15:47:33, 5/05/2001, (#103) Look at the threads, watchin', 15:54:58, 5/05/2001, (#105) Yoohooo, Watching You..., Greenleaf, 15:52:53, 5/05/2001, (#104) mame, Scully, 16:11:07, 5/05/2001, (#106) Put me down, Gemini, 16:16:11, 5/05/2001, (#107) please, Scully, 16:28:06, 5/05/2001, (#108) ................................................................... "Is this still the JfJBR Forum" Posted by Watching you on 04:40:17 5/05/2001 I think it's about time we had some clarification on what this forum is all about. It's Chris' forum and I have no desire to cause Chris any grief. It is becoming clearer and clearer that discussion on JBR has become miniscule while the Fleet White/Nancy Krebs threads multiply like rabbits. There are always non-topic discussion going on in this particular forum, but they are usually brief and light hearted. I don't want to have to leave this forum, but I've come to the point where I am saturated with the Nancy Krebs story and the subsequent barrage of Fleet White attacks. Today is decision day for WY. I need some guidance here. There are several rooms on this forum - one of them is a True Crime room. All other non-case issues have been taken there. Nancy Krebs is a separate issue from JonBenet - at least in the eyes of the law. Why do those of us who are interested in the JBR case have to be assaulted and attacked every day because we think NK shouldn't be the subject of every damn thread on the forum? If it is to be an open forum for discussion on every subject, then we may as well move Darlie Routier and Susan Smith discussions here, too. I know I sound like the dreaded forum monitor, but that's not my intent. I truly don't know what is happening. We discuss it in the WOR, but no resolution ever comes from it. I truly have better things to do in my life than have to defend myself from the FW bashers every day of it. Try to start a thread about something else, the first thing you know, someone is in your face about Nancy Krebs and Fleet White. I'm really tired of it. I know I don't have to be here, and I know that door swings both ways. This is not meant to be confrontational. I think the majority should have some say in this. It seems that just a very few are controling the threads. When anyone objects, a war breaks out and rotten stupid insults are hurled back and forth. I am no exception, I hurl too. I think the majority who wish to discuss the JBR case without having to face a barrage of disgusting posts directed at Fleet White and Nancy Krebs ought to be able to. Take the FW/NK threads to the True Crime forum where they belong. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Well" Posted by Watching you on 04:58:28 5/05/2001 that sounded pretty controlling, didn't it. You know, it's true, we all try to control to some degree. I don't like the FW bashing on this forum becausse I think it is out of line and irrevelent to the JBR case. I don't mind the NK discussion, but I don't believe it belongs on the JBR forum anymore. So, I write a long post tht sounds as if I am trying to control the whole darn thing. And, truth be known, I am trying to control my own little corner of my world. Problem is, the fight for control has gotten out of hand. Constitutional rights to free speech demand, I guess, that we be subjected to things we'd rather not hear sometimes. I don't suggest certain topics not be discussed at all, I simply suggest they be taken to the proper forum. If all posters want is a place to air their issues, then the True Crimes forum should not be objectionable. If the object is to try to influence an entire forum on a certain subject, when that forum does not wish to be subjected to the constant barrage, then it's wrong to force it on them. As I have said in the past, I respect Chris and I wouldn't take her job if she paid me to. This is a serious attempt to clarify what belongs where. The rest is simple. If I do not like the result, I can go elsewhere. That's my decision and one I'll make quietly. Chris, please accept this as my true desire to make sense out of the confusion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Wy" Posted by Twitch on 06:09:21 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:09:21, 5/05/2001 I would like to vote that NK threads be moved to the Murdered and Exploited Children Forum. I'm tired of it too. I like Holly and I don't want to fight with her about this. I was just starting to like mary99 after the last FW bashing episode. I know mary99 could care less how I feel about her but I think she has something to bring to the search for jfJBR. I just can't take anymore FW bashing. How about a cease fire before this gets anymore out of hand? Chris, you know how I feel about JW. I've never hesitated to show my support for you and I will always back you up against anybody in cyberland. I think what you and the moderators do here is wonderful. So let's moderate this problem over to the other forum. (Baybb don't go.) Edited to remove a negative comment which does not belong on this thread. This is a positive attempt to find an answer to a real problem and I shouldn't muddy those waters. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "I don't want to" Posted by Watching you on 06:05:36 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:05:36, 5/05/2001 fight anymore, either, Twitch. I don't enjoy anything much more than a passing volley or two. This awful stuff that's been going on here can only be destructive. I take my share of the blame. As far as Nedthan, I could box his ears sometimes, but at least he stays on the subject - he is an avid pro-Ram, and I can take that. He doesn't get into the FW/NK issue as far as I can see. It's just that it seems everyone should be happy if they can still continue to discuss without annoying other posters. I sure would not interfere on that forum, I don't think many would, and they can happily go about their business. That is, if that's what they want. If there are other agendas going on here, we need to know that, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "WY" Posted by Jellyjaws on 06:38:19 5/05/2001 Morning, Kiddo! Truthfully, after an initial look-see, I've been scrolling past anything to do with MW or FL as marginal red herrings. I've seen the rancor, though. People obviously feel very strongly on both sides. Seems "live and let live" doen't hold true when it comes to Fleet and Nancy. To me, the MW and FW angles have been exhausted and have borne no fruit. It's old hat, yesturday's news, passe, stale. I'm not one to tell anyone to do anything. Let's see how Chris feels. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "PTL all over again..." Posted by Greenleaf on 06:16:45 5/05/2001 Watching You, you wrote: "Why do those of us who are interested in the JBR case have to be assaulted and attacked every day because we think NK shouldn't be the subject of every damn thread on the forum?" Why, indeed, WY. I think I know why. Justice Watch is the forum of record. I believe all the major principals in this case read here. So, it stands to reason, if you have an agenda, you must come here to be heard. All thse FW/MW threads, popping up all over the place, is absurb. It only adds credence to my theory that the Rams are getting desperate. I take solace in that. Any minute now, a thread is going to pop up, titled: "FW was sent to principal's office in 1949 for pulling Sussie Q's pigtail." Yes, WY, et al, it has gotten that ridiculous! It getting like the PTL at the old BNF. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The only person the FW bashers will have to listen to is Chris. This is her forum. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Thanks WY" Posted by Bobby on 06:26:03 5/05/2001 This is the most active Forum and a big thanks to Chris. I hope NK threads move to Missing and exploited children too. I feel that they are worthy of discussion but clog up the JfJBR forum. It's so hard for slow people like myself to pick through the real news amongst the personal attacks. JMHO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "I agree" Posted by Harley on 06:36:29 5/05/2001 with WY, Twitch, Bobby, etc. Enough is enough. It is getting a bit ridiculous and is to the point that it seems like the object of the whole forum is to dig up dirt on Fleet White. Lets find out what Fleet White has done in the past, what is he doing now, etc. etc. etc. You could start a whole new forum for the Mystery Woman/Fleet White Bashers. As was said this is Justice for JonBenet and as far as anyone can tell the MW and Fleet White and whatever connection that may or may not have had have absolutely nothing to do with finding out who murdered JonBenet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "My advice:" Posted by Grace on 06:53:41 5/05/2001 Let it go. The people who are interested in FW/Nancy Krebs aren't going to take over the forum, WY. You don't have to beat them to death every time they make a comment. You've stated your opinion hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Everybody here knows what it is. Look at the FW/NK threads. Usually, a majority of the posts are from your "side". These threads all turn into fights and that's why they go on and on. The ones interested in Nancy aren't stupid or even blind. Take yesterday: Ms. Brady reported a story about a warrant being issued for FW's arrest. There was some speculation that Fleet saw himself as above the law, yes. To me, that didn't seem an unreasonable thought, given some of his past behavior. And Morgan threw in a sarcastic comment about his past arrest (which we discussed here, at the time). Mostly, the talk was about Fleet's possible role in the Miller hearing, and the implications of the warrant. As soon as the Warrant Division opened, Holly called and got the whole story. HOLLY, get that? One of the coven found out what the deal was and the whole thing would have soon been put to rest if a war hadn't started. But meanwhile, Sparky had made a big deal about Morgan's arrest comment and started a whole new thread. I saw Morgan's remark as snide humor. I assumed, as she probably did, that everybody here remembered the past arrest. If I'm not mistaken, most of the discussion at the time (way before Nancy appeared) focused on why the BDP might have arrested him for something so minor. But Sparky's thread made it look like Morgan was implying Fleet was a major criminal. Last night, I also considered trying to break my addiction to JW. It felt toxic here to me, too. But I see the control as coming from the ones trying to stop the FW/Nancy discussion. Maybe there could be agreed on concessions from the ones interested in discussing Nancy. Like: 1) nobody calls FW a pedophile without evidence; 2) nobody ever again says "You aren't sympathetic to Nancy Krebs" (Of course, people aren't sympathetic if they think she's lying about Fleet). 3) they try to limit the discussion to clearly labeled threads. You could come up with other concessions you'd like. In exchange, the FW defenders could agree to try to change their belligerent tone and to allow discussion. The "coven" IS interested in justice for JBR. They are good people, in my opinion. They just believe this is still an avenue worth pursuing. In some of our minds, the pieces to this puzzle still haven't fallen together, and we're only trying to figure it out. The sex ring/porno angle seems far out, even to me, but it's a possibility. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Grace" Posted by Watching you on 07:00:39 5/05/2001 with all due respect for your opinion, nobody is trying to stop the discussion of FW/NK. What we are asking is for consideration for those of us who don't do Nancy Krebs. Sort of like respect and consideration by smokers for those who don't smoke. So, let me repeat - not asking to quash the discussions, only to move them to the crimes section of the forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Grace" Posted by Twitch on 06:59:32 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:59:32, 5/05/2001 Thank you for your input. Edited to change my whole post. I'm going to garden now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Thanks, Grace" Posted by mary99 on 07:11:27 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:11:27, 5/05/2001 For venturing a reasonable solution. To WY: Too often threads do become ugly because of the belligerant tone of a few, and unfortunately, WY, you tend to be the most opinionated of all. I have never told anyone what they should or shouldn't post, nor would I even presume to, yet you do it constantly, to the detriment of all. Sad that the pursuit of justice has become, for some, an exercise in stubbornness and meanness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Mary" Posted by driver on 07:21:22 5/05/2001 you ARE joking, aren't you? "Ah, the power the Giftie gie us, To see ourselves as ithers see us." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Mary" Posted by Watching you on 07:14:23 5/05/2001 this is not a thread for personal attacks. If that's what you are going to make it, I won't be here to see it. I am trying to find a peaceful solution to all this. Maybe it would be better if we all just limited our answers to "yes," we would like to see the NK/MW threads moved to the crimes section, or "no," they should stay on the JBR forum, without all the personal attacks and comments. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Well" Posted by darby on 07:50:34 5/05/2001 I agree 100% with Grace. As someone pointed out before, her name becomes her. I would also ask that those who have grouped certain people into an "unfabulous" coven to actually read each post and respond to the issues in the post itself. And remember to treat each person as an individual. NONE of us agrees with anybody 100%, so it's not fair to group four or five posters together and respond as if they all said the same thing when only one person actually said it. (Please.) To WY--a big thank-you for trying to make peace here. I agree with you that JW has become more of a battle of egos and less of a search for justice for JonBenet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "My Vote" Posted by Midnight_Wolf on 07:28:53 5/05/2001 YES! YES! YES! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "since you ask..." Posted by mary99 on 07:27:03 5/05/2001 No, I do not wish to see the Nancy Krebs threads moved to True Crimes. If what she said is true, it belongs on the JBR forum, much as some might not like to admit it. If what she said is not true, it does not belong in True Crime. Until we know more, I think it belongs here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "mary" Posted by Twitch on 07:30:33 5/05/2001 I don't think anyone is arguing that she was an exploited child. So wouldn't that forum be appropriate? Continue to investigate and if it becomes germain to this case again, bring it back over, with Chris' permission, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "mary" Posted by Twitch on 07:48:59 5/05/2001 I think each side has made its points. Its time to move on now until some evidence comes up to validate either position. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that FW's role in the events not be investigated. They have been thoroughly. Maybe not thoroughly enough for some, so continue elsewhere. If anything turns up state your case with accompanying evidence. We'll all listen. We're here because we want to know the answers. At this point, though, I just can't see where anything positive can be gained by repeating the same points and reviving the same arguments. I worry about NK's exploitation here. I'm afraid that if FW is pushed too far on this he might feel he has no recourse BUT to try to stop her legally. So let's be advocates for everyone harmed by this awful tragedy. I promise NK will not be forgotten. On another forum we can all check in to see how she is and what's being posted there. Maybe she would like to post herself? Maybe we could offer her emotional support? I hate to see another victim and I'm afraid that JW may be the final victim of all of this. It survived well before me and it will after I go...but I don't want to go. Let's work it out, ok? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Pleeeze" Posted by Sabrina on 07:42:08 5/05/2001 Move it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "well, the problem " Posted by mary99 on 07:38:49 5/05/2001 with that idea is, Fleet White overlaps both the Ramsey case and the Krebs allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "WY" Posted by Grace on 07:36:19 5/05/2001 I think there's going to have to be some compromise involved here. Yesterday's discussion was about FW and a JBR case-related matter. It would be silly to move that, IMO. And yet it generated a huge amount of anger. Mary99's sex ring thread might be worth some thought in relation to this case (FW, aside). I wouldn't be in favor of moving that. I just don't see it as so simple. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "I think...." Posted by Frank on 07:52:53 5/05/2001 ..that the NK/FW threads should stay on JBR forum. Grace had a good point. Make sure the threads are clearly labeled. Those posters who aren't interested can just simply avoid the thread. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Grace" Posted by Watching you on 07:47:28 5/05/2001 is that a yes or a no. The discussion has been going on for months. I believe the majority would like to see the threads moved to other forum. If I am wrong, I will concede gracefully. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "WY" Posted by Grace on 07:56:00 5/05/2001 It's not a yes or a no. It's an opinion about how to solve the problem. I don't think your idea that the only solution is to move the discussion is right. What would you have done with yesterday's Fleet thread? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Mary99" Posted by 1000Sparks on 07:54:26 5/05/2001 What did she say about FW...never did hear that... If you can't say what she said, then why the hell do you keep talking about "it". Don't see any correlation between that and the JonBenet murder. I say move it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 109. "Well..." Posted by A.K. on 01:50:09 5/06/2001 If the choice is Move It or Lose It, I vote for the latter. Why aren't the fanatic few who support Nancy Krebs' "story" starting their own forum for her instead of trying to tie it into this case where it doesn't fit? Because they don't give a dang about Nancy Krebs. Wake up and smell the napalm, folks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Move on or be used" Posted by Ginja on 08:45:08 5/05/2001 There is no evidence that Nancy Krebs allegations have anything to do with JonBenet or her murder. That "angle" has been investigated thoroughly by the BPD and the FBI and they came up empty on the White and/or Ramsey link. Fleet White asked for an investigation into criminal libel charges against the media. Included in his well-documented evidence of that libel were numerous threads on the topic from Justice Watch, proving his contention that the media's malicious defamatory coverage caused public ridicule and hatred. The police launched an investigation into his allegations and found they had merit. Their investigation, together with White's documentation, was submitted to the courts for independent prosecution (outside of the DA's office, due to conflicts of interests). The judge assigned the case ignored it. When White requested the case be taken away from him, Bailin simply closed it. White has now appealed that decision and is looking for the court to reopen it. White documents every move he makes and every move made against him. Since his appeal was initiated, this forum has ripped wide open with numerous extremely defamatory threads and posts. You can be sure White is reading and printing it all. This is called "socking it to the courts" with MORE proof and evidence that he is being defamed. His proof is HERE, here at Justice Watch. Justice Watch has made Fleet White's case of criminal defamation. Sooooo...what's it going to be? An invitation for him to use Justice Watch to make his case? An invitation to take his complaint to the next level and include not only Justice Watch and Chris Wheeler as defendants, but those posters who used this forum to continue the harrassment and defamation? I suppose those posters who are the most egregious offenders will say, "Whatever it takes to get this case back in the courts." What they don't realize is the police already conducted an investigation and found merit to White's allegations. Getting this case back into the courts will benefit White with more proof than he had the first time out. That bringing this case back to the courts exposes Chris and JW to being included as defendants rather than simply evidence/proof to the charges made against the media. Chris will lose personally, and JW will be forced to closed down. Not to mention the personal hardships it would bring to certain posters who went out of their way to malign, defame and bring false accusations. There isn't much precedent for internet "law", so to speak. However, there IS precedent for egregious First Amendment violations on the internet. From my research, those offenders have lost their cases in the courtroom. We all have equal rights under the Constitution. Problems arise when there is a conflict between parties over those rights. We all have the right to free speech. But only as long as it doesn't trample another's rights to privacy and presumption of innocence. Take it to other levels, to the fact the internet crosses state lines, and you could be faced with more than simply defamation! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "LET'S MOVE IT! " Posted by darby on 08:20:18 5/05/2001 Okay, here's a proposition that might please everyone. Unless we are talking about Nancy Krebs in terms of the case, keep it over somewhere else. I see no problem with moving discussions about Nancy Krebs to the exploited section unless those discussions somehow relate to the JBR case. This means that: --We absolutely have a right to post news about Fleet White and comment on it. He is a case figure. --If that news concerning FW happens to also involve MW, then we have a right to talk about it. Case in point--we have a right to discuss such things as the police report on FW's criminal libel complaint. --The taboo on discussion about MW would have to be followed by EVERYONE. As Grace pointed out, the overwhelming majority of posts about MW lately have come from those who think she's a fraud. If we move discussion about MW over to the exploited forum, then that means that no more taunting threads can be started on the JBR board about MW/FW no snide remarks about the "coven," etc. Deal? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "1000Sparks" Posted by Frank on 08:16:14 5/05/2001 She said that FW was involved in a sex ring, and that she was a victim of that ring. Since FW is one the "prime time" players in the JBR case....it should stay on the JBR forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Grace" Posted by Watching you on 08:03:55 5/05/2001 I really don't want to do this, but I'll tell you. FW;s traffic citations or lack of insurance have not a whit to do with the murder of JBR. It's part of the witch hunt on FW. I would have moved them to the other forum. As far as FW's most recent dealings with not showing up for subpoena, that had nothing to do with the murder of JBR, which happened over four years ago. It was a continuation of the bash FW threads. It does not belong on this forum. That's my opinion. I will not respond to any more bait. Please just answer the question. My patience is shot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Please" Posted by Tricia on 08:33:12 5/05/2001 I really am begging. Take the FW/NK information anywhere else. I dread opening threads knowing something will change it into FW. WY I suggested a whole new forum for FW/NK. Like I said it seems like if a thread was called "Fun Weather Facts' it would morph into FW. I feel like a handful of people are taking discussions about JBR and twisting them all over the place. Yes now I do scroll past certain posters as fast as I can. I dread seeing more FW/NK threads. No I am not trying to control the forum. I do however, have a right to express my opinion when things are getting out of hand. Pretty please lets take this discussion somewhere else. Justice Watch is really not as enjoyable as it once was because of this. I know I can leave. I don't want to. I feel that many people have the same views. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Thanks Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "WY" Posted by darby on 08:25:07 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:25:07, 5/05/2001 Since you agreed to the deal (below), I'll edit this one off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Darby" Posted by Watching you on 08:22:31 5/05/2001 Deal. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "darby" Posted by Grace on 08:33:23 5/05/2001 Sounds like a good plan. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "I also agree" Posted by FT on 08:31:52 5/05/2001 with darby's suggestion, with the caveat that "news" about Fleet White should be real news, and not pure speculation. Now, with my leader's permission, I am off for a day of soccer practice and piano recitals. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Forget it, " Posted by Phantom on 14:23:47 5/05/2001 >with darby's suggestion, with the caveat that >"news" about Fleet White should be >real news, and not pure speculation. > >Now, with my leader's permission, I am >off for a day of soccer >practice and piano recitals. Really, give me a break! There is so much info, news, that has been spectulation, and some proven as fact. ............................... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "I guess" Posted by Watching you on 08:39:11 5/05/2001 I should have put that caveat in my post to begin with, Darby. You have been around me long enough to know I try hard to be fair. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Good plan Darby" Posted by Florida on 08:45:52 5/05/2001 along with FT's caveat I agree wholeheartedly. A resounding YES! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Could we also include" Posted by Watching you on 08:43:06 5/05/2001 such threads as "sex rings" as they pertain to other cases? Until we know differently, there is no evidence to date that this was a sex ring case. What do you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "I think " Posted by v_p on 08:48:16 5/05/2001 it should be moved to the missing and abused children forum. No one who has investigated this case, as far as detectives, (seasoned and unseasoned), prosecutors, FBI, BPD, etc., have pointed to a sex ring... So, in my opinion, unless one of those investigating the case comes up with a connection, NK's is a story about abuse which should be moved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Thank you darby." Posted by Twitch on 08:48:21 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:48:21, 5/05/2001 Sounds fair to me. Thank you Wy. edited to say that now I really am going to garden. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Sex rings" Posted by Grace on 08:52:58 5/05/2001 At this point, I don't really care. But half the fun of being on this forum has been the challenge of trying to solve such a baffling mystery. So now, are we only going to be able to talk about theories there is evidence of? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Theory?" Posted by freebird on 08:58:41 5/05/2001 Grace, I've not seen a theory put out about FW, noone has placed him in the home that night? or the Ransom note? No theory just sexual pervert statements. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "freebird." Posted by Holly on 11:42:44 5/05/2001 Is that last statement true? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Yes!!!!!!!" Posted by freebird on 11:53:43 5/05/2001 But, I cannot name my sources. You will just have to trust me on this, or do your own investigating. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "freebird" Posted by Grace on 09:04:47 5/05/2001 We've (some of us) already agreed about Fleet White. See darby's post. I was replying to WY's question about whether we could agree to include sex rings, in general, in the JBR forum ban. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "No, Grace" Posted by Watching you on 08:56:45 5/05/2001 you can talk to your heart's content on the other forum. Anyone who wishes to participate in those discussions can join you there. When you connect those sex rings with JBR's murder, then it's time to bring them back to the JBR forum. That's my opinion, not rule, although the forum does say discussion regarding the JonBenet Ramsey murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "For What It's Worth" Posted by JR on 09:44:34 5/05/2001 For those only interested in the vote: Please move it! My opinion is that the FW/NK threads belong on the Exploited Children thread unless and until there is hard evidence that links them to the Ramsey case. I agree with most of what Ginja posted - the threads lately are opening the forum up to trouble. I was sorely disappointed that yesterday few people seemed to post at all - maybe the rest were "lurking," but I suspect when the titles of the threads were seen that a lot of people found better things to do with their time. I can tell you this, this topic got so out of hand before that I simply stayed away from the forum unless Mrs. Brady posted something on her site which led me to believe there might actually be a lively discussion on JW that didn't pertain to FW/NK. Typical of what turns me off is Darby's comment in his "let's compromise" post: "the overwhelming majority of posts about MW lately have come from those who think she's a fraud." That type of comment can only inflame the situation. I can't think of any post which said the person thought NK is a fraud. People were simply saying the posters who throw the FW/NK alleged allegations into every thread needed to back up these allegations with hard facts. Not one poster managed to do this. Therefore, if Darby's post is to be the compromise then that comment needs to be removed IMO. That said, a compromise does need to be made because I too am about ready to find someplace where I can discuss the Ramsey case without every thread having FW/NK thrown into the mix. I do hope that if the FW/NK subject is allowed to remain on the JFJBR forum, that the rule will be that it must be in it's own thread and clearly titled until there is hard evidence 1) that NK has truly implicated FW in her abuse and 2) the BPD links those allegations to the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Watching you" Posted by Tricia on 09:16:24 5/05/2001 amen amen amen. Please no more Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "whoa" Posted by mame on 09:27:39 5/05/2001 i have never seen anything like this in all the years this forum has been around. is this russia? is this the salem witch trials? did chris ask you to take a vote, WY? this is the most incredible form of censorship i have ever seen! anywhere. darby, this is a living room...there is NO arrangement to be made where free speech is concerned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "There you are Tricia :o)" Posted by v_p on 09:20:58 5/05/2001 Grace, nevermind... some people just don't get it and will never get it... that's obvious by the new thread that just went up today ... not a thing to do with JBR. Discuss sex rings and FW all you want ... knock yourselves out, please! lol [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Grace" Posted by Morgan on 09:38:05 5/05/2001 Thanks for trying to make peace. I believe Nancy came to Boulder with information she hoped would help solve the case. Her therapist was/is solidly behind her. Later Mary Bienkowski stated that the BPD completely mishandled the investigation. IMO. Nancy is still an important aspect of this unsolved, uncharged, ongoing investigation. Her therapist said (paraphrasing), if Nancy's information is thoroughly investigated, noone is going to like what they find. I believe that posters who don't like certain discussions, need to learn to scroll past. Understand that no matter how much baiting is done, Mame will not share confidential information on this forum. Posters have the right to keep some information to themselves or to share with a few close associates, just like in RL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Censorship?" Posted by Ginja on 09:32:58 5/05/2001 I hardly think so. This discussion is not to censor anything. The discussion revolves around the proper forum for two separate discussions: JonBenet's murder investigation and Nancy Krebs' allegations of sex rings involving herself and the Fleet Whites Sr and Jr. We are currently in the JfJBR forum. The Krebs discussions should be moved to the appropriate forum at JW, such a True Crime or Missing and Exploited Children. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ginja" Posted by Morgan on 09:49:08 5/05/2001 Nancy came to Boulder with information she hoped would help sove the murder. Her therapist supported her, and later stated that the BPD totally blew their investigation. In light of the DNA evidence, it's time they reopened their investigation into Nancy's info. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Is that a no" Posted by Watching you on 09:29:21 5/05/2001 mame? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Censorship?" Posted by Watching you on 09:33:52 5/05/2001 how about following the rules, mame? The definition of JBR forum: to discuss news and information surrounding the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. The definition of Murdered, Missing and Exploited Children and True Crime: Discussions focus on past and current cases of crimes against children as well as other victims. What part of that don't you understand? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Give it up, WY" Posted by Morgan on 09:41:14 5/05/2001 We have heard your complaints a thousand times. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "watching you" Posted by mame on 09:38:16 5/05/2001 have you purchased the forum from chris? how about we prepare a list of ALL the people and topics discussed here over these years that you, me and others felt relevant? how do they pass the watching you smell test? maybe we should put the entire JBR forum over in the missing and exploited children's forum? maybe that's the ticket? IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT YOU ARE CALLING FOR IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? IN THAT CASE CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN... has chris asked you to poll the members of this forum? the ACLU is gonna love this one... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "WY" Posted by LurkerXIV on 09:48:54 5/05/2001 No decent newspaper editor in the entire world puts OLD NEWS on the front page, above the fold. He would soon have no readers if he did. The same should apply here. When there is NEW NEWS about Nancy Krebs, i.e., the sex ring that abused her has been broken up, and arrests have been made, and it has been connected to the death of JonBenet, then I would welcome it to the JfJBR Forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Mame" Posted by Watching you on 09:43:43 5/05/2001 what you think isn't important to me. There are more people on this forum than just you and three or four others. We also have rights. Chris did not ask me to do anything. I am wallowing in filth and you are part of it. Call the president of the United States if you want to. Your connections don't impress me. This isn't about me. It isn't about you. It is about what is good for this forum and the majority of the forum says move the FW discussion to the correct forum. If Chris chooses to overrule the majority, so be it. You and your smarmy little group will have the forum all to yourselves. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Watching you" Posted by mary99 on 09:54:46 5/05/2001 Back to the belligerent retorts, eh? What concessions are you prepered to make, if any? Seems to me it's only your way or no way here... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "ginja" Posted by mame on 09:42:36 5/05/2001 i'm shocked at your retort...how do you know this topic, and hundreds of sleuthing topics before this one have no relevance to this case? how did you get so heavenly hooked up? so tell me this, what is allowed to be discussed here? what are the rules? what info and what guidelines would be used to determine appropriate speech? is this the watching you theory set of guidelines? is there a set of jonbenet ramsey murder "truths" that set the standards for speech? i'd suggest some folks here take some time to read the constitution. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "My position -" Posted by Holly on 09:42:51 5/05/2001 The JonBenet Ramsey murder is the first real test of the notion that a cyber community can help accomplish justice for a murdered child. And maybe, eventually, other murderd children. This is even a global effort. Cybersleuths from around the world are chewing on case data day after day after day. Most participants are walking encyclopedias of case lore - the essential and the most obscure detail. And maybe we've actually made a difference. Watching You. You seek to prioritize and structure the discussion and pass judgement on what is relevant and what is not. You have decided that Nancy Krebs is a non-issue. Your opinion is shared by many - including the Boulder Police. But that is all it is, really - an opinion. So a reasonable person might suggest that you and others no longer open a thread where that topic is being discussed. Let alone start a thread. How hard is that? Just like I don't open limerick threads. It's a personal preference. I don't open threads that I don't want to read. And yes, I know that limericks are not the same as discussion of the possibility of a sex ring and Fleet White. But Fleet(and any case figure we dissect) is perfectly capable of montioring discussion as evidenced by his inclusion of internet posts in support of his criminal libel complaint. I think that is smart of Fleet White, actually - although I'm not sure a court will be terribly impressed. If you decide to address a compulsion to defend FW or offer an opposing perspective, that's what a discussion forum is all about. But I'm not sure the advocacy is where it will stop. Support for FW soon disintegrates into poster bashing. Stop bashing people, because they are expressing ideas and opinions some find non-relevant and unresponsive to the truth about JB's murder. No one has been charged with this crime. And the surest way to preserve that status is by limiting the exchange of opinions and ideas on the forum that addresses the JonBenet homicide. A fixed position on anyone's guilt is not going to accomplish justice. Has it so far? Hounding posters and heckling their views is more advocacy for a cherished icon, than discussion that will reveal truths or untruths. This is the fifth year of the Ramsey case. A deflection of a hot issue to a less read forum accomplishes what? Justice for a little girl? How does it do that? We have a team of moderators who are there to enforce the House Rules. I'm a moderator and have been since last November. Do I boot each reply that offends me? No. Do I sculpt thought to address only "discussion friendly" areas? No. Do I recognize the need to vent? Yes. Have I deleted posts? Precious few. This is a monumental search for the truth. It's not always possible for every thread to be appealing to every poster. Nor every idea and opinion. It is not possible for every poster to respond to information or express their opinions in an identical manner. So I say to live with the diversity of our membership and the passion posters have for any given topic. This is a grand experiment in the power of the internet. Chris has provided a community that is diverse and dedicated. Overlook the annoyances and recognize a common goal. Everyone here is a justice seeker. And if it is possible that a passion for justice for a little girl we never knew, may eventually help discover the truth, that experiment will be a historical and resounding success. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "I would like to thank" Posted by Watching you on 09:56:05 5/05/2001 everyone for their input. I have my answer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "my phone" Posted by mame on 10:04:54 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:04:54, 5/05/2001 is ringing off the hook over this. i just spoke with two reporters who saw this and are in shock over the proposed idea we ban certain theories and ideas from a forum seeking justice for this kid. as one reporter just told me, ANYONE'S theory should be honored and allowed to be discussed! that is until there is a sucessful prosecution of someone for this murder. whether it's JT colfax or the fairy godmother...it should be acceptable. anything less than that is biased and self indulgent. if chris want's to make this a one theory, one thought process forum, that's great. but, until then i'll assume it's still a forum that addresses ALL the possible theories and interpretation of the evidence. i don't happen to agree with steve thomas's theory of how this kid died, but if someone were proposing to censor his ideas, i'd fight just as hard for our freedom to discuss him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "oh lurker" Posted by mame on 10:30:13 5/05/2001 this is NOT a newspaper. this is a discussion forum. until this murder is solved, NOTHING is old news...and we're not preparing each day for "above the fold" headlines!!! how could we honestly believe this is a "media"? this is a dicussion forum...just like sitting in a living room...or a coffee shop...or a barber shop... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "Holly..." Posted by szundi on 10:41:05 5/05/2001 ...didn't know you were a moderator (sp?). Your old e-mail addy doesn't work. Can I have another one for you? I note to keep all the discussions here. Everything and everyone is fair game and if you look back over all these years, we have maligned just about all the players in this case at one time or another. I think I even called Dr.B a duck (or was that a quack?) Ah well.... What a boring and sad world this would be if we all agreed on everything. Bright Blessings, szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Szundi." Posted by Holly on 11:24:02 5/05/2001 email addie is holly156@bellatlantic.net. Write anytime. There is a group of moderators. My style of moderating is to email Chris if there is something I think needs her attention. I'm not into deleting posts and haven't in months. I just try to keep an eye on things, until the left coast is up and at 'em. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "WY is gathering opinions, not suggesting we burn the constitution." Posted by Venus on 10:49:04 5/05/2001 Good grief! Some of you act as though the thought of moving this subject somewhere else is tantamount to treason. Get real. Move it. It's like beating a dead horse and it's beginning to stink. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "oops, venus:" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:57:00 5/05/2001 I was composing my "dead horse" analogy as you were posting yours. Great minds think alike...and use the same cliches! LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Mame" Posted by JR on 10:39:38 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:39:38, 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:38:50, 5/05/2001 Your misrepresenting the facts here with your statement: if chris want's to make this a one theory, one thought process forum, that's great. People are simply tired of the FW/NK allegations being thrown into every thread regardless of the topic. There are 3 suggestions on the table: 1) Move the FW/NK topic to another forum 2) Leave the FW/NK topic in this forum but in clearly labled threads 3) Keep the status quo Look at the votes - the majority want the topic moved or contained to clearly labled threads. NO ONE has suggested this be a one theory forum. However, a few posters are trying to make it a one theory forum by tossing the FW/NK allegations into every thread posted - IMHO! Edited to say: Mame many people use the internet as a replacement for their daily paper and it is considered "media." So are forums IMHO. Edited again to clarify: So are forums IMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "My phone..." Posted by Ginja on 10:43:48 5/05/2001 ...is also ringing off the hook over this. I just spoke with two attorneys and three investigators who saw this and are in shock that there are some people who not only still can't see the forest for the trees, but also don't have a clue of the legal repercussions that could be effected. Some of those I mentioned in an earlier post (#36) which apparently has been ignored. As one investigator just told me, 'don't any of these posters realize there is no evidence to support their theories? And one of the attorneys said, "don't they realize they're trampling on the constitutional and civil rights of others?" Both agreed that it's one thing to discuss and brainstorm theories; but it's another to keep clubbing away at a theory that has already been disproved by a number of investigative agencies. There is no difference in what is being attempted here and what was done to others thrown under the bus who were clearly not involved in this crime. (Santa McReynolds and JAR were their examples). It has nothing to do with being a "one theory" forum. Numerous theories are discussed. And when it's a dead issue, it's a dead issue and we move on to the next possibility. Besides, you've given us nothing -- no evidence -- TO interpret. Where's your probable cause? (Rhetorical question since we've discussed over and over and over what your "probable cause" is) Glad you brought up Steve Thomas' theory. It was discussed, fully. Many of us agree, it's not plausible and we've moved on. We don't fill every thread up with distractions like, "Yeah, but Steve's theory MUST be discussed again as relevant because we still think it is!" We aren't talking censorship here. What we're talking is relevancy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "now you grow a conscience" Posted by mary99 on 11:02:56 5/05/2001 Ginja, LOL! For four years you and everyone here has been accusing the Ramseys of M U R D E R, and sex abuse! Your have stated time and time again your theory that John is an incestous father; i.e. the equivalent of a pedophile! IF the Ramseys are innocent, have you not maligned them? I find it amazing that you see a free discussion as libelous yet your own theory is not. YOU are presuming you are right and therefore justified. Sorry, that's not 'proof' of guilt. The House Rules clearly state this is an opinion forum. Further, the membership is private; we may be on the web, but we are only viewed by a limited number of case followers. If you find the content offensive, you are basically saying JW doesn't have a right to discuss anyone at all. Just because the Ramseys are suspects doesn't mean they are the only people who may be discussed. And I thought you of all people would be aware of such issues. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Amen, ginja!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:54:45 5/05/2001 It gets very tiresome to see a dominant few beating the same old tired horse, over and over and over...ad nauseam. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "JR" Posted by mame on 10:47:52 5/05/2001 seeking truth is "tiring" and "painful" at times. AND, this is NOT a published "medium"...it's a DISCUSSION FORUM...if this were a newspaper, we'd be asked to identify what type of info we are presenting: hard news, editorial, opinion, entertainment, letters to the editor.... this is what we've been doing in different forms since the beginning of time...in caves, over backyard fences, wherever we choose...we've discussed and debated as free people. if the "the klan" comes to my public radio station and asks for a voice...they'll get it, even though the liberal membership of my station would cringe. speech...and more speech...begets truth. censorship in any form only brings poison and darkness. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Recent case law..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 10:52:25 5/05/2001 ...regarding libel on the internet has decided that this new medium should be treated as all other traditional media. See the results of "Blumenthal vs. Drudge". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "well" Posted by mame on 11:04:15 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:04:15, 5/05/2001 lurker, if that's the case EVERYONE on this forum who has ever taken a leap, or had a theory, better call for lawyers, guns and money! that includes every single "patsy done it" post and all the other wild theories! there would be not one person who falls in this category who would be absolved or looked past. the day free speech and discussion becomes "media" we better burn the constitution. yes, the internet is a "medium" just like any other form of mass communication. however, within that medium are areas designated for news, opinion and DISCUSSION!!!! it's quite obvious we are NOT a news outlet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Oh,mame..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:02:41 5/05/2001 ...do keep up! ANYTHING that appears on the internet is published worldwide. A man at a website regarding the stock market was successfully sued by his company for revealing inside information IN A PRIVATE DISCUSSION FORUM! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "I agree-" Posted by Texan on 11:35:13 5/05/2001 I think that topic should be moved where it belongs - Missing & Exploited Children. I too get tired of opening a thread that seems interesting and then the "FW has a past,etc." gets thrown in and the whole point of the thread becomes moot. Moving that topic isn't censorship and I can't imagine why the heck anyone's phone would be ringing over this. Why would any journalist with a life worry about some threads being moved to an appropriate place where they can continue to be discussed ad nauseum? I don't recall reading where anybody insisted that this topic be deleted altogether which would be censorship. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Censorship?!" Posted by JR on 11:27:26 5/05/2001 I don't believe anyone has asked for censorship, they have simply asked that the FW/NK theory be limited to threads with titles that clearly state the issue being discussed or moved to the Abused Children (or other) thread. Censorship would mean the topic is not to be discussed at all. Lurker - good posts! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "well," Posted by mame on 11:18:27 5/05/2001 if we ever lose the right to discuss and debate on a forum that claims to seek truth and justice then it's a sad day in mudville. on the other hand, this is a private forum, and the webmistress has the right to change the mission, and change the focus. i would suggest you lobby her to make such a change. i would support any change chris chooses to make. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Mame" Posted by freebird on 11:24:52 5/05/2001 Out of respect for Chris why would you not want to come to a compromise on this issue that obviously causes trouble for her forum? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Mary" Posted by janov on 11:41:29 5/05/2001 It's become very evident this week that a Ramsey didn't kill this child. They ,as a family have been hogtied and carried to the gallows,no one can say there was a discussion of evidence that pointed toward them. No,it was said,over and over,Patsy did it!! What is going on with the FW thing is quite different,as it seems a discussion of "clues" and information. I may have missed it,but I haven't seen anyone saying.."fleets good for this". In my own opinion,I don't think we have the name of the one "good for it",but the discussions are interesting. There may be a killer lurking just outside the "inner circle",and some of these discussions may help in uncovering him. For now,I believe apologies are due the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "I'm not sure a compromise" Posted by Holly on 11:41:23 5/05/2001 is appropriate. Just don't open threads that are of no interest. Follow House Rules. And continue to advance the cause of justice for a murdered little girl. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Holly" Posted by freebird on 11:45:43 5/05/2001 I'm assuming that is part of the problem, we open threads that do interest us and somehow FW/MW appear. I think labeled threads were a part of the compromise suggested. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "freebird" Posted by Holly on 12:09:23 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:09:23, 5/05/2001 Give me some examples. This is a good observation if it can be supported. Unfortunately due to software limitations it is not possible to change a subject title. Any ideas? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Phone callers." Posted by Holly on 11:33:15 5/05/2001 My problem with the interested phone callers and other forum critics, is that they need to join JW and express their views here - for all to mull over. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Well" Posted by DuBois on 11:48:13 5/05/2001 I say move it!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "I say" Posted by listener on 12:28:44 5/05/2001 keep it like it always has been and is. We've weathered things like this before. Instead of trying to control other people, try to control yourself. Look back at all the countless people that were attempts at road kill. Much was learned from all those theories, and eventually, I think most posters finally seemed to agree that there was no validity in them. However, in my mind, none of them met with such threatening and controlling tones as does this latest. Kinda makes ya wonder why. I now mostly scroll past certain posters whom I use to admire, because of their constant repetitive complaints. Sure seems like they could do the same, thus keeping the discussions intact and civil. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "Note to Lurker -" Posted by Holly on 12:08:02 5/05/2001 I note that in the "outback" you are mis-stating a fact. I did not say I am the moderator of the forum. I am one of a team of moderators. Chris sought volunteers months ago. You also had the oportunity to donate forum time to moderating. And if you are thinking moderators ban posters - they do not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "compromise?" Posted by mame on 12:24:43 5/05/2001 hell no. i would never agree to limit my speech or edit my words to make a small special interest group feel better with their egos! no way, is that going to happen where i'm concerned in this situation or any other. where free speech and the right to air opinions and ideas is concerned there is no basis for compromise. we're talking about tolerance here. i do respect chris, and if she feels the rules of this forum should be changed to fully cater to a special interest group...so be it. she's been wise in the past and dealt with such issues beautifully. i will trust she would do so again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "splitsville" Posted by fly on 13:43:48 5/05/2001 Some comments, in no particular order: (1) mame - If those folks are reading JW, then they are members. Tell them to come out from behind their bushes and post their opinions themselves. (2) The FW/NK schism is looking more and more like the schism that preceded the split in which the pro-Rams departed to form their own forum. At that time hard feelings and inter-poster conflict was rapidly increasing, and civil discussions were becoming pretty difficult, but I don't think the vehemence came close to the current situation, except in some attacks on jameson. I'm not suggesting that the forum membership should choose sides and split up, but I suspect that that is about the only way that the conflict will end. (3) The only advantage of clearly labeled FW/NK threads is that other "neutral" discussions won't be as easily lost in the developing FW/NK argument. It won't stop the discord that results from the feelings that some have about the "fairness" of FW/NK discussions. Those who think FW has been treated poorly can ignore those posts no matter where they appear, if they choose. They can scroll. I suspect that we'll still have the harsh words and hot disputes on the clearly labeled FW/NK threads, and the hard feelings or poor opinions of fellow posters will bleed over to other threads, even if the NK/FW discussions are limited to labeled threads. And, I suspect that the proNK folks will not be able to refrain from "intruding" on neutral threads any more than skeptics will be able to ignore the labeled threads. (4) Certainly discussions have diverged onto irrelevant or unsupported topics in the past and been allowed to play themselves out. I think it's good to try to keep to relevant issues as much as possible, and that simply requires the cooperation of everybody. The concept of thinking before posting and asking, "Does this make sense, is it relevant, is it worth it? is all that would be required. (5) I've become convinced that some posts are done for little reason other than to push somebody's buttons. Sometimes that is done by a snide remark or insult. Sometimes that is done by posting minimally (if that) related stuff, with the full knowledge of the negative impact likely to follow. Mary99's Sex Ring threads are an excellent example of the latter, IMO. Remarks about "covens" the former. (6) I don't think there is any good solution other than for posters to make an effort to avoid unproductive, inflammatory posts. I'm not sure we're up to that challenge, however. (7) I wish somebody could wring some sort of official statement about the FW/NK issue out of the FBI. Find out whether they really are still investigating, or whether they've decided it is a dead end. Nothing less than an FBI heel stomping down on this story will have any influence, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Just one last thought." Posted by Holly on 12:37:21 5/05/2001 Pedro is an engaging guy, IMO. Even though he and I are worlds apart sometimes, Pedro does a super job - and the other moderators as well. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Janov" Posted by Greenleaf on 12:59:44 5/05/2001 Janov, you wrote: "For now, I believe apologies are due the Ramseys." Apologize, did you say? Are you serious? That would be like apologizing to O.J. or Lizzie Borden. I am dizzy with disbelief. Are you really up walking and talking and functioning in the real world? Is it possible that you have slithered into that convoluted den, where right and wrong has been obscured by insane thought? Flame me. I don't care. Let all the bleeding hearts rant and rave 'til dooms day, but their cries and chants don't amount to a bucket of spit. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Compromise, censor and paranoia" Posted by Ginja on 13:03:17 5/05/2001 Compromise: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. It was suggested the two topics be separated by forum (JfJBR and Missing and Exploited Children or True Crime). That was one form suggested as a compromise. Unfortunately, posters don't understand the difference between compromise and censor. Censor: to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. If some of us understood what was being discussed here, it would be understood that nothing has been mentioned about suppressing or deleting any discussion on NK or FW. I see here a need by the minority to resist any movement of threads and/or ideas, thus illustrating their confusion between compromise and censorship. Perhaps 'confusion' is the wrong word?: Paranoia: characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or megalomania. Whatever. This is not to say members from both camps (majority or miniority) aren't suffering from some form of paranoia or another. So let's try again. Another compromise suggested by the majority is to label threads. This doesn't mean our paranoid friends in the minority have to move anywhere. They can remain with the rest of us and accuse the majority of being paranoid! :-) My suggestion of labeling would be simply marking a thread's title as such: (R) Ramsey theorists. (I) Intruder theorists (O) Other, including NK, FW and child pornography sex rings led by FW. A Ramsey theorist or Intruder theorist who enters an (O) thread enters with full knowledge of the thread topic and will not destroy any discussion by flaming or otherwise talking down the theories or posters. Any (o) theorist entering an (R) or (I) thread would likewise not destroy the thread with theories that don't belong in either of the two theory categories. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "I've seen how..." Posted by Ginja on 13:08:05 5/05/2001 ...too much information in one post can be confusing. In labelling threads, it should be noted that they don't have to be limited to one category. Discussions do overlap. But likewise, if the intent is to include a mish-mash of theories in one thread, participants need to realize it should remain a civil discussion, otherwise, start a similar thread and label it appropriately. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Here, here" Posted by Anton on 13:09:08 5/05/2001 This is the best discussion forum I've found on any topic. The fact that so many people are so energetic and passionate about this case and related (or even unrelated) matters is incredible to me. And there's still so much passion after 4 + years. Amazing. There's a lot on JW that I pay little attention to because it doesn't interest me; I don't object to any of it, I'm just not interested, such as limericks. I like that those things are here but I seldom look at them. As for the Fleet White/Nancy Krebs matter, I see little difference between threads about that and threads about limericks and anything else. If I'm not interested, I skip it. I find the Fleet White/Nancy Krebs matter very interesting but I skim over the poster attacks because I'm not interested in that. I've posted much less in the past few months mainly because discussions of Fleet White, while numerous, tend to include a lot of poster-bashing. I've never been bashed for whatever reason and I've never bashed. Most people who engage in that seem to hold their own pretty well and if that's what is interesting to them, so be it, IMO. Putting restrictions on topics of discussion seems a bit extreme, to me, but is within the purview of the moderators and Chris. IMO, the only reason to do so is to limit or remove poster bashing. That's the problem, IMO, not any topic of discussion. Restricting the topics won't resolve the problem. Restricting posters likewise won't resolve the problem. I don't see how bashing each other promotes justice for anyone, let alone JonBenet. I don't see how restricting discussions or topics for discussion promotes justice. IMO, the best way to handle the matter, if it even needs to be handled, is for folks to skim over or skip topics and posts they don't like. Chris shouldn't have to step in here and say "do this, don't do that". We're adults, most of us. Chris sets the rules of the forum and we can go along or go elsewhere, IMO. I don't know if it's a constitutional matter or merely personal preference. I often enjoy the ribald, witty comments, however unjustified they might be. Sometimes I skip over them. IMO, moving Fleet White/Nancy Krebs topics elsewhere won't change any of that. I like Justice Watch as it is. If there is indeed a vote being taken, I vote to keep it as is, with no more restrictions than we have now. Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Discussion" Posted by JR on 13:13:04 5/05/2001 Once again, the problem at least as I see it is that only a very small group wants to continue the discussion of the FW/NK allegations. If the discussion is contained in FW/NK titled threads those who want to discuss the the subject can - those who don't won't have to waste time trying to scroll through them. Continuing to mention this topic in every thread is IMO akin to trying to brainwash the readers - "say it long enough and loud enough and maybe they will believe you." Now, where have we heard that before? My personal issue with this whole subject is that those insisting on stringing the FW/NK allegations through almost every thread, then acuse those who state they don't buy into this or other theories, that they won't accept certain other theories because they would have to examine the FW/NK allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "who's your hero?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:39:54 5/05/2001 as I asked you all the other day, WHAT put FW in the Hero Seat? Why is he more honorable than John Fernie, Babs Fernie, Dr Beuf, Susan Stine, Santa and the Mrs., etc.? I don't get that at all, we've shreded all and anyone that ever waved to the Ramsey's, yet FW is off limits. I don't give a rat's behind if NK's info had nothing to do with the murder, but I do care that FW was one of the folks that AM, touched and searched all over ANOTHER MAN'S HOUSE, and was one of the last to see JB alive. That puts him into suspect list just like everyone else. I am curious as to why he goes about legal actions in such a round about way, when he can afford the best. Just like I'm curious as to why the R's paid Haddon for THAT advice, if he advised them to go on their media blitz...it's like the Apache's say, "where there's smoke, there's fire", and each and every living being that is connected in any way to the Ramsey's, IMO, is suspect. That's what we're here to discuss. I have NEVER been a BDI theorist, but I sure don't get mad at those who are. I scroll by the Munchausen By Proxy theorists without so much as a "snort", and tho the premeditation theory makes me guffaw, I don't feel it necessary to laugh at the one who speculates about it. Because, WHO'S TO SAY I'M RIGHT?!? Somebody killed JonBenet, and we're all pretty much in agreement the killer wasn't a stranger, so common sense would have us look at anyone she was in contact with 12-25-96. Nobody, not one of them, is exempt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Good post, edie" Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:45:11 5/05/2001 I'll start a part two with it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "It seems..." Posted by Phantom on 14:15:10 5/05/2001 that lots of things belong in the JBR forum. Has been for a long time, hasn't it? Anyone can post anything they want. And even if someone doesn't like or agree with what someone posted, so what. All I see is that some people, for whatever their reason(s), don't want any posts about Nancy Krebs or Fleet White. Or is it the other guy I can never remember....Anyway, Why shouldn't people post what they are interested in, ESPECIALLY, when it might be information about the murder of Jonbenet? Give the forum a break, and quit b*tchin about what other people can or can not post about. Who knows, maybe Nancy Kreb's abuser in close in some way to Jonbenet's murderer. Maybe not, but give it a rest and scroll by what you don't want to read about. I DO IT ALL THE TIME....... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 102. "mame" Posted by Scully on 15:21:06 5/05/2001 If your phone is ringing off the hook from numerous outraged reporters who are voicing their displeasure over whether FW/MW should be a topic discussed on the JBR forum, then would you be kind enough to forward those phone calls and emails to Chris? After all, she is the forum moderator and would very interested in listening to their side of the argument regarding the FW/MW issue. I think this is only fair. Otherwise, we have to take your word for it that any such phone calls even occurred. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "To answer" Posted by watchin' on 15:19:22 5/05/2001 the initial question inthis thread, 'Is this still the JonBenet forum"? Look at the threads and you will see who's forum this is. ;-) can we speak now teacher? LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 103. "Chris" Posted by Twitch on 15:47:33 5/05/2001 Are you there? I left this morning in a pretty good mood thinking things might actually work out. Wrong! Seems most have posted their opinions except for you...and yours is the only one that matters. So, what do you say? I truly believe that mame, Holly, Morgan, mary99 and who am I leaving out, have displayed here today that they do not care about NK's welfare. They do not care about the other posters at JW. They do not care about justice for JonBenet Ramsey. They care about tearing FW's life apart. They care about controling this forum. What's the verdict Chris? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 105. "Look at the threads" Posted by watchin' on 15:54:58 5/05/2001 and tell us honestly WHO is controlling this forum! WHO is taking up band width with hir threads. Do we NOW have a 'topic coordinator' who dictates the subject matter. Hail Ginj..YOUR leader! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 104. "Yoohooo, Watching You..." Posted by Greenleaf on 15:52:53 5/05/2001 I'm over here, under a mountain of threads.I'm almost suffocating. Help! GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 106. "mame" Posted by Scully on 16:11:07 5/05/2001 Mame's post intrigues me! She's received a virtual FLOOD of phone calls from the public and although I respect the privacy of these individuals, I still think that she owes it to the forum moderator (Chris) to inform her of this public outcry. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there could be no less than 100 reporters from the various media outlets who have covered the JBR case at one time or another. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, O'Reilly, Geraldo, ABC, NBC, yet only TWO reporters have called mame to let their feelings be made known regarding their disappointment over the FW/MW issue here at JW? (I'm prayin' that b.j. plaskett doesn't have mame's phone on automatic redial....LOL) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 107. "Put me down" Posted by Gemini on 16:16:11 5/05/2001 for an "I don't care" as long as the MW/FW threads are labeled as such (sneaky threads are annoying and downright depressing). However, IF the threads in question ARE kicked over to the other forum, I certainly hope any and all off-topic threads (within these strict guidelines) will also be censured and moved to an appropriate location. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 108. "please" Posted by Scully on 16:28:06 5/05/2001 Could someone please start a thread #2 on this topic? It's one of the best on the board today. I would attempt it but I am not computer savy, and I also have to be at work in 1/2 hour! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]