Justice Watch Support JW "Who's your hero? JfJBR Forum Part 2" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Who's your hero? JfJBR Forum Part 2, LurkerXIV, 13:48:04, 5/05/2001 LOL, Lurk!, Edie Pratt, 13:51:41, 5/05/2001, (#1) edie..., LurkerXIV, 13:55:44, 5/05/2001, (#2) moi? modest?, Edie Pratt, 14:00:15, 5/05/2001, (#3) panico, mame, 14:06:21, 5/05/2001, (#4) Edie, JR, 14:19:52, 5/05/2001, (#6) Ah yup!, Ginja, 14:09:17, 5/05/2001, (#5) Ginja, JR, 14:23:13, 5/05/2001, (#8) Ginja, Grace, 14:20:48, 5/05/2001, (#7) Great post Edie!, watchin', 14:26:27, 5/05/2001, (#9) There IS no hard..., Phantom, 14:39:15, 5/05/2001, (#12) Edie, I don't , Florida, 14:36:06, 5/05/2001, (#11) OK, FLA, Edie Pratt, 15:11:11, 5/05/2001, (#13) mame, FT, 14:35:33, 5/05/2001, (#10) To Mame..., Phantom, 15:16:12, 5/05/2001, (#14) odds and ends, darby, 15:48:54, 5/05/2001, (#17) Fleet Sr, Morgan, 15:38:37, 5/05/2001, (#15) JR and Grace, Ginja, 15:45:51, 5/05/2001, (#16) Morgan, Ginja, 15:58:06, 5/05/2001, (#20) Exactly Ginja., Twitch, 15:53:07, 5/05/2001, (#19) Ginja, Morgan, 15:50:15, 5/05/2001, (#18) So Morgan, Ginja, 16:04:33, 5/05/2001, (#22) Ginja, Morgan, 16:23:32, 5/05/2001, (#23) ouch FT, Gemini, 16:00:17, 5/05/2001, (#21) I take it, Morgan..., Ginja, 17:28:53, 5/05/2001, (#24) Ginja, Morgan, 18:43:05, 5/05/2001, (#25) Epiphany at the grocery store, FT, 18:54:39, 5/05/2001, (#26) That's close, but..., Phantom, 20:23:50, 5/05/2001, (#27) I see it like this, Gemini, 20:36:37, 5/05/2001, (#28) Reminds me...., szundi, 20:56:56, 5/05/2001, (#30) Talking about..., Phantom, 20:47:10, 5/05/2001, (#29) Exactly, Phantom, mary99, 02:59:05, 5/06/2001, (#34) My opinion, Starling, 23:31:51, 5/05/2001, (#31) ....probably off topic...., mary99, 00:18:11, 5/06/2001, (#32) FT, you bad!!!, A.K., 02:42:43, 5/06/2001, (#33) ................................................................... "Who's your hero? JfJBR Forum Part 2" Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:48:04 5/05/2001 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. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "LOL, Lurk!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:51:41 5/05/2001 this is the second time in my tenure here that I've started a thread by proxy:-) Panico did one for me, too. I have never started a thread myself, don't even know how,lol! carry on... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "edie..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 13:55:44 5/05/2001 ...Panico always had a good nose for a hot topic. I'm proud to be mentioned in the same breath with her. And all this time, I thought you were just too modest to start threads! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "moi? modest?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 14:00:15 5/05/2001 this loudmouth? hahahahaha! Nope, modesty is not my issue, just don't think I have earth shaking ideas that deserve an entire thread. I'm a realist "along for the ride", (huh Neddddddd?), but thanks, Lurker14, you're every bit as special to me as Panico was:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "panico" Posted by mame on 14:06:21 5/05/2001 i just wrote an email to chris yesterday about pan...she would have had this all settled by now. Censorship Censorship, supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society. In modern times, censorship refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be objectionable or offensive. The objectionable material may be considered immoral or obscene, heretical or blasphemous, seditious or treasonable, or injurious to the national security. Thus, the rationale for censorship is that it is necessary for the protection of three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Until recently, censorship was firmly established in various institutional forms in even the most advanced democratic societies. By the mid-20th century a revolutionary change in social attitudes and societal controls weakened the existence and strength of censorship in many democracies; however, all forms of censorship have not been universally eliminated. Today many persons, including some civil libertarians, object to the "new permissiveness" in the arts and mass media; they claim it debases the public taste, corrupts all sense of decency and civility, and even undermines civilization. In nondemocratic societies censorship is a dominant and all-pervasive force, felt on all levels of artistic, intellectual, religious, political, public, and personal life. Hardly any act, expression, or relationship is exempt from official surveillance and accountability. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, says nothing explicitly about the right of freedom from censorship, certain articles, if strictly observed, would tend to mitigate the rigor of censorship in nondemocratic countries. Among such provisions are those that prohibit interference with a personīs home, family, privacy, or correspondence, and those that provide for the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression without interference. Thus, the worldwide struggle for human rights often involves problems of censorship as well as the fate of those dissidents who are its victims. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Edie" Posted by JR on 14:19:52 5/05/2001 I personally have never said FW shouldn't be discussed as a suspect in JonBenet's murder though he has been cleared by the BPD so to me that takes him out of the equation unless some new evidence places him back under the "umbrella." What I have done is ask for hard evidence and legitimate sources on those posts trying to tie the FW/NK theory into the Ramsey murder and not one of those posters pushing this theory ever gives posts any however, Mame does come back with the statement, "I don't disclose my sources." How does any of this make it look like I am calling FW a hero? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ah yup!" Posted by Ginja on 14:09:17 5/05/2001 Once again, the minority has disrupted a thread! You've missed the mark, Mame...censorship is being discussed in the first thread. This thread was specifically set up to discuss why some posters think of Fleet White as a so-called hero. And then you wonder why posters don't want to take you seriously! You've just proved the majority's point! Thank you! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 14:23:13 5/05/2001 Uh...I don't think Edie was the one out of place - Lurker posted the initial post by her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Ginja" Posted by Grace on 14:28:41 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:28:41, 5/05/2001 This is part two of the JFJBR thread. Look at the title, or read what Lurker said at the end of thread one. Since when can we only discuss the last post of the preceding thread? Great post, Edie! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Great post Edie!" Posted by watchin' on 14:26:27 5/05/2001 I would like to give you credit for starting a thread to address these issues, but alas it was started by one of the very group that wants this topic hushed. Huh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "There IS no hard..." Posted by Phantom on 14:39:15 5/05/2001 evidence!!!!!! All evidence in the JonBenet murder is only understood in any way by someone's own opinion! No one KNOWS who did WHAT, WHEN, or IF EVER. Just because you don't have evidense about something doesn't mean that you can't talk or post about it.............(some people are either slow or controlling...) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Edie, I don't " Posted by Florida on 14:38:22 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:38:22, 5/05/2001 think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't talk about Fleet White because he's a hero or the White Knight or anything like that. I think we can and should talk about his friendship with the Ramseys, his behavior at the Ramsey home - and in Atlanta - and after. Those are verifiable things that we can and should investigate and talk about. They are certainly pertinent to the case. What those of us who are objecting to is the constant inference that Fleet White is an abuser of some sort because someone said Nancy Krebs said he is. He's been investigated by the BPD and supposedly by the FBI. They, along with Lou Smit saw the same evidence Mame and a few others did and apparently there is nothing that leads them to believe Nancy Krebs accusations against Fleet White are related to the Ramsey case. People on this forum have looked and looked for something to nail on FW. Hunter had Tracey and Shapiro looking for something but nothing has been found that points to him being the abuser he has been accused of being by a small number of people on this forum. This is the only place (except for a couple of people at jamesons) it is still being discussed - everyone else figured it out and moved on. Unless something comes out that ties the NK accusations to the Ramsey case I think FW should continue to be looked at but not as it relates to Nancy Krebs unfounded accusations. Discussion of Nancy Krebs rightfully belongs in the other forum - there is nothing she said that can be related to the murder of JonBenet. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "OK, FLA" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:11:11 5/05/2001 I see, but I also see that alot of us are ready and willing to believe people like Kim Ballard, who jumped in and out of this case just as oddly as MW did. She said some pretty outrageous things, made it sound like a date with Marv Albert, all that USA TODAY personals ad stuff. I for one, believe she's telling at least a partial truth, again, smoke=fire. You see? Both JR and FW have exhibited rage and forcefulness in certain instances, but with KB & JR info, he nervously laughs and sputters...where's his combativness to take HER to court? "Kimberly", I don't think, is a nut trying to get into the act, makes no sense. Same with MW, makes no sense. Couldn't it be possible, just maybe, that FW and JR had something in common, other than their wives meeting at a school function? JR says the Stine's were mere acquaintances, yet they moved together like lemmings on a cliff! I don't buy a word he says anymore, so why should I believe his BESTFRIEND is any better a man? He certainly is attractive, FW, but I haven't had the benefit of hearing him or watching him in action...Ted Bundy was handsome, too, can't go by looks. Point is, we don't know WHO any of the people are involved, and if someone comes forward with personal tales of anything between them and these SUSPECTS, I'm going to make note of it, and hopefully be able to use it in relation to JB's death. At the very very least, these skeletons or imposters, give us excellent insight into the SUSPECTS motivations. And, don't you wonder why THAT particular group was invited that morning? I still don't know if they were mutual friends, or seperate "foreign factions", having only the Ramsey's in common. There HAD to be a reason they called those people and not the neighbors or nobody at all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "mame" Posted by FT on 14:35:33 5/05/2001 Are you the author of that post on censorship? If not, could you please cite your source? Journalism 101, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "To Mame..." Posted by Phantom on 15:16:12 5/05/2001 YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "odds and ends" Posted by darby on 15:51:04 5/05/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:51:04, 5/05/2001 odds: I knew my agreeing with WY on moving the stuff over to the exploited forum would go over like a lead balloon with some people. Though I'm not a fan of censorship in general, I'm afraid I think a little censorship and control on a little forum such as this is A-OK, just to keep the peace. (Of course I didn't earn the moniker "demolition darby" for nothing!) Since it's looking like such will never happen, I'll go with what fly said about how it might be a good thing for all of us to simply think before posting. Ginja-You said on the other thread, 'Glad you brought up Steve Thomas' theory. It was discussed, fully. Many of us agree, it's not plausible and we 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!"' Huh? I think a lot of folks would disagree with you. I don't happen to buy the bedwetting theory myself, but I have to admit that Cutter's recent analysis on the autopsy pics (particularly the fact that the garrote caused hardly any red marks) has made me wonder once again if Thomas' theory isn't the one. Anyway, none of us has access to all the evidence. Maybe there is a lot to support Thomas' theory that we just don't know about. ends: Case heroes--I think anyone who has dared to get involved in order to find justice (however flawed) might be considered heroes. Fleet White, Steve Thomas, Darnay Hoffman and many others come to mind. As an aside, IF the Ramseys are innocent, then it has got to be Lou Smit. (gag) On NK--until her pre-murder documentation is looked into by law enforcement, nobody can say for sure whether she has lied or not. Even if law enforcement does investigate her documentation, and it seems to corroborate her claims, a lot more investigation would still need to be done before coming to any conclusions. Until that is done, I don't think it's right to assume that FW is tainted OR that NK's claims are false. It's a balancing act, but it can be done--I know because I've been doing it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Fleet Sr" Posted by Morgan on 15:38:37 5/05/2001 is mentioned by Nancy as her mother's godfather. He has seldom been discussed; he appears to be off-limits because of his age. Not considered a hero, but certainly off-limits. Nevertheless, he lives in Aspen and could have driven to Boulder Xmas night. Didn't JB tell friends Santa would be visiting her Xmas night? She stuck to her statement even when the woman told her that Santa visits on Xmas eve. Initially, this statement cast suspicion on her party Santa. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "JR and Grace" Posted by Ginja on 15:45:51 5/05/2001 Mea culpa...I misunderstood the subject line: "Who's your hero?" I take it Mame's hero is: "Censorship". To each his own, eh? ;-) JR, as regards Edie (or Lurker), I haven't the slightest clue where you're coming from. Lurker posted Edie's thread, "Who's your hero". Likewise, the first thread had no such 'title' or subject line...the question there was "is this still the JfJBR forum." Silly me for thinking people could move on and answer the question posed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Morgan" Posted by Ginja on 15:58:06 5/05/2001 15. "Fleet Sr" Posted by Morgan on 15:38:37 5/05/2001 is mentioned by Nancy as her mother's godfather. He has seldom been discussed; he appears to be off-limits because of his age. Not considered a hero, but certainly off-limits. Nevertheless, he lives in Aspen and could have driven to Boulder Xmas night. Didn't JB tell friends Santa would be visiting her Xmas night? She stuck to her statement even when the woman told her that Santa visits on Xmas eve. Initially, this statement cast suspicion on her party Santa. * * * Is this why Fleet Jr. is your hero? :-) NK's allegations as regards the White men began in the 1930's. Seeing as how Jr wasn't here yet, I would think that back then, Sr. was much younger and capable of just about anything. As regards her allegations against Jr., her alleged last physical contact with him -- that is, the last time he was alleged to have sexually abused her -- was when he was 21 years old (or thereabouts). As regards his driving to Boulder on Christmas night to play Santa, that certainly doesn't jibe with the evidence. JonBenet's alleged second visit by Santa was to be after Christmas, not on Christmas. Bill McReynolds had his own santa suit, so I would suspect the other santa suit found in the basement would be used by a 'different' santa. Patsy didn't pack for the trip to Charlevoix until that morning (the 26th) when she started throwing things in the garbage bag on her way down the stairs. She only 'stopped' at the foot of the staircase because of the note. If there had been no note, who's to say she wouldn't have continued down the stairs, into the basement, to throw that santa suit into things to go to Charlevoix? And doesn't it make sense that this second visit by Santa simply meant that there was going to be another Christmas 'celebration' when the whole family went to Charlevoix? If you read DOI, Patsy sets forth how often JonBenet celebrated her birthday...since it was a summer birthday, her school friends would celebrate in May. There'd be a celebration in Charlevoix, and there'd be another celebration in Georgia. JonBenet was so confused she thought she gained a year for each celebration, even though all the celebrations were for the same birthday! This multiple-celebration scenario played out for Christmas as well...in Boulder, in Charlevoix, and Georgia. Couldn't JonBenet have just as easily been "confused" about the many different Santas as she did with the many different birthday celebrations? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Exactly Ginja." Posted by Twitch on 15:53:07 5/05/2001 Morgan, what the hell does your post have to do with the subject. You all groan and bellyache about scrolling when no matter what the topic, it seems to offer up a chance to libel the Whites. I don't get it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Ginja" Posted by Morgan on 15:50:15 5/05/2001 it's a little hard to name a hero in a case that is striking in it's lack of same. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "So Morgan" Posted by Ginja on 16:04:33 5/05/2001 >it's a little hard to name a >hero in a case that is >striking in it's lack of same. Wouldn't it make more sense to say why you don't think Fleet is a hero? That's what caused me to respond to Mame's post in the first place. If she doesn't think he's a hero, state why. I just couldn't figure where censorship had anything to do with the question posed. If you notice, and I'm sure you haven't, I haven't answered the question myself one way or another. I'm just responding to posts that respond to everything but! LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Ginja" Posted by Morgan on 16:23:32 5/05/2001 no [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "ouch FT" Posted by Gemini on 16:00:17 5/05/2001 you're starting to scare me. That's exactly what I thought to ask as I read mame's post. Then realized my sunglasses were still sitting atop my head and probably squeezing my brain, so re-thought. Then (gulp), there was your post echoing my initial thought. arrrrrrrrrgh Hero, Edie? So far, I don't see anyone who would really qualify. If the parents are innocent ... undoubtedly, Smit. If they are somehow involved, maybe Michael kane (tho in my heart, I suspect he's mostly interested in good career moves for himself ... and probably has always had that as his most basic motivation). To me, a hero is someone who stands up for a righteous belief ... often against great odds. Under that definition, both L-XIV and mame might qualify, eh? Just depends on which of them has a lock on truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I take it, Morgan..." Posted by Ginja on 17:28:53 5/05/2001 That your response in 23 was in response to my question posited in 22. What say you to my reasoning in post 20 in response to your 15? I think that's what's bugging the hell out of most of us here. Someone posts derogatory remarks about FW, and when we respond with a perfectly logical explanation, you don't see it, you don't respond, or you just plain ignore. As a borg, I have no problem explaining where I'm coming from and why. I would expect as much from a bonk'er or anti-FWer. That is, some sound reasoning (or at least some evidence or logic) behind the allegations and attacks. The rhetoric "because NK says so" or "NK's psychiatrist has this all written down" is old and proves nothing. I don't think any of has responded by saying "Because FW said so". I think you guys wouldn't be handed half the grief you get if you answered questions, instead of making off the wall allegations that can't be proven. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Ginja" Posted by Morgan on 18:43:05 5/05/2001 I thought JB told the friend's mother that Santa was coming Xmas night. I'll have to check on it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Epiphany at the grocery store" Posted by FT on 18:54:39 5/05/2001 LOL ... well, a little one. As I was pushing my cart through the aisles this evening, I found myself pondering mame's assertion that the forum is like a living room and, consequently, we should not have to limit our right to free speech here in any way. And then a light bulb clicked on for me. Perhaps this disagreement about NK/FW really does boil down to what we tolerate in our own living rooms, family rooms, and around our kitchen tables. It's about our personal principles, values and respect for other people's rights. Here is an example of what I mean ... After soccer practice today, one of my second grade daughters told me, "Caitlin said that Kristen was held back in first grade." I asked my daughter how Caitlin knew this, and she said that Caitlin had seen Kristen playing on a first grade soccer team. Now, in our school district, the birthday cut-off for grade entry is October 1st, but the birthday cut-off for soccer leagues is August 1st. Children with August and September birthdays have to play beneath their school grade level. (This causes a lot of parental consternation, but that is not the point of my post.) I explained the soccer rule to my daughter and told her that the fact that Kristen played soccer on a first grade team did NOT necessarily mean that she was held back in first grade. I also told my daughter that it was not nice to spread this rumor if she didn't know it for a fact. And you know what? My seven year old daughter understood this concept! She realized that she would not want people to say untrue things about her, so she should also not say untrue things about other people. So ... back at the grocery store ... I realized that maybe this is the essential difference we are experiencing here at JW. Some people think that as long as "Caitlin" said it, it is probably true and it is fair game for "debate" in our living room. Others of us feel that it's only fair to the "Kristens" of the world that you have some substantiation behind your gossip before spreading it to others. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "That's close, but..." Posted by Phantom on 20:23:50 5/05/2001 THEN it's a matter of thinking and expressing what you think, and if anyone has any other views, etc.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "I see it like this" Posted by Gemini on 20:36:37 5/05/2001 Let's say you go to visit a friend who has other houseguests ... one of whom you discover you positively loath. Do you open the window of your friend's home and scream "*sshole" to the whole neighborhood, just to cause a problem for that one guest? Or, do you take your beef outside and try to pick a fight in the yard? I wouldn't do either because of consideration for my friend. I think I'd make arrangements to meet the disliked individual elsewhere for a one-on-one, or, if I had proof they did something truly wrong, would contact the authorities and leave it in their hands. The more I think about how the debated discussions have wrecked havoc in JW, the more I think freedom of speech MUST be tempered with courtesy and consideration ... if you care about your friend that is. So, if you guys want to go after FW ... well, that's up to you and your concenience. Just remember, you're doing it in someone else's home. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Reminds me...." Posted by szundi on 20:56:56 5/05/2001 ....of that old chestnut, "you don't yell FIRE in a crowded theater just because you have freedom of speech". Sometimes you have to use common sense and temper your comments. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Talking about..." Posted by Phantom on 20:47:10 5/05/2001 someone,is not the same as going after someone...? The Ramsey's have been called everything in the book, and more, so what's all this sh*t about poor poor Fleet that no one can mention his name???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Exactly, Phantom" Posted by mary99 on 02:59:05 5/06/2001 Why re-write the rules now? Especially because Smit has brought out new evidence that shows the BPD suppressed possible exculpatory evidence, meaning we just might have been picking on innocent people all along. I said, *might*, btw, to point out the gross injustice to the Ramseys in the event we have been wrong, and to also point out that based on what we knew at the time, we were expressing our opinion, not stating a known fact. Just we discussed the Ramseys, so are we entitled to discuss Fleet. And we might be wrong about him, or right, just as we might be wrong about the Ramseys, or right. Thank God for freedom of speech, the right to exchange ideas and opinions AND the right to change our minds if we want. It is better to be free to speak our minds, even if aren't sure whether we're right or wrong, than it is to be afraid to speak for fear we may be wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "My opinion" Posted by Starling on 23:31:51 5/05/2001 When Nancy Krebs was only known as MW, I followed what news was available to us and even particpated on the threads, but Nancy Krebs allegations were investigated by the Boulder Police Department and found not to be related to JonBenet's murder. I think it's time to move it to the True Crime area. They are the agency handling JonBenet's case after all. I don't see the other available JonBenet forums co-mingling the two any longer. Just this one. And if the FBI is conducting some form of investigation, regarding Miss Krebs - that crosses state lines and link the two together, they would more than likely take it from the BPD - at that time. I personally only see a handful of posters promoting the discussion about Nancy Krebs here at the JonBenet part of the forum and that speaks volumes. I'm sure not all the moderators agree on this - and that is probably problematic too. A moderator wants to continually do what's best for the board - not hurt it. They want to keep peace and help provide a civil place for discussion. And a moderator should never be put in the position where they feel they need to moderate another moderator. It's unheard of. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "....probably off topic...." Posted by mary99 on 00:18:11 5/06/2001 The problem has come to a head. Some are sick to death of the small number of posters who persist in thinking that Nancy Krebs brought something meaningful to the authorities and they did nothing with it. It puts Chris and other moderators in a very unfortunate position to decide what is appropriate or not based on complaints about relevancy. I think a moderator's job is much easier, more straightforward, when the only calls to make are clear violations of the rules: posting personal information, abusive language, etc. as detailed in the house rules. It becomes much harder, and in the end a slippery slope, when they are expected to remove posts (or threads) others think are off topic (according to someone) or concern subjects some feel have already been exhausted. See what I mean? What someone else finds relevant, or what they want to say about an interview or a piece of evidence they just saw in a new light may be relevant to some and irrelevant to others. Where to draw the line?Doesn't it amount to an appeal for censorship? And no matter how finely tuned the 'rules' for what can't be posted, on which forum, what the thread title should be, where it's 'permitted' or not permitted to add (in someone's opinion) a pertinent comment becomes ultimately a matter of opinion and a topic for more sniping, arguing and complaining to moderators...turning them into full time babysitters. So I don't see any solution that would benefit JW in the long run in making new rules and restrictions on what can be posted, where, as much as I appreciate the efforts of the peacemakers to work something out. It comes down to a matter of control over content. Not just the complaints of many over the comments of a few, but ultimately the control over what can and can't be discussed on an opinion forum. In other words, I think the problem, the REAL pproblem, is that some just refuse to accept that others are entitled to their opinions and that just because someone doesn't agree with someone else doesn't give them a right to tell someone else to basically, shut up. So it matters little to me that a vast majority would like to see the content they find irrelevent or libelous removed to another forum. "Just because everyone does something, doesn't make it right." This concept can apply to both sides of the issue. Just because the majority of the United States thinks the Ramseys are guilty, doesn't make it a done deal. Just because the majority of posters at JW find MW discussions irrelevent doesn't make that POV right, either, only means it's the popular opinion. I think we all need to take a deep breath and decide if we can "Live and let live." There are a few who no doubt will find that very difficult, but, imo, it's their problem and shouldn't affect the content at JW now or at any time. Once we decide to allow content to be decided by the complaints of the posters, we open the door to all kinds of problems...worse than what I see now. As someone said earlier, ALL the evidence in the Ramsey case points in different directions. That is why there are pro-Ram and anti-Ram forums, because there is a division of opinion and a lack of respect for those who disagree. I would like to think JW can rise above this petty bickering over whether FW and MW are fair topics for discussion. Oh, as for my 'hero' in the Ramsey case, that would be none other than Nancy Krebs, who stepped forward and tried to shine a light into some dark corners and onto some very ugly things going on. And, Lou Smit, who took his case to the public, because the authorities don't want to investigate what he sees as clear evidence pointing to an intruder. Nancy Krebs had the courage to come forward, hoping someone would DO SOMETHING...who are we at JW to drop the ball just because the authorities did? JonBenet is dead...part of 'justice' here is finding out what really happened. It's not necessarily about a trial, though that would be nice. It's exposing the corrupt underbelly of a system that DID NOTHING with the information presented to them. I feel that even if I am the only person at JW who holds that opinion, it is my right to hold that opinion and would expect others who may not agree to still accord me the right to express it. As I accord them the right to express theirs. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "FT, you bad!!!" Posted by A.K. on 02:42:43 5/06/2001 Watch it -- we may get a "cut and paste" on plagiarism next. I don't have a hero for this case. I've seen too many examples of seemingly worthwhile people go kablooey and turn into monsters. Every day is a new chance to act responsibly or reprehensibly. I can't begin to guess which way some people will choose. It's painful to see someone go wrong, but the potential is always there. That's why I have purposely not bonded with anyone. It's a professional detachment, not to be taken as a personal slam. I have great appreciation for the posters and media experts who strive to bring news or information, with attention paid to both sides of the coin. I probably admire least those people who claim they're fence sitters when their actions prove pure advocacy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]