Just delete every post Jetblast makes on the topic. I know that’s against board policy but it would be funny to watch him try to post on something else.
Cheap entertainment, but it isn’t like he’s ever going to say anything intelligent on a subject, based on past history here.
Or if he starts a thread about the CT that Hendrix was murdered, we could hijack it to talk about the stamp.
That’s why he was murdered, because of the stamp.
Did Hendrix do it?
Holy cow.
Mods, you earn your pay. For real, respect. And especially for being so civil in this strange social network you keep afloat. It takes all kinds.
Been here five years and he has 244 posts in a total of 7 threads. 3 about hendrix, so he’s at least a 4 trick pony.
My mistake! I even still have the tabs open where I researched getting just the right one and blew it. 
Or to contribute equally plausible but more entertaining Hendrix CTs.
For instance, did you know that Hendrix was one of Lawrence Welk’s regular musicians* who moonlighted as a rock guitarist? Monika Dannemann met him through her gig as half of the Lennon sisters. Myron Floren murdered Hendrix to protect Welk’s image (drowning him in champagne), while trying to frame Dannemann/Lennon for the killing.
*few people realize this, but he was also a great tap-dancer.
Moving to IMHO.
Nah, it all goes back to Jimi’s days as Buckwheat on Little Rascals. Spanky was still bitter because Hendrix knocked up Darla & planted Alfalfa. He hired Woody Harrelson’s father for the hit. The last words Hendrix heard was the hit-man whispering… the Fat-Man says “otay to you, you muthafucka!”
Again, you are retreating to a position that doesn't answer to or honor the gist of what is being said. I have already made clear that I was referencing the murder according to the context of the OP that you yourself and others also addressed, only by means of the official story rather than his murder. Again, there's no question that the OP clearly stated that Jimi's drug use curtailed his career and therefore made him ineligible for a stamp. You and others honored that context by referencing the official story. Some even referenced untrue allusions like heroin and drug overdose asphyxiation. I did nothing different when I referenced the truthful cause of Jimi's career curtailment, which has much more moral gravity associated with it in terms of the OP's context than parroting the official lies. Especially on a site that advertizes itself as the "Straight Dope". I'm assuming since the moderator refuses to answer my protest that he is indirectly admitting he can't.
As far as I know I violated no site rules and did nothing different than what the others did (only my input had more truthful, verifiable content). Your description of what I did is totally subjective and somewhat pejorative without cause. I honestly believe an objective analysis would show that I wasn't the one who took over the thread. I simply made an on-topic, in-context response to the OP's original post. I respectfully submit that unless the accusation of "being a jerk" can be credibly connected to clear site rules, that the accusation itself is so broad, and its application can be excused at such a indefinite range, as to make it vague to the point of uncredible. Especially when it is being applied to such clear matters of fact. In short, the moderator can apply that incredibly broad violation too easily and therefore it is unfair. Especially when objective analysis is put to post content. If you view the original Hendrix murder thread, and even this one, too much credit and weight is given to obviously unserious posts from people who not only obviously have no knowledge of the case but whose intentions are obviously not, let's say, indicative of objective truth-seeking. An objective viewing of the murder thread would show the actual "hijacking" and improper diversion was committed by those who oppose the truth about Jimi's death. A bias was clearly shown by the moderator where those entries were tolerated and allowed to spin the thread into the desired mess those who steered it that way intended. So nowhere was that obvious subterfuge ever decreed "acting like jerks" by any moderator and the progress of truth was successfully shut down as intended and finally locked by that same moderator. So, in effect, the moderator is being allowed to judge his own actions. The Hendrix murder thread was sabotaged and that sabotage was used by the moderator as an excuse to shut-down the thread. Again, I think all objective measures would bear out a bias by the moderator towards the subject or content.
I'm sorry but I don't think that honestly answers the gist of my analogy. The point that deniers of truth prosper from limitation of information is borne out by examples of censoring societies and how controversial matters are suppressed by less democratic governments. There's no doubt the information about Hendrix's death is being categorically limited on this board. In fact your answer is so self-serving and subjective that I posit it in itself represents a good example of what I'm protesting. The moderator can too freely render the issue anyway he feels and apply violation to the poster by any logic he feels with the threat of enforcement behind it. In effect it gives the moderator the right to describe a perfectly valid subject for which no site rules have been violated in negative terms and act against it according to his own personal bias. That bias may or may not be enforcing non-truth, and the arguments for it, against truth - which in turn goes against all accepted definitions of democratic debate. The question then is who moderates the moderator?
Proof of that bias is shown in the ridiculous reference to my handle above. I chose the name "Jetblast" because of the obvious lies being told about Flight 800 from the official authorities. Again, while many other members have many types of handles you choose to single mine out as being of a particular nature that influences my input. Again, that can be nothing other than evidence of a bias since my input can only be weighed by its objective merit on a case by case basis, which is supposed to be the purpose of any discussion board. Any view of my content vs those who oppose me should decide that. Especially with the murder subject. The Flight 800 NTSB investigators have since come-out and admitted that they were instructed to conceal missile evidence. I present the opinions of those who opposed me in that thread as evidence since they did basically the same thing in the Hendrix murder thread. Again, I am being dunned by the moderator when the truth is clearly on my side. No such sanction is applied to others who do not possess the same level of verification. I would unhesitatingly return with a citation of the moderator's "I am the one who bans" as being the more significant indicator.
I'm afraid the matter of free speech and truth *is* the issue here on the "Straight Dope" site. I find this board to be attended by "Skeptic" types like those on the Randi, and Skeptoid sites. Those boards are notorious for using draconian site rules as a filter for content. While the biased, martinet application of site rules is suggested to have a positive influence on the board the actual objective outcome is quite the opposite and both those named boards are the safe home of deniers and frankly liars (trolls really).
The last answer above makes me fear for credibility and forces me to ask if there is any site recourse for questioning of moderator competency without punishment? Do posters have any protected rights? In my opinion the Hendrix murder thread was shut down because it was becoming too obvious people obviously interested in silencing the topic were beginning to lose their arguments and their input was becoming too clear as the trolling obfuscation it was. I only ask people to honestly evaluate which opinion on this subject has more valid content and credible arguments. I don't think I've committed any violation by doing that. Honestly, is this something that has to be argued so hard in America amongst Americans?
In a country that was founded on questioning the government do Americans pile on against the victim of government murder or do they defend him? What has American become?Show us some proof he was murdered. In a new thread.
No one is stopping you from spreading your crazy theory but the mods do try to keep threads on track. And it’s a narrow gauge track
And free speech only applies to the government. Private entities can do whatever they want.
I’ve already explained why I moderated your post. Our main rule is “don’t be a jerk,” and disrupting a conversation that way is a jerk move. If you need a chapter and verse citation, I’ll go with this:
Are you under some bizarre impression that this is a governmental or public entity that is required by federal law to bend to individual’s will or actively protect their supposed rights?
Since you call the feds names in every other line (for endlessly covering up The Truth) it’s even stranger that you stand on these imaginary government-granted/-supported “rights” to be allowed to keep making claims without a shred of supporting evidence, while clearly violating what ARE established rules here about being a jerk and promoting an individual agenda.
Must be nice to live in a world that works exactly the way you care to define it, and no other way.
Well, it is a world where Jimi was murdered, so there is that.
You also haven’t been punished in any way, Jetblast. You were asked to stop posting about this topic in the postage stamp thread.
And yet in all the years I’ve been here I can’t recall one poster that has been banned “for no reason whatsoever”.
Why do we supply you with jackboots if you’re not going to use them?
Yeah? I don’t remember any bloodstains on your soles. 
Well yes, there’s that, approximately. According to the Many Worlds theory, there is a world where Jimi was murdered. The world we know may or may not be it, but it’s there somewhere.