Dear FA: Survivor forum has become a farce

Regardless of the fact that DNA testing has now conclusively shown that the "main" survivor claimants were not as claimed, and can now prove or disprove any other claims brought, the inescapable FACT remains as well that the literally dozens, if not hundreds, of survivor claimants since 1918 are a part of the story.  There is no reason why people should not discuss their claims and their stories.  I for one find the story of Anna Anderson interesting, obviously NOT as her "being" AN since she was not, but just who WAS this poor delusional woman in reality? How did she end up being "the best of the fakes" as the Romanov family used to say?

We don't use this section to promote claimants, but rather I think it valuable to allow discussion of their stories, and show how and why their stories just aren't true.

Yes, but why include Anna Anderson's story in the section of the forum dedicated to the question of "survivors"?  Clearly she wasn't a survivor . Perhaps  it might be better to have all material relating to her in a "discredited survivor" section....

Perhaps it can even be called the "dustbin".....    

[The Question of SurvivorsAnastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family.]

Yes, but why include Anna Anderson's story in the section of the forum dedicated to the question of "survivors"?  Clearly she wasn't a survivor . Perhaps  it might be better to have all material relating to her in a "discredited survivor" section....

Perhaps it can even be called the "dustbin".....    

Such a fuss over semantics! In reality, that forum is NOT called simply "Survivors". Here's the true name and description, as they appear on the main forum listing:

The Question of Survivors
Anastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family.

Note the word 'question' in the title, and the use of quotation marks around 'survial' in the description. I think it's fairly clear from that alone how the forum management feels about the topic of survival...

myth 
–noun
1.   a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.   stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.   any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.   an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.   an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

"The enduring MYTH of "survival..."


A fuss over semantics INDEED. 

I even saw someone once get mad that 'myth' was in quotations like it meant it wasn't true

And yes, Eddie, some people who whine about 'free speech' for THEIR side forget that it goes BOTH ways, and those of us who disagree have a right to our say, too! Their idea of 'free speech' is they get to say whatever they want, and anyone who doesn't agree needs to shut up and go away.

[The Question of SurvivorsAnastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family.]

Yes, but why include Anna Anderson's story in the section of the forum dedicated to the question of "survivors"?  Clearly she wasn't a survivor . Perhaps  it might be better to have all material relating to her in a "discredited survivor" section....

Perhaps it can even be called the "dustbin".....    

Such a fuss over semantics! In reality, that forum is NOT called simply "Survivors". Here's the true name and description, as they appear on the main forum listing:

The Question of Survivors
Anastasia and the enduring myth of "survival" of members of the Imperial Family.

Note the word 'question' in the title, and the use of quotation marks around 'survial' in the description. I think it's fairly clear from that alone how the forum management feels about the topic of survival...

Hardy-har-har both of you. Very funny.

The word "Question" can be interpreted in different ways to different users, and I DID notice the quotation marks around survival, which are redundant because the word myth has already been used. And why have two sections that are meant as a joke, both the "survivors" and "claimants" section?

So why not an archive section much like the online book section?There are people who would like to discuss these people without having annoying and bizzare theories of survival pop up. I do know people who might be interested in posting their archives on Anna Anderson online, and I have my own collection, I also have these age progression photographs of all 5 imperial children and Anna Anderson which I"ve been meaning to post, for,oh 2 years or so now...

It's just a suggestion!

Commence my  roasting!   

The "Claimants" section was originally created for those who were actually making the claims to post in. When the forum was first up, we had several people at a time claiming to be the children/grandchildren etc of the survivors, so we wanted to relegate them to just one restricted area rather than have them pollute the history discussions.  Their claims were so spurious,often ludicrous, and were never ever ever supported with one shred of genuine evidence, so they all either left in a huff, were suspended for offensive behavior or threatened to sue us and so were permanently banned.

Isn't the forum a quieter place now without them? less entertaining perhaps, but far more civilised.

I read somewhere that Anna Anderson was probably a Polish factory worker named Fransiska Shankowska, which is probably spelled wrong.  Just thought I might say that.

It was great the way the forum was renamed "The Myth and Legends of Survivors" the day the discovery of the last two bodies was announced!

Ha!  That's hilarious!