Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies

[Charles Drago]

Charles, how many times do you have to be told that calling another Forum member an "agent provocateur" or similar is not acceptable? John has said so himself.

If you disagree with what someone has said, then attack their argument - not the person.

You, sir, are an abomination.

In the post that I sent less than 90 seconds ago, I went to great lengths to differentiate between "calling" another Forum member an "agent provocateur" and expressing my opinion that such is the case. I further stated that you would be within your rights to censor any post that made such an accusation without support, convincing evidence.

I never made such an accusation. I simply expressed my opinion that one of this Forum's members is an a/p. I cannot prove it, so I do not state it as fact. I suspect that such is the case.

I need no lessons in anything from you, sir.

By the way, I ended my most recent disappeared post by guessing that you would eliminate it within 90 seconds.

As is most often the case, I was right about you.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Let's try it again. For the sake of the truth, I have REDACTED the name of the Forum member who, in my opinion, is an agent provocateur.

Charles,

If you have a complaint, put it in here. Do NOT continually make new threads when you have been told they will be deleted. Use the appropriate thread.

Thank you.

My threads are disappearing as quickly as I can post them.

You have sent a PM to me in which I am informed that my "warning level" has been increased. You explain the reason as follows:

"Continuing to post threads about 'disappearing threads' when he knows full well that his threads are being disallowed because the original complaint stems from a thread which attacks another forum member."

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are writing in English.

Let me also state for the benefit of readers of this post that I responded to you by suggesting that you use your "warning" as what might best be termed a Texas School Book suppository.

In point of fact, I hadn't the foggiest idea why you were/are disappearing my threads. Your supposition regarding what I allegedly "know full well" that is offered as the raison d'etre for your "warning" is not based in reality.

At this point it may be valuable to review how this all began. Yesterday you had informed me of what was to be your first of at least a dozen deletions of my material:

Charles,

I have made your post invisible because I believe it contains an inappropriate reference with regard to REDACTED. I have notified John S and asked him to advise.

I responded by paraphrasing the post you chose to disappear (is there a portrait of Roberto D'Aubuisson hanging over your bed?):

You, sir, are an intellectual coward.

I began my most recent censored post by offering my opinon on the identity and mission of an individual -- by all accounts a fictive construct -- who is not a registered user of this Forum. I did so within the format of my oft-posted, now censored opinion of a current former member.

Is it now the position of this Forum's so-called "moderators" that fictional characters must not be harshly judged?

"Pinocchio" is a xxxx.

Will you render invisible -- how Orwellian -- this post because of the above accusation?

Is "REDACTED" less fictional than "Pinocchio"?

Who, dear moderators, is "REDACTED"? Is this "person" registered here?

I don't know any "REDACTED". Do you? If so, please enlighten us. If "REDACTED" is the pseudonym of a registered poster, don't we deserve to know it? If so, why aren't you enforcing the rule against such action?

I went on to quote from my published essay, "In the Blossom of Our Sins," as follows:

I shall now put forth—only to dismantle—as fine an argument as I know for the perpetuation (and there’s the rub) of our collegial treatment of the enemy’s pimps, behavior that commonly characterizes “gentlemen’s disagreements” between scholars.

The historian Gordon Craig, in his "New York Review of Books" analysis of David Irving’s controversial biography of Josef Goebbels, wrote, “It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma and shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have an indisputable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.

“Recently,” Craig went on, “when Christopher Hitchins talked with Raul Hilberg, author of the classic text The Destruction of the European Jews, he found him unambiguous on this point. ‘If these people want to speak,’ Hilberg said, ‘let them. It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful for us. I have quoted Eichmann references that come from a neo-Nazi publishing house. I am not for taboos and I am not for repression.”

Nor am I. But would Hilberg join or in any other way dignify an effort to “re-examine” the historical truth of the Holocaust that would compel him in advance to acknowledge the Deniers’ position as an intellectually honest, academically sound, reasoned point of view? Or is his point simply that the arguments of Holocaust Deniers are useful so many years after the established historical truth of the event insofar as they may further reveal the nature of the beast?

Could Messrs. Craig or Hilberg or any of us, in good conscience, have entertained the arguments of apologists for Goebbels and the rest of the Bunker Boys at a time when the gas yet hissed and the piano wiring yet tightened?

I then noted that the Zyklon B cans are being opened and the Steinways are being gutted. Right now. As I write and you read.

I restated that I harbor significant respect and affection for John Simkin as I asked him to consider how his moderators are playing into the enemy's hands.

The enemy' s agents who post on this and other Internet forums have been assigned the strategic goal of leveling the playing field for the lies that protect and otherwise support their masters and their agendas. Their tactics are self-evident and need no additional iteration in this post. They do not seek to win arguments, but only to prolong them ad infinitum. In doing so, they achieve their goal.

Their target is history -- which is to say, future generations of victims.

The moderators of this Forum would move heaven and earth to remove the word "xxxx" from our posts, but have not the slightest objection to posts that are comprised of nothing but lies.

I concluded by noting that, more and more, I am soiled by this place. Yet what choice do I have but to fight on?

Jump ahead in time to this morning. After you removed at least a half-dozen of my subsequent threads in which I simply asked you to explain your actions, I offered this:

What we are witnessing is the beginning of the end of a once-noble educational effort. Like 18th century Redcoats marching in formation into withering guerilla gunfire from the bushes, the owners of this Forum would sooner be destroyed by a ruthless and implacable foe than adapt to the realities of the war they are destined to lose but might have won.

This Forum is being cut to ribbons. And the very leaders who have the most to gain by protecting it are bending over backward to assist in their own destruction.

The end, which is near, will be savage. I can hear the plaintive questions-as-pleas: "Why, kind sir, are you ordering me to stand against this wall? Why the blindfold? Did I not defend you when others questioned your honor, your truthfulness, your very motives?"

It's all over but the shooting.

How very, very sad.

You promptly removed it.

I must close with one more of my disappeared posts, in which I get to the heart of the matter:

Perhaps it is now time to review my oft-posted, currently banned "warning" regarding the entity known as "REDACTED." I reproduce it below in quotes in order to indicate that I am not leveling a charge, but rather citing what has become a controversial construct within these cyber pages in order to invite free, open debate on the larger issue herein addressed.

In so doing, dear moderators, I violate none of this Forum's rules. I am offering analysis of a previously published work which I must cite in its entirety if said analysis is to have any value.

Here is the controversial paragraph which I offer for your informed dissection:

"WARNING: In my personal opinion: 'REDACTED is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that 'he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if 'REDACTED' exists as advertised, 'he' yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of 'his' posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, a'd their goals." [emphasis added today]

Okay. Deep breath, everyone.

Where, within that paragraph, do I state that "REDACTED" is in fact an "agent provocateur"? Do I not preface my comments with notification that I am expressing "personal opinion"? Are the moderators and/or owners of this Forum prepared to make meaningful differentiation between this personal opinion and my personal opinion that, say, REDACTED - DIFFERENT FORUM MEMBER REFERENCED HERE ONLY] has a May-December crush on Jack White? (I'll leave the May and December assignments to you.)

If I had written, "'REDACTED' is an agent provocateur," and then declined to substantiate my claim, you would have every reason to censor my post.

But I didn't.

If I had written, "REDACTED is a xxxx," ditto.

But I didn't.

Agreed?

Why didn't I? Because to the best of my ability to judge -- which is to say, in my opinion -- "REDACTED" is a fictional character.

In my informed opinion, of course.

So it goes, Burton. I trust that you aren't having trouble sitting.

Let's see how long this post lasts.

The over/under is 90 seconds.

Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

Strange, Jan - everyone else seems to receive my PMs but you. Then when I post the PMs, you complain.

May I have your permission to post the text of the PM I sent to your this morning?

This is not the case Evan. Not everyone receives PM's when they should. Michael Hogan has stated this emphatically in the Len Brazil post.

All my posts today have been deleted. No explanation, no PM from anyone. I am not aware of any forum rule that I have broken, unless there is a new rule I am unfamiliar with, that criticism of moderators decisions are outlawed.

David

The following is the text of the second thread I started (the first having disappeared into the void):

Thread title: Deleted thread, Len Brazil, James Randi etc.

Quote

As usual, no PM advising it is to be deleted or why... it's just gone.

Explanation please? Who deleted it and why?

The sub text of the deleted thread focused on the Journal of Debunking911 Conspiracies, Len Brazil's involvement with that suspect body and went on to ask if a psyops team was operating in the Education Forum. It continued by providing a link (see below) and the text of an Alex Constantine article about the arch debunker James Randi of CSICOP, his CIA connections, false memory syndrome and ritual abuse of children --- subjects that are at the front of those discussed in this forum. (see: http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2008/0...trol-fmsf.html).

It also raised growing concerns about bias in moderation - a subject that can hardly be helped by the deletion of the new thread in question.

I consider the post I made as fair and reasonable and aimed at informng other members who are less familiar with the alleged association that may connect debunking with US military and intelligence based psyops.

Unquote

Still no explanation why this and other threads/posts of mine have been deleted today.

***

Jan has left the forum. I will join him in due course and when I'm ready to do so. Others have signaled the same intention too, following some quite inappropriate (imo) moderating decisions. Hopefully tis post will not be deleted or set to invisible as I am under no sanction that I have been advised of. I am formally writing to John Simkin stating that I have lost all confidence in Evan as a Moderator. I don't expect a reply or acknowledgement.

Edited August 9, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Evan Burton]

David,

I thought it was made quite clear: threads which question a member's reasons for posting are prohibited. Len uses a different screen name on a different forum. That is none of this Forum's concern. If people have issues with what Len posts on this Forum, then address those issues. Post arguments as to why what he says is wrong. Demonstrate why his thinking is flawed, or his sources are inaccurate.

Do not question WHY he posts. Do not call him - or any member - an agent provocateur or accuse them of posting disinformation.

Discredit his arguments, not him.

If people start threads or make posts that violate those principles, the threads / posts will be deleted.

With respect to Jan, he is free to post here at any time. I simply offered a compromise regarding a post. He says he did not receive the PM with the compromise, so I asked permission to post the details of the compromise on the thread. That way he could see what I offered and could decide if he was reasonable or not.

Jan refused me permission to post the details of the compromise offer. Seeing how he has stated that he never received the PM and does not wish to be a part of the Forum, I feel I can now publicly state what that compromise was.

There was a post of Jan's that I felt could be interpreted as calling another Forum member a xxxx. Kathy alerted me to the fact that Jan did not intend for it to be taken in that manner. I pointed out that despite that it was not intended that way, it could be interpreted that way. As you are aware, we strongly discourage the use of the words xxxx, lying, etc.

In order to allow Jan's feelings to be made known and yet remain within the forum rules, I suggested that we alter his original words:

"What a crock of lying, disinformational, BS."

to read

"That website is a crock of deceitful, disinformational, BS." (or something very similar)

That way it is quite clear than Jan is referring to the website, and not Len.

The offer is still there if Jan wishes to discuss it. He will need to, however, put his photo back up in accordance with the Forum rules. As of this time, he has replaced his avatar photo with an emoticon.

Strange, Jan - everyone else seems to receive my PMs but you. Then when I post the PMs, you complain.

May I have your permission to post the text of the PM I sent to your this morning?

This is not the case Evan. Not everyone receives PM's when they should. Michael Hogan has stated this emphatically in the Len Brazil post.

All my posts today have been deleted. No explanation, no PM from anyone. I am not aware of any forum rule that I have broken, unless there is a new rule I am unfamiliar with, that criticism of moderators decisions are outlawed.

David

The following is the text of the second thread I started (the first having disappeared into the void):

Thread title: Deleted thread, Len Brazil, James Randi etc.

Quote

As usual, no PM advising it is to be deleted or why... it's just gone.

Explanation please? Who deleted it and why?

The sub text of the deleted thread focused on the Journal of Debunking911 Conspiracies, Len Brazil's involvement with that suspect body and went on to ask if a psyops team was operating in the Education Forum. It continued by providing a link (see below) and the text of an Alex Constantine article about the arch debunker James Randi of CSICOP, his CIA connections, false memory syndrome and ritual abuse of children --- subjects that are at the front of those discussed in this forum. (see: http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2008/0...trol-fmsf.html).

It also raised growing concerns about bias in moderation - a subject that can hardly be helped by the deletion of the new thread in question.

I consider the post I made as fair and reasonable and aimed at informng other members who are less familiar with the alleged association that may connect debunking with US military and intelligence based psyops.

Unquote

Still no explanation why this and other threads/posts of mine have been deleted today.

***

Jan has left the forum. I will join him in due course and when I'm ready to do so. Others have signaled the same intention too, following some quite inappropriate (imo) moderating decisions. Hopefully tis post will not be deleted or set to invisible as I am under no sanction that I have been advised of. I am formally writing to John Simkin stating that I have lost all confidence in Evan as a Moderator. I don't expect a reply or acknowledgement.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Evan,

As you well know (and are being disingenuous about in your above response I believe) my deleted posts focused attention on the website that has as a member of an "advisory board" a certain Len Brazil. The post did not criticize Len Brazil and only mentioned his name in passing. Instead it posed the question about the validity of the entity he is a member of and wondered if that entity was similar in function and intent as James Randi and CSICOP, noting Randi's close associations with the CIA. The underlying question implied was whether there was a psyops team operating in the Education Forum.

I think in view of what has happened over the weekend this question has been very clearly answered, I think.

A number of members including myself no longer trust your judgement as a Moderator.

Why should Jan Klimkowski submit to you modifying his words because you misunderstood, or choose to misrepresent, what they said. Rather you should have apologized to him for getting the wrong end of the stick and reinserted his original post.

Has a decision been made to delete the Len Brazil post yet? If not why not? If a decision has been made not to delete would you please unlock it so that others may continue to post in what is an important thread.

David Guyatt

[Evan Burton]

Why should Jan Klimkowski submit to you modifying his words because you misunderstood, or choose to misrepresent, what they said. Rather you should have apologized to him for getting the wrong end of the stick and reinserted his original post.

Because exactly the same situation occurred not long ago, where Jan believed Len compared him to a holocaust denier, and I failed to act. Does Len not deserve the same treatment as anyone else?

The compromise offer would have made clear what he meant without the possibility of it being interpreted as being directed at Len. At least two moderators read the comment as being directed at Len.

The thread about psyops has been deleted; if you care to repost it - ensuring it conforms to the standards expected - then there will be no problems.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Why should Jan Klimkowski submit to you modifying his words because you misunderstood, or choose to misrepresent, what they said. Rather you should have apologized to him for getting the wrong end of the stick and reinserted his original post.

Because exactly the same situation occurred not long ago, where Jan believed Len compared him to a holocaust denier, and I failed to act. Does Len not deserve the same treatment as anyone else?

The compromise offer would have made clear what he meant without the possibility of it being interpreted as being directed at Len. At least two moderators read the comment as being directed at Len.

The thread about psyops has been deleted; if you care to repost it - ensuring it conforms to the standards expected - then there will be no problems.

Evan,

I am going to speak openly and I hope this does not cause this post to be peremptorily deleted. If one cannot air one's complaints in the complaints thread, where else can one do it....

As you already know because I have already made this clear, I can't repost that thread as it has been lost to history due to your biased and hasty decision to delete it. Until this weekend I felt not the need in these fora to copy my posts and threads as I had not hitherto seen or expected to see the wholesale murder of them by one Moderator (you) for the poorest of poor reasons.

I would be grateful if you would post a link to that exact charge about Jan and holocaust denial and any subsequent moderation decisions made about it, so that I can review the accuracy of the charge you now make. Thank you.

I do remember that you recently took action on another post Jan made, that Jan appealed to John of unfair treatment at your hands, and that John upheld Jan's complaint and asked you to issue and apology, which you did and which Jan accepted. I do know that you have reacted badly to Jan's presence here in recent times (prompting an outrageous outburst of spleen) - to the extent that it was clear there was a personal issue involved and that has grown out of all proportion. This, in my view, has entirely clouded your judgements. And this is why I have expressed my formal opinion to John Simkin that you are no longer fit to Moderate these fora. As I anticipated John has not responded. Nor did he respond to Jan's appeal against your latest decision.

But it is not relevant anyway, because it is against the natural order of justice to carry over resentment (and/or harbour a vendetta against a member for being forced to apologize - assuming that was the case) from an earlier post (unresolved or not) to current times. If that were the case then every poster on this forum from their accumulated past posts - especially the debunking crowd whom you appear to heavily favour and protect (imo), would have every post excised. After all, the debunking crowd specialize in attacking other members motives, ridiculing, and baiting them and engaging in inflammatory statements and so forth. But I haven't yet seen you censure any of them to any marked extent for any of that.

What's good for the Goose Evan, is also good for the Gander.

Favouring one camp because they are the natural allies of your own positions, while punishing others who hold opposing views, is a terrible abuse of power. If you have any self respect left, you'd resign and allow other moderators to step into the breach. I am quite certain none will voluntarily step forward in opposition to your wishes otherwise - or that John Simkin will replace you no matter how badly you damage the forum by running amok (and believe me this place HAS been badly damaged after these recent happenings). I think you are also wily enough to know that this is the case and that this knowledge invigorates your decisions. Just my opinion, though.

Meanwhile many regular members here have now signed up for a new forum as they are sick and tired of the Colby debunking crowd and your protection of them. The view is that this place no longer warrants the effort to try to salvage it because the patients have taken over the asylum and that there is no courage in the leadership to take tough decisions. How this will play out only time will tell. But as I have indicated earlier, Jan has left, I will be leaving shortly, as will others. The upshot will be that this place will not have the clash of opposing views and will be quieter. This may be a good thing... I don't know. I'll be interested to see if the debunking crowd end up debunking each other or just fall silent -- mission achieved as one member here recently observed? Who knows what the future holds. But the word is now out that this is no longer the place for objectivity, balance or fairness or for knowledgeable members, researchers, writers, journalists and others who have an interest in those subject this forum has been a safe harbour to until recent times.

I have no way of knowing if the two moderators you mention have reviewed their decisions in the light of Jan's entirely credible follow-on explanation (once he actually received an explanation from you why you deleted his post - although he still hasn't receive the fabled PM you say you sent him - the fact that Antti has a copy does not prove you sent Jan a PM does it), because every other Moderator here, including John Simkin appears to have donned flak-vests, tin helmets and legged it to the bunkers, leaving you to run the place on your lonesome, taking whatever decisions to delete or locks thread/posts your spleen and bias sees fit to take (again in my opinion).

David Guyatt (my real name)

PS, you will note that I have changed my avatar, in view of the nonsense that has surrounded this subject in recent days. The fact is that when I began posting on this forum, John asked me to post an avatar. I declined and explained my reasons for doing so, namely security following two very unpleasant death threats that included the delivery to my home of a firebomb and other items on other another occasion. There is no publicly available picture of me anywhere and never will be. John offered ideas of a compromise and I therefore used, with his tacit understanding, a picture that is similar to me in some respects (lifted from the internet) but is not me. This has amounted to an intelligent compromise hitherto. The recent nonsense you have engaged in with Maggie has highlighted the ridiculousness we now see being enacted. I have therefore chosen another picture that might be me, but might not. If you have a problem with this, please contact John and ask him to PM me to discuss this. I have kept the original exchange of emails discussing this topic with John btw.

Edited August 10, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Charles Drago]

To the Moderators,

On the issue of avatars: The alleged photo of "Len Colby" bears a striking resemblance to Denzel Washington. I find this odd, especially in light of "Colby's" repeated insistence that "he" lost a "relative" in the Holocaust.

It is not my intention to claim that individuals of African descent were not murdered by the Nazis. Nor am I likely to express disappointment if the "Colby" avatar turns out to be a portrait of a "Colby." The lifeguard at the gene pool is not beyond the occasional practice of irony.

I simply ask for clarification by moderators on this issue.

Until resolution is forthcoming, may I suggest that all other members of this Forum consider changing their respective avatars to Denzel Washington portraits?

Best,

C."D.W." D.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Matthew Lewis]

To the Moderators,

On the issue of avatars: The alleged photo of "Len Colby" bears a striking resemblance to Denzel Washington.

I'm not a moderator but I don't see the resemblance at all.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Charles Drago]

To the Moderators,

On the issue of avatars: The alleged photo of "Len Colby" bears a striking resemblance to Denzel Washington.

I'm not a moderator but I don't see the resemblance at all.

Perhaps James Richards can settle the issue?

[Dawn Meredith]

Why should Jan Klimkowski submit to you modifying his words because you misunderstood, or choose to misrepresent, what they said. Rather you should have apologized to him for getting the wrong end of the stick and reinserted his original post.

Because exactly the same situation occurred not long ago, where Jan believed Len compared him to a holocaust denier, and I failed to act. Does Len not deserve the same treatment as anyone else?

The compromise offer would have made clear what he meant without the possibility of it being interpreted as being directed at Len. At least two moderators read the comment as being directed at Len.

The thread about psyops has been deleted; if you care to repost it - ensuring it conforms to the standards expected - then there will be no problems.

Evan,

I am going to speak openly and I hope this does not cause this post to be peremptorily deleted. If one cannot air one's complaints in the complaints thread, where else can one do it....

As you already know because I have already made this clear, I can't repost that thread as it has been lost to history due to your biased and hasty decision to delete it. Until this weekend I felt not the need in these fora to copy my posts and threads as I had not hitherto seen or expected to see the wholesale murder of them by one Moderator (you) for the poorest of poor reasons.

I would be grateful if you would post a link to that exact charge about Jan and holocaust denial and any subsequent moderation decisions made about it, so that I can review the accuracy of the charge you now make. Thank you.

I do remember that you recently took action on another post Jan made, that Jan appealed to John of unfair treatment at your hands, and that John upheld Jan's apology and asked you to issue and apology, which you did and which Jan accepted. I do know that you have reacted badly to Jan's presence here in recent times (prompting an outrageous outburst of spleen) - to the extent that it was clear there was a personal issue involved and that has grown out of all proportion. This, in my view, has entirely clouded your judgements. And this is why I have expressed my formal opinion to John Simkin that you are no longer fit to Moderate these fora. As I anticipated John has not responded. Nor did he respond to Jan's appeal against your latest decision.

But it is not relevant anyway, because it is against the natural order of justice to carry over resentment (and/or harbour a vendetta against a member for being forced to apologize - assuming that was the case) from an earlier post (unresolved or not) to current times. If that were the case then every poster on this forum from their accumulated past posts - especially the debunking crowd whom you appear to heavily favour and protect (imo), would have every post excised. After all, the debunking crowd specialize in attacking other members motives, ridiculing, and baiting them and engaging in inflammatory statements and so forth. But I haven't yet seen you censure any of them to any marked extent for any of that.

What's good for the Goose Evan, is also good for the Gander.

Favouring one camp because they are the natural allies of your own positions, while punishing others who hold opposing views, is a terrible abuse of power. If you have any self respect left, you'd resign and allow other moderators to step into the breach. I am quite certain none will voluntarily step forward in opposition to your wishes otherwise - or that John Simkin will replace you no matter how badly you damage the forum by running amok (and believe me this place HAS been badly damaged after these recent happenings). I think you are also wily enough to know that this is the case and that this knowledge invigorates your decisions. Just my opinion, though.

Meanwhile many regular members here have now signed up for a new forum as they are sick and tired of the Colby debunking crowd and your protection of them. The view is that this place no longer warrants the effort to try to salvage it because the patients have taken over the asylum and that there is no courage in the leadership to take tough decisions. How this will play out only time will tell. But as I have indicated earlier, Jan has left, I will be leaving shortly, as will others. The upshot will be that this place will not have the clash of opposing views and will be quieter. This may be a good thing... I don't know. I'll be interested to see if the debunking crowd end up debunking each other or just fall silent -- mission achieved as one member here recently observed? Who knows what the future holds. But the word is now out that this is no longer the place for objectivity, balance or fairness or for knowledgeable members, researchers, writers, journalists and others who have an interest in those subject this forum has been a safe harbour to until recent times.

I have no way of knowing if the two moderators you mention have reviewed their decisions in the light of Jan's entirely credible follow-on explanation (once he actually received an explanation from you why you deleted his post - although he still hasn't receive the fabled PM you say you sent him - the fact that Antti has a copy does not prove you sent Jan a PM does it), because every other Moderator here, including John Simkin appears to have donned flak-vests, tin helmets and legged it to the bunkers, leaving you to run the place on your lonesome, taking whatever decisions to delete or locks thread/posts your spleen and bias sees fit to take (again in my opinion).

David Guyatt (my real name)

PS, you will note that I have changed my avatar, in view of the nonsense that has surrounded this subject in recent days. The fact is that when I began posting on this forum, John asked me to post an avatar. I declined and explained my reasons for doing so, namely security following two very unpleasant death threats that included the delivery to my home of a firebomb and other items on other another occasion. There is no publicly available picture of me anywhere and never will be. John offered ideas of a compromise and I therefore used, with his tacit understanding, a picture that is similar to me in some respects (lifted from the internet) but is not me. This has amounted to an intelligent compromise hitherto. The recent nonsense you have engaged in with Maggie has highlighted the ridiculousness we now see being enacted. I have therefore chosen another picture that might be me, but might not. If you have a problem with this, please contact John and ask him to PM me to discuss this. I have kept the original exchange of emails discussing this topic with John btw.

I see this issue as the forum having a mod who in essence is anti conspiracy, whose political philosophy is similar to that of the attack dogs, so he naturally is more defensive of their positions than those of Jan, Jack, David, Charlie etc.

This is NOT what the forum used to be like. While anti- CT posts were not banned, they were also not lauded.

When someone says the least little thing about "Len" it's deleted but CTers can be called names, mocked, and worse yet this is tolerated.

If people say they are not receiviing PM's I believe them.

John's silence speaks volumes.

Dawn

I also long ago noted that the pic of "Len" resembled DW. I chalked it up to coincidence or good genes.

[Len Colby]

Evan,

As you well know (and are being disingenuous about in your above response I believe) my deleted posts focused attention on the website that has as a member of an "advisory board" a certain Len Brazil. The post did not criticize Len Brazil and only mentioned his name in passing.

Who's "being disingenuous" now David the title of the thread was "Len Brazil and the James Randi art of debunking" you referred to me in each of the first 5 paragraphs and said you suspected that as I "as well as others here present - may form part of a psyops team aimed at wrecking or taking over de facto control of this forum." and that the site I'm associated with was "an intelligence or other front behid which psyops are being conducted." You know that such comments are not allowed here, John made that quite clear. Then you violate the rule a few days later and ask why your thread was deleted, as if you didn't know. Drago it seems intentionally got himself put on moderation to play the role of a martyr, judging by you new avatar you want to be one as well.

Instead it posed the question about the validity of the entity he is a member of and wondered if that entity was similar in function and intent as James Randi and CSICOP, noting Randi's close associations with the CIA. The underlying question implied was whether there was a psyops team operating in the Education Forum.

Something which it offered zero evidence of which. It was seemingly with good reason that one of the leading researchers of the truth movement said Constantine's site was “treacherous”, “dishonest”, and advanced “ridiculous arguments”

[Len Colby]

When someone says the least little thing about "Len" it's deleted but CTers can be called names, mocked, and worse yet this is tolerated.

Dawn (post # 69 of the locked Len Brazil thread) wrote:

Colby has called me names and it's been left up

BS – Can you cite any occasions when I `called you names`? I don’t recall every doing so, I rarely resort to name calling and when I do it’s normally in response to a provocation. IF I ever did so to you it was in response to one. You can do a forum search for all of my posts in which the keyword ‘dawn’ appears, the worst thing I said about you what you were “an extremely unobservant person” or words to that effect, which under the circumstances was appropriate.

[Len Colby]

To the Moderators,

On the issue of avatars: The alleged photo of "Len Colby" bears a striking resemblance to Denzel Washington.

I'm not a moderator but I don't see the resemblance at all.

I disagree, I think for a white guy my resemblance to him is striking. Soon however a member of the forum will tell us that he isn't really African-American but "almost white" LOL

[Maggie Hansen]

Well, now, ain't this a kick!!! That great, laughing picture of David which I always thought came from he and a friend having a great time at a pub, is not David.

The avatar problem came from the protests over Matt Lewis' avatar, which he had to change, umm, I believe. And since that was done, someone protested about anothers, etc, and now it is because of "sides" that this is being done, or, anyway, that's how it looks to me.

I think way too much energy is being focused in all of this, and do not see the overall picture as one of psyops, etc. I think it's more of "if I have to he has to", and maybe "he may not be who he seems, but maybe I'm not either-- and "you had better declare who you are, because we think we know who you are, though we may not be who we are"

The way of debate is being lost on this. It just opened a can of worms.

I am not asking anyone to change their beliefs, but do any of you see that it seems to be OK to ask Matt to do this, but it's not OK, and actually arguable for someone else to be asked to do the same? Anyone see a problem?

Kathy

Kathy,

Yes, equal treatment is all that people have been asking for and not getting. That is why the brouhaha. If Matt had to change his photo because of what ever would it not have been a good idea to get every one's picture to conform to the same standard? And to do it at the same time instead of picking off people one at a time? Why not send out a notice to all members at the same time stating that pictures must now be standard format face on passport type no less than 12 months old? Most people have used the passport style anyway. And yes it does put a face to the words and makes it more personal which is nice. Whether or not it is the 'real' person is another story altogether and the amount of administration required by the forum management in verifying this I am sure is well beyond them in terms of time and resources required. So to a large extent it has to be taken on trust. In most cases we will never know unless they are publicly known such as Jack White and many others here.

And it is the issue of trust which has not been dealt with very well by some of the moderators IMHO. David, Jack, Charles and Jan are totally right to bring up the matter of the identity of Colby/Brasil in this forum. What he or any other member does on any other forum is not relevant but what he does and who he is here does matter a great deal. Who and what are we dealing with? The points in David's and Jan's post here explain it more than adequately so I wont go over it again. But I will point out that some of the research and discussions here are about things that some others would prefer to remain secret. It is a great pity that much of the research in this area (whether it be political assassination, 911, mind control, organised pedophilia, black operations and technology and other areas) has been forced to take place off the forum (which defeats the forums purpose to a large extent) because the methods of 'debate' by some here has made forum a hostile dead end. It would be so much better to see this able to take place in an open and collegial manner in order that the subject matter have much more light shone on it than is currently the case. They say the truth will set us free. Sounds good to me. But it is hard to work in trust for truth with a cookoo in the nest. It is not a matter of differing beliefs. I see no one having a problem with healthy debate on any issue. But the trust has been broken and there is the matter of agendas and motives.

Instead the moderators run around screaming at Jack like he is a naughty child for not having the right socks on and to fix his bio link IMMEDIATELY or be 'disappeared' . I am screamed at for not having a pretty enough picture though others have 45 year old pictures from their long lost youth on display, others have some one holding a gun, riding a motor bike, lovely soft focus 3/4 blurrs in place but only I am told to 'appear' or I will 'disappeared'. Presumably to the same cyberia that Jack will inhabit with me. Good company at least. Meanwhile the elephant in the room is un-noticed by those with eyes wide shut. There is not much left of the room now and it is knee deep in elephant manure. Though others smell only roses. What a shame.