Evan Burton Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 There are many problems with the way moderation is done and I hope to expand on each of them. First there is a structural problem that we have apparently lost two and yet no replacements have been made. Gary Loughran has not been on this Forum since 1/26/09 and was not posting much before then. I've never been aware of his inclusion in moderator's decision (though he may have been very silently) but is obviously not now. Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. I believe he is too busy with university, but whatever, he is also not around participating in moderation activities and we are led to believe all is OK. This is a matter to be raised with John Simkin and Andy Walker. Next, one person, Even Burton has apparently self-appointed himself as grand poohbah of the moderators, initiating what seems like more than 80% of all actions and then only calling on the remaining few others to rubberstamp his decisions and actions. Why is it that Burton was front and center in all the controvery over Len's identity over closing and changing threads he is actively participating in and antagonistic to the theses of? Why is he the one who has innitiated by far more of the warnings and exectution of moderation and permanent moderation? More so when he obviously has an anti-conspiracy stance on the political conspiracy section and defends the few other anti-conspiracists both in their posts and when others call for their moderation. Your opinion. Others disagree with you. Also, why do you continually raise the matter of Len's identity when it has been settled? DO YOU DISPUTE THAT LEN COLBY IS USING HIS CORRECT NAME ON THIS FORUM? A name which is used off-forum is no concern of this forum. If you persist in this line, I will recommend to John and Andy that no action be taken against any member that who discusses any identity that YOU use on other forums. How they deal with that recommendation is their concern. Secondly, my stance on matters has nothing to do with how I carry out the responsibilities I have been given. I am required to apply the rules equally. If I do not apply them equally, then complaint should be made to John or Andy. Len has - for the most part - addressed the CONTENT of posts made. Every now and again he deviates and makes comments against a poster. These are dealt with on an individual basis like anyone else. Sometimes discussions get heated and leeway is given to people. If things get too heated, the leeway is removed and people are warned. If you think the rules are not being applied fairly, then complaint should be made to John or Andy. I don't find things above board nor even handed. I have listed some of the bias and wrong-calls and will document more. It would be best if others pipe-in here too. I have long called for Evan Burton to recuse himself from all further moderation activities, and the Forum get at least three new neutral moderators - none being overly active than the others. Those of us who are at the forefront of 911 Truth and other conspiracies not to the pleasure of the powers that be are well aware we are being closely watched by Burton for any move that can get us on moderation, chastised or IMO, his wish, removed or so disgusted and harrassed, as to leave. If you have complaint, then take it to John or Andy. I am generally happy with how I have conducted myself. (End of Part 1. Part 2 to follow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 Others didn't and don't have photos and they will not be removed, but Magda was - how do you know she isn't an observant conservative Moslem and what about Dunne who was allowed {I assume} to not show his face - sadly one of the best posters on this Forum EVER and no longer here - likely out of disgust with the situation which IMO is designed to destroy the conspiracy section - not keep it in 'order'. Others did and do not have the links to their bios. Pardon my anger, but are you deaf Peter? Are you ignoring all my posts? Do you read them? Magda was asked to contact John if she had a reason for not showing an image which Jack White demanded all of us show. She chose not to do so. It was good enough for the "anti-conspiracy" camp; are you saying the other side should have different rules? Speak to John and Andy about Duane. I agree with their actions. And Duane showed an image which fully complied with Forum rules and was never - let me say that again - NEVER - called into question. Just another one of your "inaccuracies". Jack White did not break it - it broke when the webpage it was linked to changed their webpage. John Simkin had originally made the link for Jack, as Jack didn't know how. Evan, showing bias and total lack of empathy for someone he has repeatedly shown nothing but antagonism to in posts and actions gave Jack not one jot of leeway and refused to do the re-link himself or ask John or someone else. Jack is a longterm and well-known researcher who was invited here - some way to treat a guest - and some wonder why so many invited here no longer post?! And I could go on and will.... Just how many times do you need to be shown that you are wrong? How many times do you need to be shown? We could not correct the link unless Jack provided his private password to us. He was given several days to correct the problem. . This was stated REPEATEDLY. Your accusation simply shows you have not even done me the simple courtesy of reading my replies. How do we know that other's photos are actually themselves? Only a few do we have independant means to verify, anyway. I discussed this with Magda. I am happy to submit to John Simkin a Statuary Declaration with my passport details / scan. I have nothing to hide. I am happy for a third party to check my avatar with my current appearance. Are you Peter? It would seem your avatar shows a much younger Peter, but that doesn't worry me. Still, if you are so worried about this, then lets get all members to provide certified scan of their passports. I will do it. Let me say this again: I WILL DO IT. Are you happy to make it known that you want all members to do this Peter? Are you prepared to demand it as a requirement? OR DO YOU JUST WANT IT TO APPLY TO PEOPLE YOU HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST? The fact that the number of pro-conspiracy posters FAR outnumber those who might be called skeptical of conpsiracy have been disaplined, had their posts made invisible, been warned, moderated and put on the obscene permanent moderation speaks volumes to the bias being shown and an agenda being followed IMO - whether by design or just due to personal bias and blindnesses is less imporatant than that it is happening. If you think this is correct, then I would ask EVERYONE to read posts made by those people. Once again, I should remind EVERYONE that moderators do NOT have the power to ban people or place them on moderation. That can only be done by the admins. Since the summer coup and carnage that let to the DPF, this Forum has IMO not been the same and a lesser force - except to the anti-conpiracy crowd who aided in and helped orchestrate this - and applaud and revel in it. Planned demo IMO disguised as modertate and unbiased moderation and posts.No one should be allowed to moderate a thread they themselves are actively posting upon; more so in an antagonistic way to the thread starter and not when they started the thread themselves. This should be self-evident, but has happened many times - and to my knowledge ONLY by Burton. The "revolt" has shown that people who think that they should be above the law have left. I disagree, but they still have accounts and can post - if they abide by Forum rules. I don't make the rules, Peter. If people cannot debase themselves to such a level as to conform to rules which apply to the rest of us - the great unwashed - then I for one am not sure I really want to hear what they have to say. What about the Deep Bull forum, Peter? Not much in the way of dissent, is there? No-one is permitted to say anything against the crowd, are they? All we see there are a number of people who agree with themselves. More soon. Look forward to it. Just a reminder - you have my full permission to post on this Forum the PMs I have sent to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 3, 2009 Author Share Posted May 3, 2009 Oh - and people should ask themselves - why do you insist on this continual vendetta against me? Is it because I refuse to be intimidated by those I disagree with? Is it because someone has a personal grudge against me? Is it because people are afraid of what I might say? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Magda was - how do you know she isn't an observant conservative Moslem LOL was that a serious question? and what about Dunne who was allowed {I assume} to not show his face - sadly one of the best posters on this Forum EVER So someone who basiclly shares your worldview was allowed to post here despite having an unclear photo and this is evidence that people who share your worlview are being discriminated against because of their photos? Evan - He's talking abiut Robert Charles-Dunne not Duane and no longer here - likely out of disgust with the situation which IMO is designed to destroy the conspiracy section Making assumtions without any evidence, typical truther behavoir The fact that the number of pro-conspiracy posters FAR outnumber those who might be called skeptical of conpsiracy have been disaplined, had their posts made invisible, been warned, moderated and put on the obscene permanent moderation speaks volumes to the bias being shown and an agenda being followed Perhaps that's because the people whose behavior calls for such actions are more likely to be "pro-conspiracy posters", look at the recent example of Mark Stapleton, you having escaped sanction is evidence that in some instances "pro-conspiracy posters", are given leeway here. Since the summer coup and carnage that let to the DPF, this Forum has IMO not been the same and a lesser force - except to the anti-conpiracy crowd who aided in and helped orchestrate this - and applaud and revel in it. Planned demo IMO disguised as modertate and unbiased moderation and posts. The exodus was for the most part voluntary we've been over this. The forum has been more peaceful since they left, the only ones who regularly made interesting posts was Maggie. Jan did so once in a while and David Guyatt (who was alloweed to post a photo of someone else) was funny but his 'serious' posts were junk all left because they wanted to. More soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Peter abuses his authority and violated forum rules (questioning the motives of a poster) here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=169428 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I got a PM from Peter regarding the Goldman Sacks thread, since he has a track record of making e-mails sent to him public, is acting in clear conflict of interest and there was nothing personal in the mesage I feel fully justified in posting it and my reply here. Your post was off topic and more than off-topic a derailing of the topic to your favorite posting activity here - anti 911 and some occassional posts on other topics of persons who also believe in an alternative 911 view. I suggest you yourself remove the post and put it if you want on an appropriate 911 thread....so no one else has to move it and generate another complaint from you. Since you: 1) Have repeatedly made off topic posts in attempts to derail active threads both before and after becoming a moderator. Note also that your thread can hardly be considered active since no one but us has posted in it. 2) Insisted before becoming one that moderators not moderate threads they were active participants in. 3) Continue to violate other forum rules (calling members motives into question) You have no moral authority on this issue, I will only move my post if ANOTHER moderator asks me to and he or she explains why I should do this when you were not obliged to move (or remove) and of your off topic posts. If you erase it or make it invisible I will repost it unless another moderator asks me not to. You hoped to score points on 911 even on a topic not about 911 and backhandedly discredit both Taibbi IMO and alternative views on 911...as if one can't have different opinions on each. Bizzare that you think I was trying to discredit Taibbi since I completely agree with him. One of you main 9/11 theories is that people refuse to accept it was an inside job because of some mental block but numerous leftists highly critical of the US government especially Bush Jr. have either directly criticized the truth movement or accepted that the attacks were carried out by OBL /AQ without US involvement besides Taibbi there’s : Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Ed Said, Carlos the Jackal and Alexander Cockburn. Your contentious and endlessly combattive attitude here on the Forum is very much akin IMO to that of Tim Gratz, who was removed for that eventually. LOL a case of projection if I ever saw one, YOU are the most “contentious and endlessly combattive [sic]” member of this forum. No other moderator or administrator has said anything like this to me. You on the other hand frequently came within 1 vote of being put on moderation. Check with John about Gratz, you’ve made this mistake (and been corrected) before he was booted for threatening legal action against the forum a 2nd time. He had done so previously and was booted but allowed to rejoin, and after doing so again was permanently banished. Though I disagreed with Peter's position that moderators should not moderate threads they participate in I think they should not act as moderators when they are they an interested party i.e. the supposed victim or perpetrator of rules violations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 There are many problems with the way moderation is done and I hope to expand on each of them. First there is a structural problem that we have apparently lost two and yet no replacements have been made. Gary Loughran has not been on this Forum since 1/26/09 and was not posting much before then. I've never been aware of his inclusion in moderator's decision (though he may have been very silently) but is obviously not now. Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. I believe he is too busy with university, but whatever, he is also not around participating in moderation activities and we are led to believe all is OK. Gary Loughran and John Geraghty might not be very active moderators but they have always been asked to vote on moderating decisions. (They have not always done this but that is up to them.) What do you mean by this statement?: "Gary Loughran has not been on this Forum since 1/26/09 and was not posting much before then. I've never been aware of his inclusion in moderator's decision (though he may have been very silently) but is obviously not now." What evidence have you got to support this clearly inaccurate statement that he has not been consulted? You say that "John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance." Who are these people who have been removed? People have been placed on moderation because they refused to abide my the rules. They decided to go away and establish their own forum. If you are right that John Geraghty is the most likely to "find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance" he has never told me that. Has he said that to you? If not, I suspect he will not be very happy about your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary Loughran Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) There are many problems with the way moderation is done and I hope to expand on each of them. First there is a structural problem that we have apparently lost two and yet no replacements have been made. Gary Loughran has not been on this Forum since 1/26/09 and was not posting much before then. I've never been aware of his inclusion in moderator's decision (though he may have been very silently) but is obviously not now. Hi Peter, I hope the joys of the 'reported post' are being met with enthusiastic and swift response. I became sick and tired of being sick and tired attempting to moderate the bugsy malone style rules warfare, where the reported post replaced the cream pie (and reasoned debate). Most annoying of all was that an adult response was expected. I could go on, and you'll be delighted to know I won't . However, feel free to check, sometime August/September last year, my posts in a topic called "The conspiracy against the forum" (or something close to that) where I explained my views and somehow, and most unexpectedly, got a shot across the bow from Bernice. I'm only asking you to read this, if you could be bothered, as it is contemporaneous and unspoilt by the revision I might attempt in this post. I don't know why you feel you should be aware of my involvement in any moderating decision. However, I was involved in many, particularly, where I thought the topic assumed enough importance - as pretentious as that sounds and probably was, I did value my time a little more than to have to, against my better judegement, chase good folk around for a bio or an avatar or because they provoked or incited folk in debate. I'm amazed that you are not aware of, nor remember, any of the moderation decisions I was involved in and may even have influenced on occasion. I'm not inclined toward proactive offense in most things outside of sport. I did however defend the rights of many people on the forum, usually, as you said, silently and, I like to think, effectively, on merit and without prejudice. I won't ask, as John has, for evidence of your assertion - though feel free to produce such for John, if you so desire. Anyhow, I'm no longer a forum moderator. After years (ma)lingering - spending at least 1.5 hours every day for 2 years, tidying up posts, deleting double posts, correcting errors in titles, reading every new post so I could understand the origins of potential future argument and become informed about both the posters and subject interests, keeping the peace, generally avoiding my real work etc. - I finally got better at my real, paid, job - and had less time for the unpaid, unheralded, frankly thankless forum work - the coup de grace for my moderating 'career'. I genuinely wish you well in being a moderator, though it may well be a case of being careful about what you wish for. I hope not. Take Care Gary Edited July 9, 2009 by Gary Loughran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. Research is your friend Lemkin, once again you are wrong as rain: JUNE 25, 2009 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14500 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. Research is your friend Lemkin, once again you are wrong as rain: JUNE 25, 2009 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14500 Indeed.... As the Gang of Eight found out when it came to TGZFH! Say, the YAHOO JFK Group now has Dr. Thompson talking to himself, that makes a total of two, what happened to you guys.... anyone left over thar? Edited July 10, 2009 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 They could well have been consulted by PM or email. They were consulted. I take it that you are now withdrawing the allegation you were making. Gary's observations are well worth noting. It is indeed a terrible job trying to be a moderator of so many unreasonable people. That is why I am so grateful to those moderators who remain despite taking so much underserved criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. Research is your friend Lemkin, once again you are wrong as rain: JUNE 25, 2009 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14500 Indeed.... As the Gang of Eight found out when it came to TGZFH! Say, the YAHOO JFK Group now has Dr. Thompson talking to himself, that makes a total of two, what happened to you guys.... anyone left over thar? The question is what happened to YOU guys? All still hiding under a rock, unable to salvage the totally discreditied reputation of one John P. Costella, the crackpot PhD in physics who can't even understand the physics of photographic parallax. No wonder your horde is laying low, you look the fools! www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Lemkin repeatedly violates forum rules against personal attacks, questioning posters motives and spamming and just as consistently his fellow moderators fail to act even when this is brought to their attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 It has always been my 'take' that if the 'entity Colby' takes exception to a post, then the powers that be and lie do also, and one should take a VERY jaundiced eye at what he is spinning, and why he is spinning it. He has done more damage to this Forum than any other individual, IMO, and more damage to the pursuit of truth, as well. Newbeeys are cautioned to look carefully at his past posts, positions, and those rejoinders made against them. Those old hands here know well the games the Colby son [as father] play[ed] to spread doubt and discord among those who try to seek the truth hidden by the powerful. This post by a moderator was a personal attack, questions my motives and insinuates I'm a xxxx thus violates 3 forum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'd like to know why Peter does not answer people who accuse him. I think he has had sufficient time to address the accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now