• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Evan Burton

Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies

190 posts in this topic

2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Evan

I understand that being a moderator here is a difficult balancing act however I believe removing the text of Peter's unsolicited e-mail to me was inappropriate for reasons I spelled out on on a thread whether this issue has already come up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=148970

Len

Len,

Point noted. I know where you are coming from, and I can't say I totally disagree with you but my experience is that the practice should not be allowed unless both parties agree. I'll contact John for a decision on the matter.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Evan

I understand that being a moderator here is a difficult balancing act however I believe removing the text of Peter's unsolicited e-mail to me was inappropriate for reasons I spelled out on on a thread whether this issue has already come up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=148970

Len

Len,

Point noted. I know where you are coming from, and I can't say I totally disagree with you but my experience is that the practice should not be allowed unless both parties agree. I'll contact John for a decision on the matter.

Thanks.

If Len is allowed to use that sig line then the signal being sent is that it is okay to insult and bait. Will it then be appropriate for us all to follow suit by placing a sig line extracted from Charles Drago's post that Len Colby is an "agent provocateur"? We're in danger of setting a double standard.

This also does not say much for consistent Moderation as per the "first and final warning". Or am I over-reacting and seeing bias here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Evan

I understand that being a moderator here is a difficult balancing act however I believe removing the text of Peter's unsolicited e-mail to me was inappropriate for reasons I spelled out on on a thread whether this issue has already come up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=148970

Len

Len,

Point noted. I know where you are coming from, and I can't say I totally disagree with you but my experience is that the practice should not be allowed unless both parties agree. I'll contact John for a decision on the matter.

Thanks.

If Len is allowed to use that sig line then the signal being sent is that it is okay to insult and bait. Will it then be appropriate for us all to follow suit by placing a sig line extracted from Charles Drago's post that Len Colby is an "agent provocateur"? We're in danger of setting a double standard.

This also does not say much for consistent Moderation as per the "first and final warning". Or am I over-reacting and seeing bias here?

David, it appears that Len has removed the quote. Another truimph for quiet diplomacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Len - Do NOT quote from a private communication UNLESS all parties have agreed. If you feel that the content of a PM is relevant and needs to be revealed, speak to John or Andy; they will make a decision on it. This includes signature lines. First & final warning on the matter.

Thank you.

Evan

I understand that being a moderator here is a difficult balancing act however I believe removing the text of Peter's unsolicited e-mail to me was inappropriate for reasons I spelled out on on a thread whether this issue has already come up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=148970

Len

Len,

Point noted. I know where you are coming from, and I can't say I totally disagree with you but my experience is that the practice should not be allowed unless both parties agree. I'll contact John for a decision on the matter.

Thanks.

If Len is allowed to use that sig line then the signal being sent is that it is okay to insult and bait. Will it then be appropriate for us all to follow suit by placing a sig line extracted from Charles Drago's post that Len Colby is an "agent provocateur"? We're in danger of setting a double standard.

This also does not say much for consistent Moderation as per the "first and final warning". Or am I over-reacting and seeing bias here?

David, it appears that Len has removed the quote. Another truimph for quiet diplomacy.

A good result, Steve. :lol: Let's now hope that we can return to a proper mode of intelligent debate, tightly moderated, without passions being fed and aroused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John agrees with the policy that the content of a PM or e-mail should not normally be made public unless the concerned parties agree to it - particularly if both are Forum members. In some circumstances, there may be good reason for this policy to be waived; contact a Moderator BEFORE posting to seek advice.

Please note that this policy is not in regard to "inflammatory" material in a signature line; it is regarding text from private communication being made public. Something may be inflammatory to some people but be well within the Forum rules. Free speech works in many directions. If you have concerns regarding a post (or something in a signature line) then bring the concern to the attention of a Moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John agrees with the policy that the content of a PM or e-mail should not normally be made public unless the concerned parties agree to it - particularly if both are Forum members. In some circumstances, there may be good reason for this policy to be waived; contact a Moderator BEFORE posting to seek advice.

Please note that this policy is not in regard to "inflammatory" material in a signature line; it is regarding text from private communication being made public. Something may be inflammatory to some people but be well within the Forum rules. Free speech works in many directions. If you have concerns regarding a post (or something in a signature line) then bring the concern to the attention of a Moderator.

Evan, are you saying that purposefully "inflammatory" comments are therefore permitted under the rules? Was Kathy wrong to rebuke me for my inflammatory comments? Was I wrong to heed this sanction and state I would try harder not to indulge in "inflammatory" arguments in the future? Should we member indulge in this sort of tactic as and when we feel the need?

Can we please have a unified Moderators ruling on this for the future?

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

What I am saying is that something that a member considers "inflammatory" may not be considered so by other members. As always, if you have concerns, raise them with a Mod. If you are unhappy with the Moderator's decision, raise the matter with John and Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

What I am saying is that something that a member considers "inflammatory" may not be considered so by other members. As always, if you have concerns, raise them with a Mod. If you are unhappy with the Moderator's decision, raise the matter with John and Andy.

Thank you Evan.

Over the next day or two I am going to PM every Moderator on tis forum and ask them the same question. Are "inflammatory" remarks permitted.

Once that point has been established collectively by all the Mods on this forum (because the question clearly remains unanswered) and a collective post made to that effect, then and only then, will it be possible for individual members to raise concerns over interpretation.

For my part I would say that most people here are immediately aware of what is and what is not meant by "inflammatory", but I would be happy to post definitions by three respected dictionaries to aid members understanding and to banish any further difficulties about what is meant by that term.

I believe this is a common sense approach to the confusion surrounding this problem.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with John's statement on policy. After all P in PM stands for PRIVATE.

What the “p” in PM stands for is irrelevant since Peter sent me an e-mail. What he is saying is essentially: “I should have the right to harass and insult other members of this forum via e-mail but if they bring this to the attention of the forum they are violating my privacy rights”. I never communicated with him other than through posts on this forum; he had no reason to expect privacy when sending an unsolicited e-mail. He obviously has no qualms about releasing the text of e-mails sent to him without the sender’s permission. The real issue of course has nothing to do with privacy but his realization that his own words put him in a bad light. Even David seems to acknowledge this, why else would he consider quoting Peter “provocative” unless they reflected poorly on him?

Also, we should provoke ideas, not each other. ...Let's disagree over ideas and not be disagreeable. Once one starts it, it starts to spread,

It's the height of irony and hypocrisy that such comments come from the member of the forum who on about half a dozen occasions labeled people Nazis simply for disagreeing with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Len is allowed to use that sig line then the signal being sent is that it is okay to insult and bait. Will it then be appropriate for us all to follow suit by placing a sig line extracted from Charles Drago's post that Len Colby is an "agent provocateur"? We're in danger of setting a double standard.

Totally inadequate analogy, my signature didn’t include a insult directed against Peter but rather his own words. You must really think Peter’s word make him look bad to so strenuously object to me quoting them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the underlying motive for including Peter's words in the sig line that concerns me.

It is clear they were included in order to be provocative and to bait Peter. That is what I object to and why I pressed this particular point home.

Edited by David Guyatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the underlying motive for including Peter's words in the sig line that concerns me.

It is clear they were included in order to be provocative and to bait Peter. That is what I object to and why I pressed this particular point home.

And what exactly do you think was Peter's 'underlying motive for' sending me that e-mail? What do think his intent was when he called me a Kapo? I take you comments as implicitly acknowledging that his words reflected poorly on him, otherwise neither he nor you would have had grounds to object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the underlying motive for including Peter's words in the sig line that concerns me.

It is clear they were included in order to be provocative and to bait Peter. That is what I object to and why I pressed this particular point home.

And what exactly do you think was Peter's 'underlying motive for' sending me that e-mail? What do think his intent was when he called me a Kapo? I take you comments as implicitly acknowledging that his words reflected poorly on him, otherwise neither he nor you would have had grounds to object.

The following will be my last words on the matter.

You are obviously free to interpret my words in any way that pleases you.

Peter's motives are something for you and Peter to discuss privately. I was not a party to them. Nor were any members of this board.

My involvement has been limited to arguing for the sig line to be removed as I regarded it as purposely inflammatory and designed for purposes of vengeance.

I believe that my divining of your underlying motive in this respect has proved correct. I say this simply because I am also free to interpret your words and motives as I see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I do finding both amusing yet tiring the claims made by some posters on this Forum.

Let me explain:

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) complain about the behaviour of other posters?

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) complain that they are being victimised?

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) intimate that some posters should be removed because they are disruptive?

- Who are the people who mostly refuse to debate topics or answer direct questions because they claim others to be some type of disinformation agents?

- Who are the people who mostly use emotively negative labels about others (fascist, provocateur, etc)?

Now, conversely:

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) provide references for their claims or statements?

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) are prepared to debate their claims?

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) always welcome another person into the debate?

- Who are the people who mostly (if not always) are prepared to admit if they have made mistakes or have been proven incorrect?

I know who I find open-minded and who I don't; I know who I find hypocritical and who I don't.

Evan Burton clearly thinks one side has a near monopoly on truth.

To witness a moderator (Burton) make the above post, which consists of nothing but hypocritical & provocative cant, on a self-styled Education Forum, and to find this being considered acceptable by other moderators (judging from their silence), destroys the raison d'etre of the entire enterprize.

In the "Stealth" thread, he compared me to Blind Freddy and allowed Colby to compare me to a holocaust denier. Why? Because I was citing sources that they hadn't bothered to read. In fact, those sources destroyed the Colby-Burton position. So much for this rubbish about only side providing references and sources. Of course they failed to admit they were wrong or apologize for their aggressive behaviour and insults.

I refuse to be moderated by Evan Burton because he has demonstrated clearly, and with evident pride, that he is on one side of the argument only.

Jan, your complaint is against a Moderator and must be handled by the Admin, not other Mods. Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I refuse to be moderated by Evan Burton because he has demonstrated clearly, and with evident pride, that he is on one side of the argument only.

So long as you post here your posts, (and those of everyone else), will be subject to moderation by the moderators, of which Evan is one, should the need arise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now