Evan Burton

Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies

190 posts in this topic

Why should I accept moderation from someone (Burton) who insults me and then seeks to justify that insult?

You should accept moderation from the moderators and admins of this forum because you are here. This is not in essence a difficult concept to grasp.

With an almost overwhelming sense of weariness I have to ask you to outline and explain clearly the gravamen of your complaint to me via e-mail or personal message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should I accept moderation from someone (Burton) who insults me and then seeks to justify that insult?

You should accept moderation from the moderators and admins of this forum because you are here. This is not in essence a difficult concept to grasp.

With an almost overwhelming sense of weariness I have to ask you to outline and explain clearly the gravamen of your complaint to me via e-mail or personal message.

Please cut the sarcasm.

If you have a complaint of substance about a moderator then make it to John or I clearly and concisely in a pm or e-mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a complaint of substance about a moderator then make it to John or I clearly and concisely in a pm or e-mail.

I have posted my complaint of substance about a moderator in a clear and concise email to John Simkin.

Very well done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is considered acceptable for a moderator (Burton) to call a member (me) "Blind Freddy" when that moderator is on the wrong side of the argument because they haven't bothered to read the sources?

Why should I accept moderation from someone (Burton) who insults me and then seeks to justify that insult?

Jan,

Myself and other moderators have reviewed the situations, and I find myself in error. Although not everyone would see it that way, I should have stopped the perceived insult by Len against you through the use of "holocaust denier" comment. This is NOT Len's fault - it is mine. I did not pay enough attention to the situation and consider how others might perceive it.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as I should have.

Likewise, I did not properly consider that a common colloquialism in my country could be perceived as an insult to someone unfamiliar with our common usage. I should have considered this.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as I should have.

Finally, I should not have lost my temper and said that I had wasted enough time on you. It's a moderator's job to at all times to remain calm and not let personal opinions cause them to become agitated.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as a Moderator should have, and you have every right to expect.

Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan,

Myself and other moderators have reviewed the situations, and I find myself in error. Although not everyone would see it that way, I should have stopped the perceived insult by Len against you through the use of "holocaust denier" comment. This is NOT Len's fault - it is mine. I did not pay enough attention to the situation and consider how others might perceive it.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as I should have.

Likewise, I did not properly consider that a common colloquialism in my country could be perceived as an insult to someone unfamiliar with our common usage. I should have considered this.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as I should have.

Finally, I should not have lost my temper and said that I had wasted enough time on you. It's a moderator's job to at all times to remain calm and not let personal opinions cause them to become agitated.

For this, I want to apologise to you for failing to act as a Moderator should have, and you have every right to expect.

Evan

Evan - thank you for your apology, which I accept.

The key issue for me is that, going forwards, the Education Forum is a place where researchers feel able to share their work, conscious that it will be tested fairly and robustly. Passionate argument is a good thing, and I have no objection to the rough and tumble of debate. I would be a hypocrite if I claimed otherwise...

Hopefully we (and I include myself) can all proceed fundamentally in a spirit of investigation, and cut down on the egregious stuff.

However, by its very nature, investigative research which attempts to unpick "official" versions of history will contain elements of speculation and is unlikely to possess a "smoking gun" piece of paperwork which "proves" the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. This is always likely to produce what are essentially clashes of mindset between those who defend the official version and those who doubt it.

Indeed, sometimes the only rational way for an investigative researcher to proceed is to examine pieces of evidence and state that "this doesn't feel correct". The researcher may not have an answer, but I will defend his right to ask such questions. Equally, where specialist knowledge can be provided to the Education Forum which provides an explanation or answer to such a question, that is also to be welcomed.

Jan

Jan and Evan are to be congratulated for sorting out this disagreement in such a mature manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan and Evan are to be congratulated for sorting out this disagreement in such a mature manner.

From what I know of both men this doesn't come as any surprise. They both are passionate, fair and have great integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Simkin has made his requirements clear. I also offered you a reasonable compromise with respect to your post. I have not heard a reply from you regards that compromise.

I would sincerely regret your leaving this Forum, but if you choose to do so, I cannot stop you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last time I complained about Evan Burton's moderation, he was found to be in the wrong and apologized to me on three counts.
He wasn't "found to be in the wrong" IMO he apologized because he was being diplomatic and wanted to diffuse the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I cannot post the the PM I sent to you - and others - about a compromise.

Jan, do you have such a low opinion of me that you think that I would claim to have sent a PM to people without sending a copy to others? Why do you think John is so inundated with PMs - because I have to CC him on everything I send, because certain people claim that I never sent them. He is well aware that every time time I have said I have sent a message, I have sent him a copy. I don't do this anymore because John's mailbox in becoming inundated with trivial matters such as this. Instead I CC other moderators.

You deny the existence of the PM, and you refuse to allow me to show proof I sent the PM to you.

I cannot do more than I have. In accordance with your request - unless you choose otherwise (and I hope you do) - I will let the Admins know you wish your account deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last time I complained about Evan Burton's moderation, he was found to be in the wrong and apologized to me on three counts.

However, he has carried on harassing certain posters including but not limited to Jack White, David Guyatt, Maggie Hansen, Michael Hogan, Charles Drago, David G Healy and myself, whilst protecting others such as "Colby".

I hereby give notice to the Education Forum that I refuse to be moderated by Evan Burton. This time, I will not accept any apologies for his behaviour since it's clear that there has been no attempt to control his actions since he last apologized.

If the Education Forum insist that Evan Burton continues to be a moderator, then my account should be deleted and all traces of my presence on this message board should be erased as I withdraw all consent to having my words published here.

I've also posted this message in the Complaints thread.

Noted for John and Andy's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A copy of Jan's post has been sent to John and Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last time I complained about Evan Burton's moderation, he was found to be in the wrong and apologized to me on three counts.

However, he has carried on harassing certain posters including but not limited to Jack White, David Guyatt, Maggie Hansen, Michael Hogan, Charles Drago, David G Healy and myself, whilst protecting others such as "Colby".

I hereby give notice to the Education Forum that I refuse to be moderated by Evan Burton. This time, I will not accept any apologies for his behaviour since it's clear that there has been no attempt to control his actions since he last apologized.

If the Education Forum insist that Evan Burton continues to be a moderator, then my account should be deleted and all traces of my presence on this message board should be erased as I withdraw all consent to having my words published here.

I've also posted this message in the Complaints thread.

It is with great sadness I read this post. I do not understand why John has allowed this situation to reach this point.

Exceptionally good researchers and lovely people have been leaving this forum in droves the last two years over the

non- stop harrassment and insults by the Colby/Lamson group. Yet they are continually protected. I am in complete agreement with Charlie Drago's assessment of these posters. I very much miss his presence on this forum. And Jan's work has been so very significant. I remember when John started this forum and the hopes he had of researchers all over the world joining forces for the common good: truth and justice.

Jack White wrote an important post yesterday: Beginning with how CT's were handled in the old days- harrassed,

phones tapped, mail opened, even beat up. And now on the net we know that the gov is all over this stuff and their lackys are sent in to cause as much dissention as possible. Anything to derail a thread, to get the focus off the search for the truth.

That IS their MO.

And I have seen this occur repeatedly on this forum. A a result a pattern emerged long ago: the true researchers finally gave up and left.

Now yet another.

I do hope that there is some resolution to this whereby Jan stays. We can count the number of

mainstream journalists on one hand who have come over to our side. And it's been an honor to have Jan

and his fine mind on these pages.

But it certainly appears that the powers that be here favor the presence of those whose sole purpose here (imho)

is to attack the truth and its presenters.

And that's a damn shame.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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