Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies

[Guest David Guyatt]

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.

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

Yes Kathy darlin', I see a clear and obvious problem. John is cognizant of my case and the case of some other members too. That being the case, there should never have been a directive to insist that anyone change their avatars in the first case. It is a nonsense autocratic rule that has been used, imo, by Evan as a tool of reprisal against Maggie for daring to speak out against him. Ditto Jan's bio. These are rather soft but sly ways of revenge and have heavily contributed to this weekends "entertainment".

No rule is inviolate and in any event, the breaker of all of them at one time or another is the owner of this site, who has, as one example only, imposed the "off topic" rule to switch threads he didn't like on the JFK forum to the political conspiracies forum, but gave outright approval for other clearly off topics threads he does approve off to remain in situ. There are many examples in the past I have seen. If you are going to force the application of the rules it must be obvious that the owner sets the standard himself and all Moderators rigidly adhere also. When it comes to members impugning the integrity of members, or engaging in open ridicule, Andy Walker stand heads and shoulder above many other members.

I appreciate that you don't see the overall pictures of psyops and, sadly, I do not think many other Moderators are familiar with this subject either. It's all too theoretical for most of you, I think, even though there are clear examples before all your eyes and have been for some time now - not disregarding Charles often stated opinion that a certain member is an "agent provocateur". This observation is supported by other members present and one who has now left in disgust, plus others who have left more quietly or decline to post here for that very reason. The usual Moderator response is that to treat forum members as naughty children (lots of you are or were educators/teachers right?) fighting in a schoolyard. Consequently you Mods have stepped back and permitted some atrocious attitudes to develop. Then you say, gee... why is all this naughty stuff happening?

You my dears were to blame.

It's also happening because no one took a lead and no one wants to push their head above the parapet or to have the moral courage to criticize the actions of another Mod who has now lost the plot (imo).

The fact is that the battles that have been raging here is no schoolyard fight amongst bad tempered kids. It has been a lot more serious and long term than that. If you are any other Moderator cared to take the trouble to understand the background motivations and natures of those of us who have fought hard to reestablish the integrity of this place, you would not need to ask this. The school kid analogy used by Moderators raising their eyes heavenward, is not only a cop-out but an awful insult. I didn't get my deadly midnight presents (which btw, involved Special Branch in the police investigation of both incidents) because I called someone a bad name -- but because I dared to tread in shadows that others wished to be kept cloaked. How many of you moderators have stepped through the shadows of a Austrian midnight forest to meet a former CIA type, or have travelled the world over spanning two decades and more, meeting sources and conducting on the ground investigations, as Jan has done? Your collective knowledge and expertise pales by comparison.

It should be obvious that a forum such as this - with so many great researchers and writers present is amongst the very top web sites in the world on these subjects - would draw psyops operators -- for reasons that are only too obvious. Their remit would undoubtedly be to debunk content, muddy the waters, cause friction, inflame passions and use any other tactic that deflects attention away from the strength of the underlying topics. Arguably, this mission has now be virtually achieved... as a result of the appalling lack of attention, insight, knowledge or care.

You let the devil in the open crack of one window and he will shortly occupy the house.

One member, who I am no longer apparently allowed to name, is on the advisory board of an entity (discussed in the locked Len Brazil thread) that has the characteristics/signature that might identify it as a psyops front. The model here is, of course, James Randi/CSICOP. Randi, a debunker of international fame, is associated with the CIA. Meanwhile almost every other advisory board member or representatives of that same entity hides behind assumed identities. This should be a cause for concern to all of us. What we don't know is if others who are members of that other entity are also members here.

Many forum members have been invited by John to participate here because of their known knowledge and expertise on various subjects. Their identity should not come into question and, besides, it is not their style to engage in baiting, ridiculing or flaming other members. This is the characteristic of perhaps, half a dozen members who are not known in the community of researchers, writers, journalists, authors, TV doco makers and others -- for anything other than their true lack of knowledge and expertise on most topics. But they do have an amazing ability to cause friction, ignite anger and spread dis-ease throughout the forum.

Mark them well, Kathy.

They do not mean these fora well, I think.

see ya babe! (for a short while longer anyway).

David

[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.

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”

Let me make this quite clear. This is the complaints thread. My post was specifically addressed to Evan as the Moderator who read and deleted my posts and threads. It was not directed at you even though your false identity partly featured in it as one of the concerns raised in the locked Len Brazil thread. I will respond to Evan's words and posts not yours. Unless, that is, you are elevated to the role of a Moderator.

If you have kept a copy of the deleted post, that supports your above statements, be my guest and start a new thread and post it in its entirety in the main forum, noting that this was my post that was deleted by Evan without comment, PM or explanation at the time. In that place, side by side with what I posted, feel free to post your rebuttal if you so wish.

Alternatively, if you have a complaint about me, what I write about you, or the opinions I hold about you that I will continue to openly express as I feel fit, then direct your complaint to your Sponsor or another Moderator and allow them to delete, er, handle it.

Meanwhile, please note that these are the last words I will exchange with you on any subject Mr. Brazil/Colby - or whoever you really are - on this or any other forum.

David Guyatt

Edited August 10, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

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,

my question was not about the "psyops" thread at all. It was as follows:

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.

Will you now answer that question filly please.

David

[Charles Drago]

As David Guyatt wrote,

"It should be obvious that a forum such as this - with so many great researchers and writers present is amongst the very top web sites in the world on these subjects - would draw psyops operators -- for reasons that are only too obvious. Their remit would undoubtedly be to debunk content, muddy the waters, cause friction, inflame passions and use any other tactic that deflects attention away from the strength of the underlying topics. Arguably, this mission has now be virtually achieved... as a result of the appalling lack of attention, insight, knowledge or care." [emphasis added by Drago]

Or as I put it in an earlier post:

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 naïveté displayed by certain moderators here -- and, by extension, the owners of this Forum whose rules they enforce and whose trust they have "earned" -- is, well, criminal. But it is hardly unique to these persons or these times.

From Matthew, 11:2-11:

As they were going off,

Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John,

“What did you go out to the desert to see?

A reed swayed by the wind?

Then what did you go out to see?

Someone dressed in fine clothing?"

Ms. Beckett, when you write, "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.," you lead us to pose a long-overdue query:

How does one qualify for appointment as a moderator on this Forum, which regularly focuses on deep and para-politics?

In terms of your above-quoted assessment: What sort of insight into and experience with psyops do you, and for that matter the rest of the moderati, bring to our humble table? Absent your response, how can we value your judgment?

When you informed us of your "thoughts" on the issue at hand, were you writing from a position of authority as a moderator? As a scholar? As an expert in psyops? Or were you just tsk-tsking?

Hell, why beat around the bush? I formally request that all of this Forum's moderati post their respective qualifying credentials.

In terms of this thread, my "complaint" is that moderati credentials remain, to date, unstated. My argument is that the power inherent in their positions brings with it the responsibility to demonstrate their abilities to wield such power in informed and fair manners.

Until you do, I can note but a single obvious criterion: Moderator status hereon is available to anyone who had anything to eat on a day with a "y" in it.

Charles

Edited August 10, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

As David Guyatt wrote,

"It should be obvious that a forum such as this - with so many great researchers and writers present is amongst the very top web sites in the world on these subjects - would draw psyops operators -- for reasons that are only too obvious. Their remit would undoubtedly be to debunk content, muddy the waters, cause friction, inflame passions and use any other tactic that deflects attention away from the strength of the underlying topics. Arguably, this mission has now be virtually achieved... as a result of the appalling lack of attention, insight, knowledge or care." [emphasis added by Drago]

Or as I put it in an earlier post:

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 naïveté displayed by certain moderators here -- and, by extension, the owners of this Forum whose rules they enforce and whose trust they have "earned" -- is, well, criminal. But it is hardly unique to these persons or these times.

From Matthew, 11:2-11:

As they were going off,

Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John,

“What did you go out to the desert to see?

A reed swayed by the wind?

Then what did you go out to see?

Someone dressed in fine clothing?"

Ms. Beckett, when you write, "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.," you lead us to pose a long-overdue query:

How does one qualify for appointment as a moderator on this Forum, which regularly focuses on deep and para-politics?

In terms of your above-quoted assessment: What sort of insight into and experience with psyops do you, and for that matter the rest of the moderati, bring to our humble table? Absent your response, how can we value your judgment?

When you informed us of your "thoughts" on the issue at hand, were you writing from a position of authority as a moderator? As a scholar? As an expert in psyops? Or were you just tsk-tsking?

Hell, why beat around the bush? I formally request that all of this Forum's moderati post their respective qualifying credentials.

In terms of this thread, my "complaint" is that moderati credentials remain, to date, unstated. My argument is that the power inherent in their positions brings with it the responsibility to demonstrate their abilities to wield such power in informed and fair manners.

Until you do, I can note but a single obvious criterion: Moderator status hereon is available to anyone who had anything to eat on a day with a "y" in it.

Charles

Petulant little children....

[Guest David Guyatt]

Petulant little children....

I'm sure you just broke at least one forum rule in plain sight.

It admittedly gets confusing, but this seems the wrong place to engage in ridicule and flaming. The main forum seems to be the authorized home for that behaviour.

This is the complaints forum.

My understanding is that if you have a complaint you should properly direct it to a Moderator who may assess it, ignore it, or simply rubber stamp it...

[Evan Burton]

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,

my question was not about the "psyops" thread at all. It was as follows:

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.

Will you now answer that question filly please.

David

Okay, I misunderstood... but which "Len Brazil" post? Do you mean the thread which Jack started? Or is there a specific post to which you refer. Please describe it so I can be sure what you refer to.

[Evan Burton]

Ooops - I forgot it was invisible.

Could I asked who did it? Thanks?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve.

[John Simkin]

Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve.

I can fully understand your decision. Being a moderator on this forum is becoming an impossible job. Of course, that is the intention of those who are determined to cause problems. I am unwilling to ask anyone else to put themselves in the firing-line. I will noe take more responsibility for dealing with these people. In future, I will not be so tolerant and if any member appears to be intent on causing disruption, they will be immediately removed from the forum.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Stephen Turner' date='Aug 11 2008, 01:38 PM' post='151980']

Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve.

Stephen,

I am on record as saying I am sorry to hear this. You have always been fair, evenhanded and

employed humor to defuse sticky situations.

There are no simple solutions here and I must also say that Charles Drago's most recent post

outlining the problem hits the nail squarely on the head. We are losing the best researchers in droves and

this IS a war. Surely the mods who know there are deep conspiracies also know that forums dealing with these grave matters are monitered 24/7 and said moniters' task is to utilize any and all methods of derailing research. Indeed we had a CIA playbook on how to deal with WC dissenters from the beginning. What John was able to clearly see as Tim Gratz' role here is now blurred in the name of "fairness". And this is a tragedy. Compare the contributions of Jan, David, Charlie (etc.) to those of Colby and Lamson. Not even in the same ballpark. The enemies of forums such as this are toasting as we speak.

As for me, I am saddened. In the four years I have been here I have found this to be a place where I could depend on finding kindered spirits, and always augmenting my own awareness and knowledge of the evil that exists in the name of governing. Now I see a lot of flaming, and worse, constant denial of this evil.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

I reiterate:

How does one qualify for appointment as a moderator on this Forum, which regularly focuses on deep and para-politics?

I formally request that all of this Forum's moderati post their respective qualifying credentials.

In terms of this thread, my "complaint" is that moderati credentials remain, to date, unstated. My argument is that the power inherent in their positions brings with it the responsibility to demonstrate their abilities to wield such power in informed and fair manners.

Rather than resign from an allegedly "impossible" position, why not pick up the gauntlet and fight for what's right in this war?

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve.

I can fully understand your decision. Being a moderator on this forum is becoming an impossible job. Of course, that is the intention of those who are determined to cause problems. I am unwilling to ask anyone else to put themselves in the firing-line. I will noe take more responsibility for dealing with these people. In future, I will not be so tolerant and if any member appears to be intent on causing disruption, they will be immediately removed from the forum.

John,

Please be more specific.

Who among your posters is/are, in your opinion, "determined to cause problems"? Surely you must be able to name names. If you number me among such a group, I invite you, without anger and in the spirits of full disclosure and healing, to say so for the record.

Do you include "Colby" in such a group?

I for one charge "Colby" precisely with being "intent on causing disruption." I further charge that "he" has done so on numerous occasions. Do you agree?

As for Mr. Turner's decision, I honestly lament it. Although he and I have had our differences, I think of him as an honorable and decent man who contributes much to our shared work. I join those who lament his departure, and I hope he pauses to reconsider. The only other moderator to be trusted is Antti Hynonen -- in my opinion, of course.

Charles

Edited August 11, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

David,

I'll try to answer your questions and complaints. I'll also say this:

Until otherwise notified on this thread, it's open season on me. You can say what you want about me on this thread - not anyone else, just me - without fear of any retribution. The only restrictions are no swearing, and nothing that would be considered inappropriate for children to read. Youths may read the forum. Otherwise you can accuse me of being CIA, spreading disinformation, not being who I say I am, etc.

(John, I haven't cleared this with you but I hope you don't mind. I am happy to listen & respond to whatever people have to say)

The thread was deleted after a couple of days; I don't know if it is possible to restore it. I'll look through the internet to see if it has been saved somewhere.

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.

It was in the link where I first mentioned it, a few posts ago. I'll repeat the link again, though:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=150748

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.

I may very well be wrong, but I thought the first time I 'reacted' to Jan was the thread for which I apologised. I still disagree with him, but I was acting inappropriately for a Mod. Perhaps I have 'reacted' to him before, but I don't remember a specific occasion.

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.

According to what some people would seem to believe about me, isn't that exactly what I want?

Don't I want to drive "you people" away? In that case, aren't you giving me exactly what I want? Aren't you doing what I want you to do?

Wouldn't people who try to seek the truth want to combat me? Aren't you setting a poor example for others?

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to stand up to me? Show that you cannot be bullied by me? Because at the moment, all I see are people who are running away because they lack the courage to stand up for their convictions.

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.

That is absolutely fine. What have I said on multiple occasions? That if there is a reason for not posting an avatar / bio / etc, then send a PM to John giving the reasons and get approval. That's all that is required.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Evan Burton
Added "on this thread"

[Evan Burton]

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?

Perhaps you didn't notice, but it was posted in the JFK board on 3 JUL 08 - a month ago.

David, Jack, Charles and Jan are totally right to bring up the matter of the identity of Colby/Brasil in this forum.

Equal treatment then. Jack need not prove his identity. I don't, because Peter L already posted the Navy News article that featured me. But what about the others? I already posted a proposal. That would include you, BTW. I did note that you said you would have no problems with it... though I think some other people on the Forum - who you would consider friends - would baulk at the idea.

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' .

Once more, TOTALLY inaccurate. I sent Jack 3 PMs. he told me he "doesn't read PMs". So then I told him - in accordance with Forum guidelines - could he please fix the link on the bottom of his posts...like every other member on the Forum is required to do. (That's called equal traetment)

I reminded him for a few of days. NOT "immediately". We gave him instructions on how to put the link in his signature - like other members - on multiple occasions. It would appear, though, that Jack is above such trivial matter because he refused to do what other members did.

Is it equality for EVERYONE - or only for some?