Jump to content


Spartacus

Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies


189 replies to this topic

#1 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 02 September 2007 - 02:06 AM

If you have a complaint about the Political Conspiracies subsection of the Forum and feel it must be made in a public post rather than a PM to a Mod, please place it here.

If you have a complaint about a Forum member - apart from a Mod - please PM a Mod with your concerns. Don't place them here; this is not a thread to throw insults about.

If you have a complaint about a Mod, you can post it here or PM other Mods, whichever you prefer.

#2 Duane Daman

Duane Daman

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 September 2007 - 06:19 AM

I have a complaint ..

My post comments have been taken out of context by Evan Burton and now are being used against me here ... Other members post insults on almost a daily basis , yet none of their comments have been posted on the complaints thread .

I think it only fair that since my comments have been posted in the complaints thread , that the insults which preceeded mine , which caused me to reply in kind , should also be posted here as well .

Taking comments OUT OF CONTEXT and not seeing why I posted the remarks I did is completely unfair ... and because of this unfairness, I have now been put on moderation with the possibility of having my account removed .

Edited by Duane Daman, 30 September 2007 - 06:20 AM.


#3 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 30 September 2007 - 06:36 AM

I have a complaint ..

My post comments have been taken out of context by Evan Burton and now are being used against me here ... Other members post insults on almost a daily basis , yet none of their comments have been posted on the complaints thread .

I think it only fair that since my comments have been posted in the complaints thread , that the insults which preceeded mine , which caused me to reply in kind , should also be posted here as well .

Taking comments OUT OF CONTEXT and not seeing why I posted the remarks I did is completely unfair ... and because of this unfairness, I have now been put on moderation with the possibility of having my account removed .


I have included a link to the posts so that people can read your entire post, and the thread in which they occurred.

#4 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,117 posts

Posted 09 October 2007 - 10:59 AM

While I don't get involved in the Apollo fights and it is not an area of interest to me, I do care about truth and fairness. Duane was just kicked off the forum for things he may not have done. I think this needs to be examined and there be some transparency. The 'damning' photo and caption was not on his PhotoBucket site/space and he claims and seems to have some proofs he had nothing to do with it, nor control over it and may be a victim of assiciations made by those with an agenda. I believe he had put Apollo photos of this [a friends] PB site, but he claims he had zero to do with the current event which has caused such problems. Is there some movement afoot to cause anti-Apollo and anti-offiical version persons problems? Guilt by association and conspiracies would be unsettling. When someone is expelled, I would hope the reasons would be given and some way for someone to defend themselves should the accusations not be correct. I would hope for no less for myself nor anyone else. I amnot in possession of all info, but what I have is unsettling and seems a hasty or arbitrary decision was made, perhaps on false of trumped-up information. Sadly.


Andy Walker was able to trace the posting back to Duane.

#5 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 11 October 2007 - 01:54 PM

For those of us in the dark what exactly led to Duane being given the boot?

#6 Gavin Stone

Gavin Stone

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 95 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 01:48 PM

Sorry oh blind one , but it's NOT the shadow of an astronot .


Not only do I object to being referred to as "Blind" I also reject the use of the word Astronot, which is, lets face it, an immature digg and word to use.

#7 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 06:21 AM

Gavin,

I have to agree. Although Duane's comments are hardly complimentary I don't really consider them to be abusive.

Secondly, I don't feel you should have made the PM public. If you felt it was abusive, you should alert a Moderator - not make the PM public.

If Duane is continually insulting towards you, then I'll speak to him about it. The odd barbed remark, however, is not enough reason to admonish someone for on a forum where the debate can get quite heated.

I've set both your post, and Peter's reply to invisible. Other mods can see it but the general forum population cannot.

#8 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 16 November 2007 - 01:51 PM

Evan,

IMO you made a bad call on this. I recognize that you are in a very difficult position especially after the sanctioning of Jack and Duane you’ve been unjustly accused of acting in a biased manner or even of having set them up. This also stems from you virtually being the only moderator willing to (publicly at least) increase people’s warning levels or warn people they face punishment for abusive behavior. It seems to me that in your effort to appear even handed you are too accommodating of such behavior by people you disagree with. You’re in a “dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” situation.

Regarding the PMs and e-mails yes they are private communications but when extremely abusive ones are sent from one member to another they qualify as abuse and the recipient has the right to make them public so that other members know what is going on behind the scenes. I wouldn’t be surprised if members exchanged barbed comments once in a while but Duane’s obscenity and insult filled message went far beyond that. I’m quite surprised you don’t think it constituted abuse you warned me I’d have my warning level increased if I continued to make comments orders of magnitude milder than what Duane said. The link to it should be restored so that other members know what the uproar is about.

Even if you disagree and believe that Gavin shouldn’t have brought up the PM here Peter’s response in including a possibly intimidating e-mail also crossed the line. IMO Duane should face sanction for the PM and depending on the e-mail he sent Gavin through the forum perhaps Peter as well.

Len

#9 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 20 November 2007 - 05:57 AM

Gary you wrote the following on the JFK forum concerning “sufficiently vile” PM’s
“Ultimately though, I don't wholly agree, though I do substantially in the case you've described, with the predicate that recipients of PM's can share them.”

Do you think Duane’s qualifies? Perhaps the best way to resolve this transparently would be for Duane to authorize making the content of the PM public, unless of course he is ashamed of its contents.

#10 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 20 November 2007 - 06:44 AM

Gary you wrote the following on the JFK forum concerning “sufficiently vile” PM’s
“Ultimately though, I don't wholly agree, though I do substantially in the case you've described, with the predicate that recipients of PM's can share them.”

Do you think Duane’s qualifies? Perhaps the best way to resolve this transparently would be for Duane to authorize making the content of the PM public, unless of course he is ashamed of its contents.


That would be up to Duane, but at this time I see no need to ask him.

#11 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 20 November 2007 - 02:38 PM

Sharing an abusive PM is entirely the decision of its recipient.

The contents of such a message go to the character of its sender -- by defintion, a person who posts on this Forum.

Is it not of vital interest to all readers of this Forum to know the nature of the authors whose words they are asked to weigh?

Charles

#12 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 02 December 2007 - 08:27 PM

One of our imModerators has found fit to describe me on an another website as 'I don't consider him mentally stable....... Who knows what he might be capable of?' implying I'm dangerous....I have the URL and will shortly post it if this moderator doesn't step down as one. He also answers on that forum questions he has refused to I've asked here. Such intemperate activity really puts someone IMO outside the bounds of a fair and impartial moderator. This same moderator also lurks looking to 'deal' with certain persons..... this same imModerator [I have that url as well] posted on another forum a link back to this one on a thread where they were all gloating on this moderators having been able to get someone banned...nice stuff...real fair and above board. When I posted that second url once this imModerator told me not to bring 'outside this Forum stuff' on this Forum..but he had no problem putting our Forum stuff on another....... so do as I say [or else - im the imModerator!], not as I do seems to be their motto.....add to that ad hom attacks on me and others on this Forum...as well as thread diversions and on a few notable occassions closing off a threat as they didn't like the content...not that it broke any rules. I have a list of these and will present them en toto when the time is right.

Certain person just have too strong a bias to be a moderator. I would also not be a candidate for moderator...nor is this person, IMO.


I don’t see how Evan’s comments on another forum that don’t mention Lemkin by name are relevant. I see nothing improper about his comments in the context they were made. Funny that someone who so constantly resorts to personal attacks, including saying Evan acted like the “SA/SS” would get so offended when subject to a mild dose os his own medicine.

#13 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:53 PM

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?


<DELETED>

Len - I do consider the deleted phrase to be deliberately insulting and uncalled for. First and only warning regarding personal attacks of that nature. By all means express your opinion, but do it in a way that is more acceptable, please.

This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Feb 15 2008, 06:32 PM
Reason for edit: Removed ad hom


Evan I know that being a moderator isn’t easy but do you really think that after their repeated insults and provocations and repeatedly declaring me to be dishonest and deceptive etc but failing to document such claims my suggesting the heads of Lemkin, Drago and Guyatt might be, to speak euphemistically, in a not very complementary location was that out of line?

#14 Guest_David Guyatt_*

Guest_David Guyatt_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2008 - 04:08 PM

Evan, thanks for my part. However, I have no complaints or cares about what Len writes about me. I am outspoken about him in what I regard to be the obvious truth. It stands to reason he will respond in his own inimical spinning way. Nothing unexpected there.

***

Always with you Len you claim there is no evidence -- even when it is posted, linked and gift wrapped. The case in point is the Mengele thread which is where I reached my conclusion that you are inherently deceitful and dishonest and ethically and morally abject. That you can't see what is plainly before your eyes speaks volumes about your inability to face reality about yourself. Why that is I don't know. I just know it is. As do many others here. I seriously doubt you have any defenders on that score.

What you mean by "no evidence" is that none of it convinces you - ergo it can't be evidence. That it convinces many others is, naturally, disregarded out of hand.

I have broken my pledge to engage with you again. I know it will be a futile exercise because you are incapable of reflection only reaction --- and you ain't going to be looking in a mirror at yourself anytime soon.

That is all.

Back to my pledge.

#15 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:43 PM

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://educationforu...h...st&p=148970

Len



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users