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.

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.

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.

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

Jack White was put on moderation. He has done more than his quota of 25 moderated posts, yet has not had his moderation lifted. I would ask it be lifted or an official explanation, with documentation, be presented.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

I agree with John's statement on policy. After all P in PM stands for PRIVATE. I also think people can put what they want on a sig line, but if it is from PM than not. Also, we should provoke ideas, not each other. I think Forum rules should include not allowing REPEATED INTENTIONAL provocation, for its own sake, or repeated attacks on other Forum members. Yes, sometimes the 'call' is subjective or depending on where one 'stands', but not when it is a constant pattern and the initiation all on one side subjectivity is no longer a problem. Allowing inflammatory materials in sig lines about other Forum members will only cause problems, escalation and retaliation. I'm still bemused that an open threat to me to post my email address if I dared to ever PM a certain person again went undiscussed and un-moderated as far as I can see. They only ever received on PM and that is all they will ever get. They could block my PMs, but provocation and threats are their style IMO. I'd bet my right arm had I said the same [contapositive] I'd have been jumped all over. Let's disagree over ideas and not be disagreeable. Once one starts it, it starts to spread, more so when no one comes to defend and the attacked person feels alone in the woods being stoned while others watch. When it is repeated and repeated one oft does respond in kind - which is one of the goading technique of the provacateur. I've even tried the suggested 'block post' method but find out after a while I am still being goaded and derided behind my 'back' unseen. I have had other non-meetings of the mind on issues with others and usually there is just a general disengagement after a time. Some few others just don't let up and I think that gives away the game - they are not here to debate to enlighten, but to close down debate with a number of techniques. Some are here to throw light into the shadows; other are here to throw more shadow [in both the literal and Jungian senses, it seems].

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

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

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?



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

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

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.

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

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

If the worst insult you ever receive in these forums is in an allusion to some proverb about what "everyone (including Blind Freddy) should be able to see," then you'll have got through without experiencing an insult.

But you're only proving the point Evan Burton was making originally in the post you continue to quote and object to.....it's too bad you don't seem to see that.

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.

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.

Very well done

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

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.

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.

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?

He wasn't "found to be in the wrong" IMO he apologized because he was being diplomatic and wanted to diffuse the situation.

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.

Noted for John and Andy's attention.

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

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.

QUOTE (Jan Klimkowski @ Aug 9 2008, 01:26 PM)

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

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.