Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jack White

immoderate "moderators"

Recommended Posts

Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

I suppose the mods can't win.

I lobby them to crack down on the obvious agitators here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

I suppose the mods can't win.

I lobby them to crack down on the obvious agitators here.

They are cracking down on the wrong people...NOT the obvious agitators.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

Jack,

For a minute I was thinking that you were talking about the DellaRosa forum. One question though ... If your complaint is about the actions of the moderators being unfair or out of order, then why would you start a thread doing just what they asked you not to do? It seems to me that you are purposely trying to get them to react to your remarks so you can then complain how unfair you were treated.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:

Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.

If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.

I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.

And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?

I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.

Kathy Beckett

Edited by Kathy Beckett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

I suppose the mods can't win.

I lobby them to crack down on the obvious agitators here.

They are cracking down on the wrong people...NOT the obvious agitators.

Jack

The way it is set-up it is our responsibility to 'report' posts that are attacks or break or bend the rules; are repeatedly uncivil etc. So keep your mouse fingers limber. The moderators only respond 98% of the time and don't decide on their own reading through the posts.

The most obvious agitators on this forum are you two Jack and Peter.

Jack, Evan made it clear that no new threads should be started on this topic.

Peter despite you complaints about others you currently are the member who most insults those he disagrees with your recent suggestion that I'm a Nazi (as if the other names you've called me {clown, poison etc} and others {Brownshirt etc} weren't bad enough) one of your lower blows.

Funny the two of you complain that I sow distention, what about the threads you started about me on the other forum what exactly were those meant to do?

You claim I distract from the serious debate of other issues, the "Colby" thread dominated discussion on the PC forum taking people's time and attention from others.

You claim I make the forum look bad. Imagine if a newbie showed up here and that was the 1st thread he (or she) looked at? What sort of impression would that make?

Did it occur to you that maybe the mods aren't biased but rather that you're wrong?

I agree with Bill I think Jack is trying to martyr himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:

Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.

If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing.

I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.

And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?

I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.

Kathy Beckett

Kathy

Thank you. You have again been very enlightening.

I am happy that your wisdom has been rewarded!

I am certain that we shall continue to be further enlightened.

After all, it is usually "Only Americans" and those "crazy film alterationists" that create most of these problems!

Charles Black

Edited by Charles Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:

Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.

If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.

I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.

And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?

I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.

Kathy Beckett

Zing!

Nicely said Kathy.

FWIW I think you're a great mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy, I have no problem with how you reacted. I know you and the other moderators are not reading all post nor even as long on the forum as some others.

Some of us are well beyond debating whether the JFK, RFK, MLK, and at least the basic thesis of 911 - and a host of other things were conspiracies [except for the details]...we know they were 101% and part of one whole...and are seeking to move on to answers and solutions. Others are either very naive, very new to this, or working with the darker forces to obscure, obstruct and delay. [iMO]

There are certain people who never post without a put-down; withhout a negatively worded challenge; without an attempt to slow the thread - if not halt it.

It would be like Germany 1936-7 discussing if the Jews and Gypsy's are really being mistreated or in danger; whether there is a danger of war and loss of civil liberties. War is happening a

l around us...

outside and against the American people, inside. Civil liberties have eroded almost to the ponit of vanishing. These are perilous times and almost a time to declare it a 'war'. Those who think it just a simple intellectual or historical discussion are either deluding themselves, very new or naiive, or complicit. IMO

I'll follow the rules scrupulously, but I also intend to defend humanity, history and what remains of our tatered democracy and world civilizati

n by whatever means necessary from those who would destroy it. One method is to talk it to death questioning the issues resolved decades ago...and some I sense are intent on just that. Details and refinements are always needed and review of assumptions, if in good will.

I've said my piece. I'm movin' on....toward solutions.

I'm glad you've said your piece Peter.

'Cause these threads have to end somewhere.

And if everyone demands the last word they simply don't end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

I'd be interested to find out who was banished (unannounced); I didn't hear of it.

Who warned you not to criticise the Mods? I warned people not to start another thread about the matter, but rather address their complaints or comments directly to John / Andy / the other Mods but not to me, since I was the one who locked the thread and thus the subject of any complaint. That way people could say whatever they liked without having to consider the limitations (or rather restrictions) of a public post.

What I wanted to avoid was another catfight thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

Absurd nonsense.

Jack White is an interesting case. He spends half his time here demanding we delete posts and banish members he disagrees with, and the other half complaining about the very gentle and entirely justified moderation of the forum which does occur. He would make a very brutal censor indeed if ever given the chance.

I have just returned from an extended holiday. I am pleased to see the forum has been moderated and maintained effectively in my absence.

I am extremely disappointed but not suprised however to be faced with so many virtual "reams" of arrant bickering in lieu of something worth reading - heigh ho :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:

Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.

If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.

I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.

And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?

I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.

Kathy Beckett

***************************************************************

"Most people desire anonymity in these matters."

I despise these passive-aggressive types who think nothing of stabbing people in the back because they themselves, lack the balls, or are too goddamned lazy to put forth an intelligent retort to something that got their nose out of joint, in the first place. Shoot your best shot, and if it results in you getting a few lumps because of it, counter with everything you've got that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, meaning hard copy evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. Least of all, refrain from getting into a pissing match with those who think and reply from a thirteen-year-old's P.O.V. Otherwise, you end up looking and sounding like a bunch of sissies. IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?

I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one

banishment (unannounced).

This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not

to criticize the moderators.

The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.

The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.

Jack

Absurd nonsense.

Jack White is an interesting case. He spends half his time here demanding we delete posts and banish members he disagrees with, and the other half complaining about the very gentle and entirely justified moderation of the forum which does occur. He would make a very brutal censor indeed if ever given the chance.

I have just returned from an extended holiday. I am pleased to see the forum has been moderated and maintained effectively in my absence.

I am extremely disappointed but not suprised however to be faced with so many virtual "reams" of arrant bickering in lieu of something worth reading - heigh ho <_<

Welcome back Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.

Next will be torture.

That’s right Jack if you don’t behave yourself Josiah “Tink” Thompson, the CIA agent who secretly controls this board, will send Kathy Beckett (the moderator who lives closest to you and like all the other mods one his agents) to “water board” you. Since you’ve endorsed the use of such techniques against other members of this forum* I assume you won’t object.

If there is any "oppression" going on here it's not being done by the mods but rather by members who are intolerant of people with contrary positions.

EDIT - typo fixed, citation added

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116613

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:

Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.

If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.

I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.

And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?

I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.

Kathy Beckett

That seems a fairly accurate account of what happens. Like Andy I have been on holiday (we did not advertise the fact as that usually results in a "denial of service" attack). As I have fairly strong views on the subjects we discuss, I have tried to withdraw myself from the role of moderator. In my opinion they do a great job. They were selected for this thankless task because of the way they have conducted themselves on the forum. So far, I have had no difficulty in agreeing with the decisions that they have made.

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

×
×
  • Create New...