Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Projection again ? .. How silly of you to use this type of tactic again . You pimp for the liars at NASA who (as we have now seen ) were the ones who altered the contrast in the A17 photos from the original darker versions, to the current lighter versions . They made new scans Duane so people liek you could have a better view of the truth. Even if Mike did darken the A17 photos to bring out the square "Sun" reflection , that is no different from what you or Dave or Jack have done in your studies, when you want to enhance a certain aspect of a photograph ... It's not altering the image , it's only enhancing the point you want to make .... So the only reason that you're making a big deal out of the contrast being a bit darker is because you have nothing else . The difference is that he lied about it. I have no problem with changing the levles etc of an image in an attempt to show some detail or other better. Honest people just tell you up front what they have done. Liars try to hide it. St. Mark lied. I guess you must think liars are ok. I don't. You said that you had already created your own pictures of a square Sun reflection in a visor to prove Mike's evidence wrong ... but we have yet to see them posted here on even on Apollo Hoax ... So where are they ? ... You're not being shy about your work all of a sudden , are you "MrPhotoGod " ? No Duane I have said no such thing. If you think thats what I said please post the proof. Also I've shown that St. Marks "square" reflection is nothing but a large round reflection and two other small reflections from surface defects. That study is available on this forum. I have a number of images that disprove St. Marks ignorant claims. I'll be happy to share them when St. Marks crawls out from under his rock and debates in the open. I'll not play with you pimping his replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Projection again ? .. How silly of you to use this type of tactic again . You pimp for the liars at NASA who (as we have now seen ) were the ones who altered the contrast in the A17 photos from the original darker versions, to the current lighter versions . They made new scans Duane so people liek you could have a better view of the truth. Even if Mike did darken the A17 photos to bring out the square "Sun" reflection , that is no different from what you or Dave or Jack have done in your studies, when you want to enhance a certain aspect of a photograph ... It's not altering the image , it's only enhancing the point you want to make .... So the only reason that you're making a big deal out of the contrast being a bit darker is because you have nothing else . The difference is that he lied about it. I have no problem with changing the levles etc of an image in an attempt to show some detail or other better. Honest people just tell you up front what they have done. Liars try to hide it. St. Mark lied. I guess you must think liars are ok. I don't. You said that you had already created your own pictures of a square Sun reflection in a visor to prove Mike's evidence wrong ... but we have yet to see them posted here on even on Apollo Hoax ... So where are they ? ... You're not being shy about your work all of a sudden , are you "MrPhotoGod " ? No Duane I have said no such thing. If you think thats what I said please post the proof. Also I've shown that St. Marks "square" reflection is nothing but a large round reflection and two other small reflections from surface defects. That study is available on this forum. I have a number of images that disprove St. Marks ignorant claims. I'll be happy to share them when St. Marks crawls out from under his rock and debates in the open. I'll not play with you pimping his replies. What a complete cop out ... You don't have any evidence that proves Mike wrong ... All you have are insults , as usual . He asked that you provide a photo of a square shaped Sun in a convex reflection , that would be a match for the phony Apollo 17 photo ... but so far , you haven't manged to provide one .... No surpise there . But I know how you could get a match ... Instead of photographing the real Sun , go photograph one of your stage lights using a barn door attachment , like Mike has on his PB page .... That should be close enough ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Projection again ? .. How silly of you to use this type of tactic again . You pimp for the liars at NASA who (as we have now seen ) were the ones who altered the contrast in the A17 photos from the original darker versions, to the current lighter versions . They made new scans Duane so people liek you could have a better view of the truth. Even if Mike did darken the A17 photos to bring out the square "Sun" reflection , that is no different from what you or Dave or Jack have done in your studies, when you want to enhance a certain aspect of a photograph ... It's not altering the image , it's only enhancing the point you want to make .... So the only reason that you're making a big deal out of the contrast being a bit darker is because you have nothing else . The difference is that he lied about it. I have no problem with changing the levles etc of an image in an attempt to show some detail or other better. Honest people just tell you up front what they have done. Liars try to hide it. St. Mark lied. I guess you must think liars are ok. I don't. You said that you had already created your own pictures of a square Sun reflection in a visor to prove Mike's evidence wrong ... but we have yet to see them posted here on even on Apollo Hoax ... So where are they ? ... You're not being shy about your work all of a sudden , are you "MrPhotoGod " ? No Duane I have said no such thing. If you think thats what I said please post the proof. Also I've shown that St. Marks "square" reflection is nothing but a large round reflection and two other small reflections from surface defects. That study is available on this forum. I have a number of images that disprove St. Marks ignorant claims. I'll be happy to share them when St. Marks crawls out from under his rock and debates in the open. I'll not play with you pimping his replies. What a complete cop out ... You don't have any evidence that proves Mike wrong ... All you have are insults , as usual . He asked that you provide a photo of a square shaped Sun in a convex reflection , that would be a match for the phony Apollo 17 photo ... but so far , you haven't manged to provide one .... No surpise there . What he asked for is meaningless. I've got the goods. Drag St. Mark out of his walled garden and into the light and we can all watch him go down in flames. But I know how you could get a match ... Instead of photographing the real Sun , go photograph one of your stage lights using a barn door attachment , like Mike has on his PB page .... That should be close enough ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Projection again ? .. How silly of you to use this type of tactic again . You pimp for the liars at NASA who (as we have now seen ) were the ones who altered the contrast in the A17 photos from the original darker versions, to the current lighter versions . They made new scans Duane so people liek you could have a better view of the truth. Even if Mike did darken the A17 photos to bring out the square "Sun" reflection , that is no different from what you or Dave or Jack have done in your studies, when you want to enhance a certain aspect of a photograph ... It's not altering the image , it's only enhancing the point you want to make .... So the only reason that you're making a big deal out of the contrast being a bit darker is because you have nothing else . The difference is that he lied about it. I have no problem with changing the levles etc of an image in an attempt to show some detail or other better. Honest people just tell you up front what they have done. Liars try to hide it. St. Mark lied. I guess you must think liars are ok. I don't. You said that you had already created your own pictures of a square Sun reflection in a visor to prove Mike's evidence wrong ... but we have yet to see them posted here on even on Apollo Hoax ... So where are they ? ... You're not being shy about your work all of a sudden , are you "MrPhotoGod " ? No Duane I have said no such thing. If you think thats what I said please post the proof. Also I've shown that St. Marks "square" reflection is nothing but a large round reflection and two other small reflections from surface defects. That study is available on this forum. I have a number of images that disprove St. Marks ignorant claims. I'll be happy to share them when St. Marks crawls out from under his rock and debates in the open. I'll not play with you pimping his replies. What a complete cop out ... You don't have any evidence that proves Mike wrong ... All you have are insults , as usual . He asked that you provide a photo of a square shaped Sun in a convex reflection , that would be a match for the phony Apollo 17 photo ... but so far , you haven't manged to provide one .... No surpise there . What he asked for is meaningless. I've got the goods. Drag St. Mark out of his walled garden and into the light and we can all watch him go down in flames. But I know how you could get a match ... Instead of photographing the real Sun , go photograph one of your stage lights using a barn door attachment , like Mike has on his PB page .... That should be close enough ! I've photographed a very nice 7 inch wide by 17 long studio light. Believe me St. Mark has a very good reason to hide. BTW, that's a SOFTBOX on his pb page...look at the quality of the shadow, if you have even a basic understanding about lighting you will understand why its all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example:http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg Yep, different sources. The LPI scans are generally low quality (sorry LPI!) but are very useful because you can locate a particular image in a reasonable time, and they show all the images (including spoiled ones). They make note of the quality in warning: Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s). http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/processing/ Generally people use the LPI to find a particular image ID, then use things like the Apollo Image Gallery on the Project Apollo Archive, or the ALSJ to get a higher quality image (although the ALSJ images are most often the same images as done by the AIG. Kipp Teague, who runs the AIG, supplies his high quality scans to Eric of the ALSJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) What he asked for is meaningless. I've got the goods. Drag St. Mark out of his walled garden and into the light and we can all watch him go down in flames. What Mike asked for is simple ... You just can't provide it because it would prove that the real Sun would never produce a square shaped reflection in a visor . Mike has told you where you can discuss any of this with him but you have chosen not to take him up on his offer , but rather prefer to have him join a forum where you and your disingenuos buddies can gang up on him with your typical insults . I noticed how long the CT's last on forums like the one Jay Windley operates .... They either give up and go away because they have no reason to bang their heads against a pile of brick wall apologists , or they get banned because you all have a way of goading the CT's with insults , which makes them reply in kind ... and that's when they get the boot from Windley for "braking the forum's rules " .... Sort of like what you guys did to me on this forum , only it didn't work . And you expect Mike or me or any other CT to go along with that type of nonsense on a pro Apollo forum of your choosing ? ... Please . Edited January 4, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 'Mike has told you where you can discuss any of this with him but you have chosen not to take him up on his offer , but rather prefer to have him join a forum where you and your disingenuos buddies can gang up on him with your typical insults . No, IMO Craig has asked for a forum where BOTH sides can be assured of a neutral opinion. If I remember correctly, Craig said that you could set up your own forum for Mr St Mark to debate Craig; although this would hardly be impartial - favouring you because it would be your website - you refused. Why? Based on my limited knowledge, it would give you the advantage; the only disadvantage is that you would have is that although you may delete or unapprove comments, they would still be recorded on the website logs. There would be a permanent record (although not visible to the normal poster) of what was posted. I noticed how long the CT's last on forums like the one Jay Windley operates .... They either give up and go away because they have no reason to bang their heads against a pile of brick wall apologists , or they get banned because you all have a way of goading the CT's with insults , which makes them reply in kind ... and that's when they get they get the boot from Windley for "braking the forum's rules " .... Sort of like what you guys did to me on this forum , only it didn't work .And you expect Mike or me or any other CT to go along with that type of nonsense on a pro Apollo forum of your choosing ? ... Please . You have the ability to ask John S or Andy W to mediate at any time. I am subject to their rules. You consider this to be a pro-Apollo forum? Please detail your reasons why, so that people can assess them. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, then address them to John or Andy. please do not forget to ask them to publish your complaints - I have no fear that they will not do so. I posted earlier a good example about your claims regarding "I am being silenced"; all you need to do is post your evidence with your first post - but you never do. You tease and then insult. Your record is available to anyone who wishes to search under your pseudonyms. If they wish to search, then they may do so. The problem is - IMO - that you and your ilk refuse to abide by the regulation of the forums you choose you inhabit; that you break the rules but insist they apply to everyone else. Once again - start your own forum; let us talk Apollo on YOUR turf. Let's see who gets censored for what reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) 'Mike has told you where you can discuss any of this with him but you have chosen not to take him up on his offer , but rather prefer to have him join a forum where you and your disingenuos buddies can gang up on him with your typical insults . No, IMO Craig has asked for a forum where BOTH sides can be assured of a neutral opinion. If I remember correctly, Craig said that you could set up your own forum for Mr St Mark to debate Craig; although this would hardly be impartial - favouring you because it would be your website - you refused. Why? Based on my limited knowledge, it would give you the advantage; the only disadvantage is that you would have is that although you may delete or unapprove comments, they would still be recorded on the website logs. There would be a permanent record (although not visible to the normal poster) of what was posted. I noticed how long the CT's last on forums like the one Jay Windley operates .... They either give up and go away because they have no reason to bang their heads against a pile of brick wall apologists , or they get banned because you all have a way of goading the CT's with insults , which makes them reply in kind ... and that's when they get they get the boot from Windley for "braking the forum's rules " .... Sort of like what you guys did to me on this forum , only it didn't work .And you expect Mike or me or any other CT to go along with that type of nonsense on a pro Apollo forum of your choosing ? ... Please . You have the ability to ask John S or Andy W to mediate at any time. I am subject to their rules. You consider this to be a pro-Apollo forum? Please detail your reasons why, so that people can assess them. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, then address them to John or Andy. please do not forget to ask them to publish your complaints - I have no fear that they will not do so. I posted earlier a good example about your claims regarding "I am being silenced"; all you need to do is post your evidence with your first post - but you never do. You tease and then insult. Your record is available to anyone who wishes to search under your pseudonyms. If they wish to search, then they may do so. The problem is - IMO - that you and your ilk refuse to abide by the regulation of the forums you choose you inhabit; that you break the rules but insist they apply to everyone else. Once again - start your own forum; let us talk Apollo on YOUR turf. Let's see who gets censored for what reasons. What the heck are you talking about ? ... I never said this was a pro Apollo forum and I wasn't complaining about this forum either .... Obviously the owners of this forum are much more intelligent and show much more fairness than any webmaster of any pro Apollo forum ... I have read the ridiculous trash that's posted on Apollo Hoax and Baut and it nothing like this forum . Don't go attempting to twist this one around to suit your purposes again ... It backfired before and it will backfire again . If you want to link any post I have made on any other forum here , under the ONLY pseudonym I have ever used ( straydog ), then be my guest ... I have nothing to hide . "You and your ilk " ... and you think you're not being insulting ? ... What a hypocrite you are ... Of course the forum rules apply to me and my "ilk" ... That's why I was banned from this forum , and then after I cleared my name of your false accusations , was reinstated and placed on "permanate moderation " ... If that's not having the forum's rules apply to me I don't know what is . As for debating any of you on another forum ? ... No thanks ... This one eats up enough of my time , thank you . Edited January 4, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 What he asked for is meaningless. I've got the goods. Drag St. Mark out of his walled garden and into the light and we can all watch him go down in flames. What Mike asked for is simple ... You just can't provide it because it would prove that the real Sun would never produce a square shaped reflection in a visor . Sorry but st marks "square Sun" has already been debunked on this very forum. That issue is deader than a doornail Duane. If you want to see the rest of my evidence drtag st mark from hiding. I'm not going to post it and then play proxy games with you. Mike has told you where you can discuss any of this with him but you have chosen not to take him up on his offer , but rather prefer to have him join a forum where you and your disingenuos buddies can gang up on him with your typical insults . Actually I did take him up and he proceeded to censor the posts. Not a very nice thing to do when you claim to be a truthseeker. St. marks problem is not time nor hostile forums, its his need to censor the postings to cover for his uneducated and erronous opinions. In otherwords...his ignorance. I've offered to debate him anywhere there is an open forum. He refuses. The boy has no balls. I noticed how long the CT's last on forums like the one Jay Windley operates .... They either give up and go away because they have no reason to bang their heads against a pile of brick wall apologists , or they get banned because you all have a way of goading the CT's with insults , which makes them reply in kind ... and that's when they get the boot from Windley for "braking the forum's rules " .... Sort of like what you guys did to me on this forum , only it didn't work . No Duane the reason you CT's leave is because you are forced to deal with cold hard facts and those facts destroy your worldview. You are forced to put up and thats a big problem. SO no one 'goads" the opposition on youtube forums like St. Marks eh? Shall I post a few of YOUR comments Duane. Like the one you made claimiing I planted a virus by typing words into a youtube comment box? Or others? The point here is simple. St Mark is unwilling to debate where he can't control the posts of others. He knows his ideas will not stand up in the light of day. So he makes excuses and continues his bluster...dragging along the unwary like you. You deserve better Duane, like pals who tell you the truth and are willing to defend their ideas in the open. And you expect Mike or me or any other CT to go along with that type of nonsense on a pro Apollo forum of your choosing ? ... Please . Once more for clarity. I'll debate st. mark anywhere and at any OPEN forum. Make your own forum Duane. Try Delphi Forums..its free. You can even be the moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 What the heck are you talking about ? ... I never said this was a pro Apollo forum and I wasn't complaining about this forum either Really? Let's review what you have said: ... He has neither the time or the interesnt in joining this forum , Windley's forum of CT abuse or any other forum that you and your pals set up.. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=132544 Nah - hardly conclusive, is it? Evan ... I've asked Mike about joining the Education Forum to debate Lamson but he said he has been reading the posts here and doesn't much like the way the conspiracy researchers are treated .He doesn't care much for BAUT or clavius / Apollo Hoax for the same reason as well .... So he has offered to debate craig or you or anyone else who might be interested , on his personal YouTube profile page ... but so far craig hasn't taken him up on his offer , but prefers to stay here where the CT's are very much out numberd and now even controlled with moderation by you , a defender of Apollo. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=123482 This one hints a little more towards what you are implying: Mike already told you where you can "debate" him ...It's not his problem if it's not where you would like it to be ... Or to be more precise , where you and your friends can gang up on him and turn this into a circus . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=121733 And I'm a nasty person; well, we all know that: I have already posted my complaints about Evan Burton being a moderator and linked the Apollo hoax thread where his Jack and Duane bashing takes place .If the forum owners don't see that as a reason to remove him as a moderator or reinstate Jacks' posting abilities , then there is nothing I can do about it . (more to follow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=121144 And a little bit of disinformation never hurt either: Evan hatched a plan to have Jack moderated for reasons which needs to be made abundantly clear to everyone on this forum .... It's called a WITCH HUNT and the ones that Burton has targeted are Jack and me for exposing the Apollo hoax evidence ... Burton is an avid defender of NASA'S alleged manned moon landings and the Apollo photography , which Jack , among other researchers , has proven to be fake ....I am reposting what I did on the political conspiracies thread so the members who don't visit that section of the forum can see the real truth of why Evan Burton put Jack on moderation to the point where he is now unable to post here in his defense . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=121099 Anyway - enough about me. Back to what Duane says about the Forum: 'm not sure at this point why Jack still wants to be a member of this forum and have the privilege of posting here , but he does ... And for that reason alone I feel very sorry for him and for what is taking place here . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=121017 I was going to write something very similar to what you did , just not quite as profound ... But I was afraid if I did stand up for Jack that I might be moderated or banned ... Now I really don't care , as I no longer have any interest in wasting my time on a forum where freedom of speech is not allowed and certain members are blocked from posting in their own defense ... Jack has been attacked by certain members here on a daily basis ... Every single word he writes is ridiculed with a venom that to me is not normal ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=120798 I feel that we have both been treated unfairly here ... He and I both are constantly being insulted on this forum by certain members and yet nothing is ever done to stop it .I realize that our opinions about Apollo are in the minority here and obviously not very popular , but that is no excuse for the kind of harrassment which is taking place . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=120584 My "unwarrented attacks" are defensive blows against insulting , game playing , members here who will do whatever it takes to 'win' their argument http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=120301 I hate to break the sad news to you craig , but the only people defending Apollo are nasa shills and a few gullible geeks on internet discussion forums , such as this one http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=119899 And that is not limited to me - Stephen cops a flogging, too: If you have worked 20 years as a psychologist , then you have done quite a dis-service to the world of psychology .I have no interest in your original thread , just the way you and your pals never had any interest in mine or Jack's , except to turn them into threads of dishonest mind games and character assassinataions . It would seem that your real purpose for being here is to insult and then hopefully silence those whom you don't like or whom you disagree with ... And that is one of the reasons you have no business attempting to moderate ... You obviously don't even comprehend the meaning of the word . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=110550 You have no more business being a moderator here than Evan Burton does .. as neither one of you know how to show any fairness, or know how to be impartial towards the members you disagree with ... Which as we all know , would be Jack White and me . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=110524 (more to follow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 But let's get back to Duane: I really don't understand why you continue to post here ... Even the forum owner enjoys ridiculing you and your work ... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=104301 It's a waste of time posting here because of the dishonesty , the silly mind games and the insulting character assassinations of those who don't believe that the Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=104153 As for this forum , I would be glad to post more of the Apollo hoax evidence here , but it is usually met with such distain and deliberate dishonesty , that it is hardly worth the bother anymore . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=&pid=99702 You and your "friends" make this forum a cesspit with your off topic ad homs and hateful comments. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=&pid=92429 And some of the random insults: You're accusing Jack of attacking the messenger ? .... Now that IS funny! .... Neither he, nor I can post one freaking word here without lamson the sociopath , Evan the robot soldier , Greer the geek , and Len the xxxxx , stomping us both into the ground with their uncalled for personal insults.You military boys are all alike ... programmed like little robots, to defend your country , even when what you are defending is your country's lies . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=&pid=91852 etc, etc But I'd like clarification on this one: That's why I was banned from this forum , and then after I cleared my name of your false accusations , was reinstated and placed on "permanate moderation Now, to the best of my knowledge (and I am willing to be corrected) you were never banned. You were placed on moderation. There were no 'false accusations' made against you and so you were never "cleared" of them. You were placed on moderation for your actions on the Forum, and after a period of good behaviour, were taken off of moderation. John / Andy, if I am incorrect about this, please correct me; I do not wish to say anything untrue about Duane. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Setting up another witch hunt against me again I see. ... You really are to be pitied Evan . Do you think by posting my past comments here that you might manage to have me banned again , or are you just going for another permanate moderation maybe with all your goading tactics ? There is nothing I posted that isn't true , and I'm really surprised you posted it all here for everyone to see , as it does put you and your pals in a rather bad light and also exposes your game plan here on this forum as well . Now, to the best of my knowledge (and I am willing to be corrected) you were never banned Wrong again Evan ... I was banned for ten days , thanks to whoever ran to Andy Walker with the lie that I am really Mike St Mark ... My IP address was even blocked so I couldn't view the forum ... It took a lot of hard work on the part of a friend of mine here to have me reinstated and then a lot of work on my part have my moderation lifted . So if your point of all this nonsense is to have me put on moderation again or possibly even banned , then I can only hope the forum owners can see through your latest tactics and see you for what you really are . Like I have posted several times already ... You have NO BUSINESS BEING A MODERATOR ON THIS FORUM ... and what you have done here proves that . So how about we cut all the nonsense now and return to discussing Apollo... Or are you more interested in getting your revenge for me exposing your previous witch hunt against me ? Your posts above will be reported and I can only hope the other moderators and the forum owners take a long hard look at what you're doing here and agree with me that you are one sorry moderator who needs to be removed from his duties . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) Setting up another witch hunt against me again I see. ... You really are to be pitied Evan .Do you think by posting my past comments here that you might manage to have me banned again , or are you just going for another permanate moderation maybe with all your goading tactics ? There is nothing I posted that isn't true , and I'm really surprised you posted it all here for everyone to see , as it does put you and your pals in a rather bad light and also exposes your game plan here on this forum as well . All I have done is quote what you have said - on this Forum - and provided a link to the source post. Wrong again Evan ... I was banned for ten days , thanks to whoever ran to Andy Walker with the lie that I am really Mike St Mark ... My IP address was even blocked so I couldn't view the forum ... It took a lot of hard work on the part of a friend of mine here to have me reinstated and then a lot of work on my part have my moderation lifted . That is not my understanding, but I am willing to be corrected on the matter. If what you say is correct, then I freely retract my statement to the contrary. ******************** Edited to Add: That is the last post I will make on the matter, so as to accede to Kathy's wishes and wise counsel. Edited January 4, 2008 by Evan Burton Added last line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Oh, for heaven's sake, folks, will you please stop this???/John Simkin needs our prayers(for you believers out there) or our thoughts (for everyone else) not this stuff.His wife is ill---anyone remember? I do not know for the life of me, why this argument couldn't just be a bit more civil. Put the problems of last year behind you. Duane, I agree , some of this is not new, but calling Evan out is not new either. Where did it get you last time? I know, someone is going to say "but he said"---it's going to continue until someone decides it is enough--don't you folks have enough substance in your debate to use against each other without starting more trouble by making it personal?? Especially to the point where you have to involve John Simkin--your stuff is not that earthshattering that you have to evoke his name. Please folks, can you move on? Now that's what a MODERATOR is supossed to do ! Thanks for stepping in to break up all the ruckus Kathy . Mr. Simkin does have my sympathies at this very difficult time and I wish him and especially his wife all the best ...and you're right ... he certainly doesn't need to be bothered with this type of petty behavior on his forum . I'm sorry to have bothered you with this matter , but I was only going by Mr. Simkin's advise to me to report any abuse directed to me, instead of replying in kind . I think it might be best if I don't try to discuss this subject with Evan anymore . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now