"Len Brazil" and "Mike Williams" edit...

[Len Colby]

You probablly hit the wrong button. Why don't you just post it again?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Where's my post responding to Len's list gone?????

Jan, its been set to invisible, not by me, I guess because it contains the word Lying, which is against forum rules. Steve.

[Len Colby]

Where's my post responding to Len's list gone?????

Jan, its been set to invisible, not by me, I guess because it contains the word Lying, which is against forum rules. Steve.

If Jan wishes to accuse me of lying I expect him to offer evidence of such if he reposts a reworded version of his post.

[Evan Burton]

Where's my post responding to Len's list gone?????

Jan, its been set to invisible, not by me, I guess because it contains the word Lying, which is against forum rules. Steve.

Done by me, for the reasons Stephen has stated. Please refer to the PM I sent you.

[Evan Burton]

Where's my post responding to Len's list gone?????

Jan, its been set to invisible, not by me, I guess because it contains the word Lying, which is against forum rules. Steve.

Done by me, for the reasons Stephen has stated. Please refer to the PM I sent you.

What PM? I've received nothing.

Jan,

Please check your PMs again. I have a copy of the PM sent to you, so it can be confirmed that it was at least sent.

Edited to add: it was sent at 9.54PM my time, 32 mins before this post. It was also sent to Antti at the same time, so he can confirm if it was received by him or not.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Michael Hogan]

Where's my post responding to Len's list gone?????

Jan, its been set to invisible, not by me, I guess because it contains the word Lying, which is against forum rules. Steve.

Done by me, for the reasons Stephen has stated. Please refer to the PM I sent you.

What PM? I've received nothing.

Jan,

Please check your PMs again. I have a copy of the PM sent to you, so it can be confirmed that it was at least sent.

Edited to add: it was sent at 9.54PM my time, 32 mins before this post. It was also sent to Antti at the same time, so he can confirm if it was received by him or not.

A couple of months ago, Evan Burton deleted (he preferred to refer to it as made invisible) an exchange between Len Colby and me. There were no Forum rules broken on my part. I received no PM.

When I asked why the exchange was deleted, all I got from Evan was a nondescript and patronizing sentence about bickering. Since then, I've made several references to his biases.

His lack of consistency in his moderating efforts have been apparent to me for a long time.

[Evan Burton]

Still no PM received.

As I said, I CC'd Antti on the PM and kept a copy in my Sent Items folder. Since you appear not to have received it, here is the text:

Jan,

I have made your last post to Len invisible. You said:

What a crock of lying, disinformational, BS.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151533

This type of post is unacceptable. Calling someone a xxxx ("...a crock of lying, ...") is prohibited.

Please refrain from using such language towards another member.

Thank you.

[Evan Burton]

Jan,

Your post has already been referred to John.

[Evan Burton]

I also demand that post #63 be set to INVISIBLE whilst this matter is being investigated by John Simkin and moderators.

It is a clear misrepresentation of my views.

Jan,

Do you mean to say that you did NOT post those words?

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I have made your post invisible because I believe it contains an inappropriate reference with regard to Len. I have notified John S and asked him to advise.

You, sir, are an intellectual coward.

I began my most recent censored post by offering my opinon on the identity and mission of an individual -- by all accounts a fictive construct -- who is not a registered user of this Forum. I did so within the format of my oft-posted, now censored opinion of a current former member.

Is it now the position of this Forum's so-called "moderators" that fictional characters must not be harshly judged?

"Pinocchio" is a xxxx.

Will you render invisible -- how Orwellian -- this post because of the above accusation?

Is "Len Brazil" less fictional than "Pinocchio"?

Who, dear moderators, is "Len Brazil"? Is this "person" registered here?

I don't know any "Len Brazil". Do you? If so, please enlighten us. If "Len Brazil" is the pseudonym of a registered poster, don't we deserve to know it? If so, why aren't you enforcing the rule against such action?

I went on to quote from my published essay, "In the Blossom of Our Sins," as follows:

I shall now put forth—only to dismantle—as fine an argument as I know for the perpetuation (and there’s the rub) of our collegial treatment of the enemy’s pimps, behavior that commonly characterizes “gentlemen’s disagreements” between scholars.

The historian Gordon Craig, in his "New York Review of Books" analysis of David Irving’s controversial biography of Josef Goebbels, wrote, “It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma and shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have an indisputable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.

“Recently,” Craig went on, “when Christopher Hitchins talked with Raul Hilberg, author of the classic text The Destruction of the European Jews, he found him unambiguous on this point. ‘If these people want to speak,’ Hilberg said, ‘let them. It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful for us. I have quoted Eichmann references that come from a neo-Nazi publishing house. I am not for taboos and I am not for repression.'”

Nor am I. But would Hilberg join or in any other way dignify an effort to “re-examine” the historical truth of the Holocaust that would compel him in advance to acknowledge the Deniers’ position as an intellectually honest, academically sound, reasoned point of view? Or is his point simply that the arguments of Holocaust Deniers are useful so many years after the established historical truth of the event insofar as they may further reveal the nature of the beast?

Could Messrs. Craig or Hilberg or any of us, in good conscience, have entertained the arguments of apologists for Goebbels and the rest of the Bunker Boys at a time when the gas yet hissed and the piano wire yet tightened?

I then noted that, metaphorically (at least), the Zyklon B cans are being opened and the Steinways are being gutted. Right now. As I write and you read.

I restated that I harbor significant respect and affection for John Simkin as I asked him to consider how his moderators are playing into the enemy's hands.

The enemy' s agents who post on this and other Internet forums have been assigned the strategic goal of leveling the playing field for the lies that protect and otherwise support their masters and their agendas. Their tactics are self-evident and need no additional iteration in this post. They do not seek to win arguments, but only to prolong them ad infinitum. In doing so, they achieve their goal.

Their target is history -- which is to say, future generations of victims.

The moderators of this Forum would move heaven and earth to remove the word "xxxx" from our posts, but have not the slightest objection to posts that are comprised of nothing but lies.

I concluded by noting that, more and more, I am soiled by this place. Yet what choice do I have but to fight on?

Charles

Edited August 8, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

Jan,

I notice that you also do not have your biography linked at the bottom of your posts. Could you please do so as soon as possible? If you need assistance to do so, myself or another mod will be happy to help.

Thanks.

[Dawn Meredith]

Jan,

Please check your PMs again. I have a copy of the PM sent to you, so it can be confirmed that it was at least sent.

Edited to add: it was sent at 9.54PM my time, 32 mins before this post. It was also sent to Antti at the same time, so he can confirm if it was received by him or not.

A couple of months ago, Evan Burton deleted (he preferred to refer to it as made invisible) an exchange between Len Colby and me. There were no Forum rules broken on my part. I received no PM.

When I asked why the exchange was deleted, all I got from Evan was a nondescript and patronizing sentence about bickering. Since then, I've made several references to his biases.

His lack of consistency in his moderating efforts have been apparent to me for a long time.

[/color]

Mike

You are not alone in noting that for some ODD reason those who appear to be here merely to debunk all conspiracy truth have their rights overly protected, imho. Downright coddled. Colby has called me names and it's been left up. The worst I said of his group is call them "attack dogs". Of course he responded with an innane comment about me not understanding "irony". I have not ever attacked onyone on this forum.

A few days back I sugested just ignoring their comments and posting as if the offending comments are not even there.

About two years ago we had a character who went by the name of "Lynn Foster". I found that the best way to deal with her outrageous comments was to utilize the "ignore" feature on the forum. It worked wonders. She eventually disappeared. Members may remember she was fond of posting links that when opened messed up your computer. Aside from that and her nonstop detestation for Jim Garrison she had virtually nothing to say.

Justa a suggestion...

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

I also demand that post #63 be set to INVISIBLE whilst this matter is being investigated by John Simkin and moderators.

It is a clear misrepresentation of my views.

Jan,

Do you mean to say that you did NOT post those words?

What part of CONTEXT don't you understand?

You took part of my post, quoted it entirely out of context, and misrepresented my view.

Once again, I demand that your post #63 is made invisible, prior to being deleted, as it is an abuse of moderator power.

Jan,

About a year ago "Colby" used the same tactic - decontextualization -- to misrepresent one of my positions. I called him on it and did not relent until the "moderator" who got involved -- I believe it was Burton -- reluctantly agreed that "Colby" had intentionally misrepresented me. "Colby's" post, if memory served, was removed.

This is BEAUTIFUL! They're self-destructing all around us! Keep pressing, and we'll carry the day.

Charles

Edited August 8, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

Jan,

The post will remain invisible until John has reviewed it.

EDITED TO ADD: I have made my post #63 invisible as per your request. However, your post can be taken as calling another member a banned word, regardless of how unintentional that may have been. At least two mods have read it that way, therefore it will remain invisible until otherwise advised.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Charles Drago]

Since contributors' biographies are receiving renewed attention, I decided to update my own, as follows:

I contributed the Introduction to George Michael Evica's A Certain Arrogance. I was a founder and the first editor of JFKLancer's Internet news service LancerLINE, and I have presented numerous papers at Lancer conferences.

I co-produced and co-hosted the Providence, Rhode Island research conference sponsored by "The Fourth Decade," to which I contributed many essays. I also presented at Jim Fetzer's Minnesota conference.

I know an enemy agent when I see one. Or, in the case of this Forum, read one. Actually, more than one.

A thought occurs: If Leni Riefenstahl had married William Colby, she might have been referred to as Leni Colby.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Charles Drago