What is going on?

[Dean Hagerman]

Andy told me that Peter has not been banned and his IP has not been blocked

However I have recieved an Email from Peter telling me that he has been blocked!

When the PM first came through I only got it in my Email Inbox, and my PM inbox on the forum has no trace of the PM that Peter sent to me

Why has this been done to him?

Why was I told his IP was not blocked?

Is this a misunderstanding?

Or is it worse?

Im going to stand up for Peter because this is wrong if it is true

Can someone tell us what is going on?

We already know that the accusations against Peter were not true, for those of you that missed the threads that were taken down

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I should think that any and all potentially libelous material has been removed from public view for obvious reasons. And Peter's being denied an opportunity to resurrect them.

I don’t usually weigh in on such procedural matters, and I feared precisely this type of cockup would become inevitable with the introduction of moderators. The level of debate here was coarsened when members were no longer trusted to comport themselves as responsible adults. The resulting name-calling and appeals to the referees make soccer dives seem legitimate by comparison.

However, now that the predictable bun-fight has erupted with a vengeance, a few thoughts, if I may be so bold.

I don’t think Peter was an appropriate choice for moderator, based in large measure on posts of his that were tediously superfluous and often only tangentially pertinent to the point being discussed. I don’t say that to demean him, only to underscore that if I now say anything in his defense, it is not because I am his friend, nor because I think that he was a splendid choice for mod. I am not and do not.

However, if the powers-that-be who run this place have sufficient confidence in a member to award him moderator status, then those same powers ought grant him an opportunity to challenge and refute whatever charges are leveled against him. In this instance, it seems that this wasn’t done, with Andy Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily taking executive action against somebody for whom his loathing was hardly a secret. Summary execution, if you will. Lethal failure number one.

[Full disclosure: Andy Walker and I have recently crossed swords in a thread here, but whatever I say herein is entirely unrelated to such issues. My impression of Andy is that he has been swift to demean those who displease him (with Jack White being a favoured whipping boy, imho), but has often been so bitingly witty in the process that I couldn’t - and can’t - hold a grudge. He thinks the lot of us are starkers, is my best guess, and seems to amuse himself by occasionally picking off those he thinks are the easiest targets for his well-honed scorn. Were he not an administrator, he’d be virtually irrelevant, based solely upon contributions hereto. He is not one of our number.]

No doubt Andy thought he was saving a damsel in distress, and mitigating his own legal liability, when he acted by shutting Peter down. However, that ill-considered gambit has resulted in an even worse situation. Peter’s reputation hangs in the balance upon unproved, un-itemized allegations of sexual predation - repeated here in the general abstract, along with glaringly stupid suggestions that Peter is mentally imbalanced - that have been denied by Peter, and now, also by his alleged accuser. Having already found Peter guilty and passed sentence summarily, this is a rather shaming development for our Mr. Walker who seems to have found himself at road’s end. Action taken for ostensibly laudible goals has been revealed to be based more on personal animus toward Peter Lemkin than upon any foul he may have committed, by Andy Walker's own admission, I would strongly argue. Lethal failure number two.

It is unlikely that Andy would acknowledge this, for he seems to think conspiracy is a rare thing, but the conventional wisdom in such matters has it that the coverup only serves to accentuate the crime. The very fact that Dean has posted this thread illustrates that it will not be forgotten simply because the evidence has been so crudely scuttled from public view, no matter how much the responsible party may wish it to be so. Elimination of the evidence doesn’t move the hands on the clock backward, nor remove from the public consciousness all awareness of its one-time existence. Lethal failure number three.

I do not know how this thing can be negotiated into a mutually agreeable resolution, but I do know that all parties had best make a good faith attempt to achieve same. The alternative is an unenviable one, in which barristers and solicitors with no personal skin in the game will be the only ones made happy, at the expense of those with the most skin in the game. Please, gentlemen, work this thing out, for your own sakes and that of the Forum that I fear will be sacrificed if you don’t.

(If my past efforts at attempting to broker peace deals on the internet are any indication, I will now expect to be shot by both sides. Fire at will.)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The situation is ridiculous. Peter Lemkin is the only moderator since I have been involved on this forum who, in my opinion, was even handed and involved. This Evan Burton guy has been such a toady for the trolls that it has made me sick. I never heard of this Andy Walker before, but John should get a grip on this before it all spins out of control. Having biased moderators screws up the forum and defeats its purpose--where Walker would appear to be a prime example.

I should think that any and all potentially libelous material has been removed from public view for obvious reasons. And Peter's being denied an opportunity to resurrect them.

I don’t usually weigh in on such procedural matters, and I feared precisely this type of cockup would become inevitable with the introduction of moderators. The level of debate here was coarsened when members were no longer trusted to comport themselves as responsible adults. The resulting name-calling and appeals to the referees make soccer dives seem legitimate by comparison.

However, now that the predictable bun-fight has erupted with a vengeance, a few thoughts, if I may be so bold.

I don’t think Peter was an appropriate choice for moderator, based in large measure on posts of his that were tediously superfluous and often only tangentially pertinent to the point being discussed. I don’t say that to demean him, only to underscore that if I now say anything in his defense, it is not because I am his friend, nor because I think that he was a splendid choice for mod. I am not and do not.

However, if the powers-that-be who run this place have sufficient confidence in a member to award him moderator status, then those same powers ought grant him an opportunity to challenge and refute whatever charges are leveled against him. In this instance, it seems that this wasn’t done, with Andy Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily taking executive action against somebody for whom his loathing was hardly a secret. Summary execution, if you will. Lethal failure number one.

[Full disclosure: Andy Walker and I have recently crossed swords in a thread here, but whatever I say herein is entirely unrelated to such issues. My impression of Andy is that he has been swift to demean those who displease him (with Jack White being a favoured whipping boy, imho), but has often been so bitingly witty in the process that I couldn’t - and can’t - hold a grudge. He thinks the lot of us are starkers, is my best guess, and seems to amuse himself by occasionally picking off those he thinks are the easiest targets for his well-honed scorn. Were he not an administrator, he’d be virtually irrelevant, based solely upon contributions hereto. He is not one of our number.]

No doubt Andy thought he was saving a damsel in distress, and mitigating his own legal liability, when he acted by shutting Peter down. However, that ill-considered gambit has resulted in an even worse situation. Peter’s reputation hangs in the balance upon unproved, un-itemized allegations of sexual predation - repeated here in the general abstract, along with glaringly stupid suggestions that Peter is mentally imbalanced - that have been denied by Peter, and now, also by his alleged accuser. Having already found Peter guilty and passed sentence summarily, this is a rather shaming development for our Mr. Walker who seems to have found himself at road’s end. Action taken for ostensibly laudible goals has been revealed to be based more on personal animus toward Peter Lemkin than upon any foul he may have committed, by Andy Walker's own admission, I would strongly argue. Lethal failure number two.

It is unlikely that Andy would acknowledge this, for he seems to think conspiracy is a rare thing, but the conventional wisdom in such matters has it that the coverup only serves to accentuate the crime. The very fact that Dean has posted this thread illustrates that it will not be forgotten simply because the evidence has been so crudely scuttled from public view, no matter how much the responsible party may wish it to be so. Elimination of the evidence doesn’t move the hands on the clock backward, nor remove from the public consciousness all awareness of its one-time existence. Lethal failure number three.

I do not know how this thing can be negotiated into a mutually agreeable resolution, but I do know that all parties had best make a good faith attempt to achieve same. The alternative is an unenviable one, in which barristers and solicitors with no personal skin in the game will be the only ones made happy, at the expense of those with the most skin in the game. Please, gentlemen, work this thing out, for your own sakes and that of the Forum that I fear will be sacrificed if you don’t.

(If my past efforts at attempting to broker peace deals on the internet are any indication, I will now expect to be shot by both sides. Fire at will.)

Edited March 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Very well said both Jim and Robert

I made this thread for one reason, because what happened to Peter is wrong and I will back him up no matter what happens

If he is no longer allowed a voice on this forum I will pass on his words

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Where are all of the posts of Peter Lemkin?

What in the world is going on?

Did he type some things that seemed callous, WHEN SEEN IN ISOLATION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE WHO STUCK TO HIM LIKE ....? Well guess what happens when you are attacked for hours and hours and hours on end on every single thread that you start and every single post that you make.

It is a natural response of any living thing to develop callouses. Peter was in this situation-- as nobody else on this forum has ever been --not even close-- since I first discovered it in the Fall of 2005.

If one want's to argue that someone in this social sitution should be inelligeable as a moderator, well that is highly dabateable given the conformity that might result from such an exclusion of someone who was attacked for having minority views. But it is an absoultely insane and tyranical basis for exclusion when when one realizes that one of the other moderators was a primary nemesis.

As far as I am concerned, the legitimacy of this forum is in question.

Whether via Stalinist air brushing, British libel law or some liberal mixture of the two, thousands of hours of a man's thought is consigned to oblivion with the push of a button or two. Far worse, rumors are spread that seem completely unanswerable. This without a word of explanation.

Even a Supreme Court packed with Scalia clones would offer a press release. Is there no accountability here whatsoever?

[Bernice Moore]

Andy told me that Peter has not been banned and his IP has not been blocked

However I have recieved an Email from Peter telling me that he has been blocked!

When the PM first came through I only got it in my Email Inbox, and my PM inbox on the forum has no trace of the PM that Peter sent to me

Why has this been done to him?

Why was I told his IP was not blocked?

Is this a misunderstanding?

Or is it worse?

Im going to stand up for Peter because this is wrong if it is true

Can someone tell us what is going on?

We already know that the accusations against Peter were not true, for those of you that missed the threads that were taken down

DEAN ; I have heard also from Peter he also stated he is cut off blocked.. it was suggested that he email john simkin, this is what he had to say about such...''I have written several emails to J.S., he is NOT answering'' as robert charles stated ''

I do not know how this thing can be negotiated into a mutually agreeable resolution, but I do know that all parties had best make a good faith attempt to achieve same. The alternative is an unenviable one, in which barristers and solicitors with no personal skin in the game will be the only ones made happy, at the expense of those with the most skin in the game. Please, gentlemen, work this thing out, for your own sakes and that of the Forum that I fear will be sacrificed if you don’t.''

b..

Edited March 12, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Evan Burton]

The situation is ridiculous. Peter Lemkin is the only moderator since I have been involved on this forum who, in my opinion, was even handed and involved. This Evan Burton guy has been such a toady for the trolls that it has made me sick. I never heard of this Andy Walker before, but John should get a grip on this before it all spins out of control. Having biased moderators screws up the forum and defeats its purpose--where Walker would appear to be a prime example.

Gee - have a few more goes at me Professor. You forget I actually voted for Peter to stay a moderator. That it was my suggestion he become a moderator. That in previous discussion about Peter's behaviour (the latest was not the first) I voted for him to stay then, too.

People can't seem to accept that I don't need to like someone in order to think they have value.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good for you, Evan! As a former colleague used to say, "I take it back and asset the opposite!" In this case, you appear to have been on the right side, for which I commend you. The situation with Peter, however, is completely deplorable. He should be reinstated. If his voluminous posts have been deleted, they need to be restored. That is a form of intellectual theft. In my opinion, the integrity of the forum is at stake. And having someone who does not believe in conspiracies running the shop is quite frankly absurd. Consider the range of events that could not be understood absent conspiracies as David Mantik listed them in his chapter, "The Silence of the Historians", MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), page 402:

Foreign Targets/Assassinations/Conspiracies (20th Century):

Franz Ferdinand Rajiv Gandhi Louis Mountbatten Czar Nicholas II

Adolf Hitler Rafael Trujillo Salvadore Allende Charles DeGaulle

Benigo Aquino Anwar Sadat Luis Colosio Leon Trotsky

Ngo Dinh Diem Rene Schnneideer Pancho Villa Ngo Dihn Nhu

Jacobo Arbenz Grigorli Rasputin Mohammed Mossadegh Fidel Castro

Patrice Lumumba Pope John Paul II Saddam Hussein Manuel Noriega

Egad! What would Shakespeare have had to write about but for plots against the Kings and Queens of England? And in the US (20th Century), the list would be extended to include John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X, Senator Paul Wellstone, Cpl. Pat Tillman, and many others as well. So if we are not to investigate conspiracies, we are going to be unable to begin to understand history, including the stories that appear on virtually every page of The New York Times, as I documented in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", accessible via google and published in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: THE SCAMMING OF AMERICA (2007). What would history be without them?

The situation is ridiculous. Peter Lemkin is the only moderator since I have been involved on this forum who, in my opinion, was even handed and involved. This Evan Burton guy has been such a toady for the trolls that it has made me sick. I never heard of this Andy Walker before, but John should get a grip on this before it all spins out of control. Having biased moderators screws up the forum and defeats its purpose--where Walker would appear to be a prime example.

Gee - have a few more goes at me Professor. You forget I actually voted for Peter to stay a moderator. That it was my suggestion he become a moderator. That in previous discussion about Peter's behaviour (the latest was not the first) I voted for him to stay then, too.

People can't seem to accept that I don't need to like someone in order to think they have value.

Edited March 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Don Jeffries]

All the moderators received an email from Andy yesterday, informing us that Peter was no longer a member. If it is true that his accuser has now publicly acknowledged that her accusations were the result of a misunderstanding, and has retracted them, then I think it is only fair to note that here, since the vague charges were available for all to see.

It seems that Peter is guilty of nothing more than having views which are objectionable to some here. As I noted before, any nastiness or name calling in his posts was hardly unique on this forum. Far too many posters resort to this on a regular basis, without being banned from the forum.

[Evan Burton]

Good for you, Evan! As a former colleague used to say, "I take it back and asset the opposite!" In this case, you appear to have been on the right side, for which I commend you.

Thank you Professor. We can agree even when we disagree. Please understand I (strongly) disagree with the majority of Peter's posts, and disagree with what I consider to be his inability to not take things too personally, but he added a balance to the Forum.

I am sure John will give us a full explanation when he feels he is able; he has been under considerable personal stress of late and I do not expect he to have to explain his decisions until he is ready to. Like you, I am upset that Peter's posts have been removed... not because I agree with them (anything but!) yet believe just because I disagree with someone does not mean they should be silenced. I do agree with enforcing the Forum rules as decided by the owners, but if a post does not break the rules then I see no reason for it to be removed - no matter how passionately I disagree with it.

[Mark Knight]

I was going to let this one pass...and then an old poem came to mind:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out...because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me...and there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoller

So effectively Peter Lemkin is gone from the forum, banned because he stood up for himself in the face of charges that were later withdrawn. If it can be done to someone as well-known within the community as Peter, how much easier would it be to do likewise with someone such as me...or you?

I understand the concept of attempting to mitigate one's liability...especially when it regards the assassination of a man's character based upon charges that were made and them withdrawn. Perhaps that's the way to silence ALL those who believe in conspiracy...make charges against their character, use those charges as justification to withdraw their priveleges here, and then withdraw the charges...but prevent the wrongly-accused party from using the forum in which they were "convicted" to defend themselves against what appear to be spurious charges. If it can happen to Peter Lemkin, who's next on the hit list in this grand non-conspiracy [since Andy Walker doesn't believe in conspiracies]? One of the lower-level contributors such as me? Someone as visible as Jim Root? Or perhaps a frequent-flier such as Bill Kelley?

It would appear that, from a legal standpoint, one of the administrative "birds" of this forum has apparently "fouled" his own nest...this from a layman's point of view, since I am not an attorney.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Mark Knight

[John Dolva]

.

[Bernice Moore]

I should think that any and all potentially libelous material has been removed from public view for obvious reasons. And Peter's being denied an opportunity to resurrect them.

ROBERT FROM PETER TO YOU...

(If my past efforts at attempting to broker peace deals on the internet are any indication, I will now expect to be shot by both sides. Fire at will.)

Robert Charles-Dunne

Robert, I for one will never shoot at you. I think you are about the best, if not THE best and most articulate voice of reason, political acumen. plus wise and artistic wordweaving we have [or I had] on this Forum. I stand accused of nothing except trying to defend myself from false charges. Long before this broke out publicly I sent both Administrators privately offers to prove the allegations false in some in camera setting [not on the Forum publicly], as I had and have more than enough proof to do so. From one came silence, from the other more vitriol. Please note that the charges when revealed to most [although several members secretly had been let in on them, as well as the women in question through a whispering campaign - the source of which I'll leave to the imagination of such clever people] accused me of having done untoward things to multiple women [there was an 's' applied twice]. Now we all know there was never even the one. So, though not guilty; though not presented the evidence; though not allowed to defend myself; and though I did try briefly - that has all be expunged - along with the half-baked limited-modified-hangout demi-semi-partial retraction [also gone]. No full retraction, no apology, no re-instatement of my membership [no charges as to why it was removed]; lies that my IP was/is not blocked, when it is. I seem to remember from the Watergate era a phrase that went like this: What did they know [or invent], and when did they know it [or invent it]? Walker said he was taking some leave and has not left. He feigned resignation only to come back to vote against me. Vote on what and a vote taken just before the 'news' that the 'rumour' was false....great timing....one might even say a bit 'too good' to be true. So, the man who believes in no conspiracy since the assassination of Caesar apparently, it seems, was in some way involved in one - yet in a letter to the mods I was accused of a conspiracy to destroy the good name of Mr. Walker. Ironic, in the extreme. It started IMO as a political vendetta and grew and grew. My attempts to present evidence against vague charges or hear them or defend myself were denied, ignored or when attempted on my own removed. It never happened - or so they'd like you to believe. I'm a teacher at University, currently unemployed - imagine trying to get a job with these allegations over one's head, let alone a date. So many employers and potential dates 'google' names just to see what pops up. There were other epithets hurled at me in public and in private - thinking like a Nazi, unstable, insane [boilingly so], dangerous, and on and on and on. Found to be innocent, yet executed - without trial or due process. I belive commonly known as a lynching. It was all in the timing and the manipulation of the whispering campaign. Of what may I ask am I accused of to warrant removal from the Forum, ditto my IP blocked? I did not start any of this. I did not ever do anything wrong or break forum rules - yes I showed a private message as my only way to expose the ugly rumor and to defend myself as I saw the noose dangling on yonder tree with my neck's name on it. I thank all those who see some injustice in this. I feel personally offended and my reputation besmirched [a mild understatement]. Peter Lemkin, in banishment and my IP blocked.

[Cliff Varnell]

So, Andy, when is Peter Lemkin going to be reinstated as a member in

good standing of this fine Forum?

John shouldn't have to deal with this right now, and I for one think you ought to

take care of this, Andy.

[John Dolva]

John can delegate to Evan. This isn't gonna be a many on one fight, I don't mind going point once in a while. (But for all concerned, I would not recommend having me do so)