Dixie Dea Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 Jack...Last night I wasn't able to access the DP Forum, but this morning I was able to. This has occurred before, when a website starts up again. I am thinking that it may take awhile for different ISP's to catch up. Hopwfully you will be okay at the DPF again soon. Dixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 deeppoliticsforum.net was registered on the 18th by Peter Presland a DPF member. My guess is that he is any ally of the 'Gang of 5' and there will be an attempt made shortly to relaunch with that url. Having two rival forums with the same name will induvitably sow confusion. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/DeepPoliticsForum.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 deeppoliticsforum.net was registered on the 18th by Peter Presland a DPF member. My guess is that he is any ally of the 'Gang of 5' and there will be an attempt made shortly to relaunch with that url. Having two rival forums with the same name will induvitably sow confusion. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/DeepPoliticsForum.net Len, You are certainly keeping track with a certain amount of pleasure? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Sorry, duplicate. Edited December 20, 2010 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 20, 2010 Share Posted December 20, 2010 Okay, the DPF is back up and running. No reason for this thread to remain open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The conflict at the Deep Politics Forum illustrates the difficulty of maintaining free-speech when discussing controversial issues. When people normally talk about their desire for free-speech they usually only mean free-speech for those people who they agree with. The really difficult task is to allow free-speech to those on subjects where you strongly disagree with. That seems to have been the problem with the Deep Politics Forum. At the Education Forum we try to deal with this problem by having a committee of administrators and moderators to make all important decisions by majority vote. Moderators are also decided by majority vote. All moderators are free to suggest the names of members who should be considered as moderators. Currently, the following members are moderators. Evan Burton, Kathy Beckett, Gary Loughton, Antii Hynonen, Stephen Turner, Don Jeffries, John Geraghty, Tom Scully, David Butler and Pat Speer. If members have any ideas on how the system can be improved, please post them on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17128 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The conflict at the Deep Politics Forum illustrates the difficulty of maintaining free-speech when discussing controversial issues. When people normally talk about their desire for “free-speech” they usually only mean free-speech for those people who they agree with. The really difficult task is to allow free-speech to those on subjects where you strongly disagree with. That seems to have been the problem with the Deep Politics Forum. At the Education Forum we try to deal with this problem by having a committee of administrators and moderators to make all important decisions by majority vote. Moderators are also decided by majority vote. All moderators are free to suggest the names of members who should be considered as moderators. Currently, the following members are moderators. Evan Burton, Kathy Beckett, Gary Loughton, Antii Hynonen, Stephen Turner, Don Jeffries, John Geraghty, Tom Scully, David Butler and Pat Speer. If members have any ideas on how the system can be improved, please post them on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17128 If members have any ideas on how the system can be improved, please post them on this thread: Remove Burton. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 deeppoliticsforum.net was registered on the 18th by Peter Presland a DPF member. My guess is that he is any ally of the 'Gang of 5' and there will be an attempt made shortly to relaunch with that url. Having two rival forums with the same name will induvitably sow confusion. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/DeepPoliticsForum.net Len, You are certainly keeping track with a certain amount of pleasure? ;-) Schadenfreude trumps Sigmund Freud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 The conflict at the Deep Politics Forum illustrates the difficulty of maintaining free-speech when discussing controversial issues. When people normally talk about their desire for “free-speech” they usually only mean free-speech for those people who they agree with. The really difficult task is to allow free-speech to those on subjects where you strongly disagree with. That seems to have been the problem with the Deep Politics Forum. At the Education Forum we try to deal with this problem by having a committee of administrators and moderators to make all important decisions by majority vote. Moderators are also decided by majority vote. All moderators are free to suggest the names of members who should be considered as moderators. Currently, the following members are moderators. Evan Burton, Kathy Beckett, Gary Loughton, Antii Hynonen, Stephen Turner, Don Jeffries, John Geraghty, Tom Scully, David Butler and Pat Speer. If members have any ideas on how the system can be improved, please post them on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17128 If members have any ideas on how the system can be improved, please post them on this thread: Remove Burton. Jack Get rid of Jack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Okay, the DPF is back up and running. No reason for this thread to remain open. Deeppoliticsforum.net has made an announcement. As I expected. My guess is with one rivaling the other neither will generate much steam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 Okay, the DPF is back up and running. No reason for this thread to remain open. Deeppoliticsforum.net has made an announcement. As I expected. My guess is with one rivaling the other neither will generate much steam That sounds a lot like the Wizard behind the curtain at Oz. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 I know from personal experience that Drago is dishonest. He once insisted that I edit a post where I had quoted him in the Political Conspiracies forum and then when I did he claimed in a post here (the JFK forum) that I had done so to "cover [my] tracks" omitting that I had done so pursuant to his demand. So I don't believe a word he says. My guess based on Bill telling us a member told him something else is going on, Dawn's cryptic post and the fact that the same message is still up is that the forum was dissolved due to a disagreement among the administrators and Drago simply lied rather than admit that. Given the immaturity and paranoia of the founders it is not hard to imagine some minor dispute leading to such an ignoble end. Even if it was the victims of hackers I see no reason to assume it was due to the `forces of darkness' hackers attack sites including mainstream ones all the time. Even if they were targeted I find it hard to feel any sympathy it was formed specifically to exclude people with differing views and Drago especially made no secret of his contempt of the speech rights of those who begged to differ with his world view. Other than humor value I never saw anything of value posted there. DiEugenio was is the basis for your belief that they were mirroring Wikileaks? I doubt they had the bandwidth. . The Deep Politics Forum is wholly dedicated to free speech. Contrary to recent vitriolic speculation, it hosts a full Wikileaks mirror and is proud to do so. The costs involved in running the DPF and its Wikileaks mirror, are entirely borne by the forum's founders - although donations are always welcome - but membership is and will always remain free. As a point of principal we are an advertising-free forum and will always remain so. We will not be making any further statements on the EF about the hacking we have suffered. Dawn Thanks to those interested in truth. Dawn, how can you deny that you claimed the DPF mirrored the Wikileaks and was proud to do so and in the next sentence refer to the hacking we have suffered, yet say I make this stuff up? Thanks for your truthful response, Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Its not in the next sentence, its in the next paragraph. If you recall, a new paragraph means the topic has changed. Let's see if we can clear this up. If I recall, Jim, you were the first to suggest the problems at the DPF were related to Wikileaks. Were you lied to or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 I can't help but think how the events at the DPF mirror the 9-11 movement, like many of the various "XXXX for 9-11 Truth" groups. They cannot tolerate dissent - even amongst their own. They seem incapable of co-operating despite having differing views, and so split off into splinter groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 I can't help but think how the events at the DPF mirror the 9-11 movement, like many of the various "XXXX for 9-11 Truth" groups. They cannot tolerate dissent - even amongst their own. They seem incapable of co-operating despite having differing views, and so split off into splinter groups. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Legal constraints prevent me from detailing exactly what occurred but there are NO "splinter groups". One person attempted a coup. Period. It is that simple. When our lawyers tell us it is ok we will make a joint statement. The rest of us are co-operating just fine, which I am sure you are delighted to hear. Happy Holidays, Dawn 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