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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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.

This is becoming contemptible.

The picture now being portrayed is that anyone daring to challenge the identity of the poster using the name Len Colby, is being subjected to punishment for not rigidly adhering to forum rules that, in many cases hitherto, have been relaxed with John Simkin's understanding and de facto agreement. I'm speaking of avatars, but I suspect that bio's are equally involved. In many cases I understand the reasons for this relaxation and even commend it. That it no reason to now focus on Maggie and Jan to provide a clearer picture or a more agreeable biography -- all the while disregarding the growing concern and alarm over the true identity of the poster using the board name Len Colby.

I heartily agree with Jan's comments on why members identities need to be established.

Ditto's Charles Drago's post.

Ditto Michael Hogan's post.

Ditto the posts of William Kelly.

Ditto the posts of Maggie Hansen.

Ditto the post of Dawn Meredith.

Just because Len whoever his-name-really-is says his surname is Colby doesn't mean it really is Colby. The use of an AKA on another forum demonstrates this very clearly.

Meanwhile, I have suggested a means by which this posters true identity be verified and have offered to undergo the same process of verification myself to show fairness.

I have previously posted - twice - about the growing unease amongst numerous members that the poster using the name Len Colby has caused on these fora. It seems that all the above posters (and doubtless others who have chosen not to post - yet anyway) concerns are to be disregarded and that those members who actually make a critical post on this subject immediately come under censure for doing so.

What the heck is happening here....

Why such bias and inconsistency by the team of moderators?

I have never known such deplorable moderation on any other forum.

Ever.

[Guest David Guyatt]

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.

Steve, are you saying that the word "lying" is against the rules irrespective of its use?

For example, if I said that most people regard politicians as being congenital liars, this post would be deleted?

Or is it the case that one member may not call another member a xxxx, which is more understandable?

I have read Jan's entire post and he has not used the "L" word against any member of this board. I am seeking clarification on this point urgently and I have asked Jan's permission to post under my name his entire post that has been set to invisible (deleted) so that other members may judge for themselves the fairness or bias in moderation on this matter.

I am, of course, entirely cognizant of the fact that I too, may join the ranks of Charles Drago for speaking plainly of his concerns and the concerns of other members about the increasingly bizarre and (what I personaly regard as) wholly biased moderation being enacted in this forum as it pertains to the protection afforded Mr. Colby/aka/Brazil/aka/who knows?

In which case, bring it on, baby. :-)

[Maggie Hansen]

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.

Steve, are you saying that the word "lying" is against the rules irrespective of its use?

For example, if I said that most people regard politicians as being congenital liars, this post would be deleted?

Or is it the case that one member may not call another member a xxxx, which is more understandable?

I have read Jan's entire post and he has not used the "L" word against any member of this board. I am seeking clarification on this point urgently and I have asked Jan's permission to post under my name his entire post that has been set to invisible (deleted) so that other members may judge for themselves the fairness or bias in moderation on this matter.

I am, of course, entirely cognizant of the fact that I too, may join the ranks of Charles Drago for speaking plainly of his concerns and the concerns of other members about the increasingly bizarre and (what I personaly regard as) wholly biased moderation being enacted in this forum as it pertains to the protection afforded Mr. Colby/aka/Brazil/aka/who knows?

In which case, bring it on, baby. :-)

David,

I have a copy of Jans post. Len was not called a xxxx. The crock of BS was. The crock was also described as disinformational as in 'what a crock of lying, disinformational BS. The crock not Len.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

This is becoming contemptible.

The picture now being portrayed is that anyone daring to challenge the identity of the poster using the name Len Colby, is being subjected to punishment for not rigidly adhering to forum rules that, in many cases hitherto, have been relaxed with John Simkin's understanding and de facto agreement. I'm speaking of avatars, but I suspect that bio's are equally involved. In many cases I understand the reasons for this relaxation and even commend it. That it no reason to now focus on Maggie and Jan to provide a clearer picture or a more agreeable biography -- all the while disregarding the growing concern and alarm over the true identity of the poster using the board name Len Colby.

I heartily agree with Jan's comments on why members identities need to be established.

Ditto's Charles Drago's post.

Ditto Michael Hogan's post.

Ditto the posts of William Kelly.

Ditto the posts of Maggie Hansen.

Ditto the post of Dawn Meredith.

Just because Len whoever his-name-really-is says his surname is Colby doesn't mean it really is Colby. The use of an AKA on another forum demonstrates this very clearly.

Meanwhile, I have suggested a means by which this posters true identity be verified and have offered to undergo the same process of verification myself to show fairness.

I have previously posted - twice - about the growing unease amongst numerous members that the poster using the name Len Colby has caused on these fora. It seems that all the above posters (and doubtless others who have chosen not to post - yet anyway) concerns are to be disregarded and that those members who actually make a critical post on this subject immediately come under censure for doing so.

What the heck is happening here....

Why such bias and inconsistency by the team of moderators?

I have never known such deplorable moderation on any other forum.

Ever.

"What the heck is happening here...."

Looks pretty clear from the cheap seats David. Paranoia is running amuck in the ct posters. Long and short of it, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You keep making the threat to take your ball and run away. Please feel free.

How amazingly childish.

You did say something right, this thread IS contemptible. And the cause is not the mods.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Matthew Lewis]

A few questions. How is asking you to conform to the same rules you demand everyone else to follow petty? Perhaps you are correct that everyone here knows who you are. Perhaps not. How does it look to outside observers or new members when all are required to post a current link to their bio and you do not? Why should they have to search harder for your bio (which is not always automatically available at the bottom of each post) than for anyone else's (which by rule is available at the bottom of each post)? How do you think you look by constantly refusing to follow a less than 30 second procedure to fix this problem that any other member would be expected to do in the same situation?

[Matthew Lewis]

A few questions. How is asking you to conform to the same rules you demand everyone else to follow petty? Perhaps you are correct that everyone here knows who you are. Perhaps not. How does it look to outside observers or new members when all are required to post a current link to their bio and you do not? Why should they have to search harder for your bio (which is not always automatically available at the bottom of each post) than for anyone else's (which by rule is available at the bottom of each post)? How do you think you look by constantly refusing to follow a less than 30 second procedure to fix this problem that any other member would be expected to do in the same situation?

Sir...you have contributed nothing to this forum since I have been

here except harassment. You should be ashamed.

Jack

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

That's funny Jack. And wrong. I have contributed a miltary viewpoint in threads that have called for it. I have occasionally commented on 911 threads, offering links to back up most arguments. And I have submitted personal research regarding contrails. Just because you don't agree with my viewpoint doesn't mean I have contributed nothing. As far as harassment, I feel I have received more from you. Or do you not remember your pestering about my avatar dating back to before an avatar picture was even required and concluding recently with the photo not being good enough for you (even though the same photo was supposedly good enough to identify me as wearing a military uniform, a conclusion you were wrong on then and never admitted). Or how about your previous insistence that my job must have something to do with my posting here.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Guest David Guyatt]

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.

This is becoming contemptible.

The picture now being portrayed is that anyone daring to challenge the identity of the poster using the name Len Colby, is being subjected to punishment for not rigidly adhering to forum rules that, in many cases hitherto, have been relaxed with John Simkin's understanding and de facto agreement. I'm speaking of avatars, but I suspect that bio's are equally involved. In many cases I understand the reasons for this relaxation and even commend it. That it no reason to now focus on Maggie and Jan to provide a clearer picture or a more agreeable biography -- all the while disregarding the growing concern and alarm over the true identity of the poster using the board name Len Colby.

I heartily agree with Jan's comments on why members identities need to be established.

Ditto's Charles Drago's post.

Ditto Michael Hogan's post.

Ditto the posts of William Kelly.

Ditto the posts of Maggie Hansen.

Ditto the post of Dawn Meredith.

Just because Len whoever his-name-really-is says his surname is Colby doesn't mean it really is Colby. The use of an AKA on another forum demonstrates this very clearly.

Meanwhile, I have suggested a means by which this posters true identity be verified and have offered to undergo the same process of verification myself to show fairness.

I have previously posted - twice - about the growing unease amongst numerous members that the poster using the name Len Colby has caused on these fora. It seems that all the above posters (and doubtless others who have chosen not to post - yet anyway) concerns are to be disregarded and that those members who actually make a critical post on this subject immediately come under censure for doing so.

What the heck is happening here....

Why such bias and inconsistency by the team of moderators?

I have never known such deplorable moderation on any other forum.

Ever.

"What the heck is happening here...."

Looks pretty clear from the cheap seats David. Paranoia is running amuck in the ct posters. Long and short of it, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You keep making the threat to take your ball and run away. Please feel free.

How amazingly childish.

You did say something right, this thread IS contemptible. And the cause is not the mods.

Craigie! Dearie! Good to see you back after such a long absence. Has the "ghouls ball" come to a shuddering and climatic end then?

I can't say how much I've missed you these past few months... I woud like to, but think it may prove to be against the forum rules.

Still, despite these drawbacks, I know my name is David Guyatt and that I don't use an AKA at the present.

But to be perfectly honest with you (and 'shush' dearie, please 'kay) in view of what is happening at the moment, I am considering joining here under a "nom de web" so that I can post under two different names. What fun this will be, eh. I'll be able to post an inflammatory post under one name (and I do know for certain that inflammatory and baiting posts are expressly allowed) and then post a baiting retort under another name. Hell, why stop at just one "nom de web" I ask myself? I could slowly add half a dozen and really mix it up eh, and if one of them gets sin-binned under the ever changing quicksand of what is and what is not permitted, then, heck, nothing will be simpler then adding additional fictional identities, as I believe this is allowed here (seriously, can you believe it). Amazing huh.

Love, hugs and kisses, sweetie.

[Mike Williams]

This has to be one of the strangest places on the Internet.....but whatever....

Jack,

I assume since you included my name in the title you had something to say in regard to that?

Or are you just dancing on the pedestal again?

Mike

[Craig Lamson]

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.

This is becoming contemptible.

The picture now being portrayed is that anyone daring to challenge the identity of the poster using the name Len Colby, is being subjected to punishment for not rigidly adhering to forum rules that, in many cases hitherto, have been relaxed with John Simkin's understanding and de facto agreement. I'm speaking of avatars, but I suspect that bio's are equally involved. In many cases I understand the reasons for this relaxation and even commend it. That it no reason to now focus on Maggie and Jan to provide a clearer picture or a more agreeable biography -- all the while disregarding the growing concern and alarm over the true identity of the poster using the board name Len Colby.

I heartily agree with Jan's comments on why members identities need to be established.

Ditto's Charles Drago's post.

Ditto Michael Hogan's post.

Ditto the posts of William Kelly.

Ditto the posts of Maggie Hansen.

Ditto the post of Dawn Meredith.

Just because Len whoever his-name-really-is says his surname is Colby doesn't mean it really is Colby. The use of an AKA on another forum demonstrates this very clearly.

Meanwhile, I have suggested a means by which this posters true identity be verified and have offered to undergo the same process of verification myself to show fairness.

I have previously posted - twice - about the growing unease amongst numerous members that the poster using the name Len Colby has caused on these fora. It seems that all the above posters (and doubtless others who have chosen not to post - yet anyway) concerns are to be disregarded and that those members who actually make a critical post on this subject immediately come under censure for doing so.

What the heck is happening here....

Why such bias and inconsistency by the team of moderators?

I have never known such deplorable moderation on any other forum.

Ever.

"What the heck is happening here...."

Looks pretty clear from the cheap seats David. Paranoia is running amuck in the ct posters. Long and short of it, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You keep making the threat to take your ball and run away. Please feel free.

How amazingly childish.

You did say something right, this thread IS contemptible. And the cause is not the mods.

Craigie! Dearie! Good to see you back after such a long absence. Has the "ghouls ball" come to a shuddering and climatic end then?

I can't say how much I've missed you these past few months... I woud like to, but think it may prove to be against the forum rules.

Still, despite these drawbacks, I know my name is David Guyatt and that I don't use an AKA at the present.

But to be perfectly honest with you (and 'shush' dearie, please 'kay) in view of what is happening at the moment, I am considering joining here under a "nom de web" so that I can post under two different names. What fun this will be, eh. I'll be able to post an inflammatory post under one name (and I do know for certain that inflammatory and baiting posts are expressly allowed) and then post a baiting retort under another name. Hell, why stop at just one "nom de web" I ask myself? I could slowly add half a dozen and really mix it up eh, and if one of them gets sin-binned under the ever changing quicksand of what is and what is not permitted, then, heck, nothing will be simpler then adding additional fictional identities, as I believe this is allowed here (seriously, can you believe it). Amazing huh.

Love, hugs and kisses, sweetie.

Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.

Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.

[Dawn Meredith]

Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.

Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.

(Craig Lamson)

But Craig,

That's exactly what your little gang desires. That the CTs all leave.

Sorry- Mission Accomplished-not!

[Craig Lamson]

Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.

Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.

(Craig Lamson)

But Craig,

That's exactly what your little gang desires. That the CTs all leave.

Sorry- Mission Accomplished-not!

Why would we want you to leave? You all provide the entertainment value and also the wonders of showing the CT community at its finest. This thread is a perfect example of the latter.

It seems it's the CT's that want the playground for themself. How much easier to spew disinformation without all of those nasty people who want to throw FACTS into the mix.

David has made his threat a number of times. I say good riddence if thats what he wants. Have at. As it stands he's not much more than the little boy who cried wolf.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.

Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.

(Craig Lamson)

But Craig,

That's exactly what your little gang desires. That the CTs all leave.

Sorry- Mission Accomplished-not!

Why would we want you to leave? You all provide the entertainment value and also the wonders of showing the CT community at its finest. This thread is a perfect example of the latter.

It seems it's the CT's that want the playground for themself. How much easier to spew disinformation without all of those nasty people who want to throw FACTS into the mix.

David has made his threat a number of times. I say good riddence if thats what he wants. Have at. As it stands he's not much more than the little boy who cried wolf.

Threat what threat? You back in that fuzzy logic world of trailer photograhy again?

After 10+ years on alt.conspiracy.jfk and I'm the little boy who cried wolf? ROTFLMFAO! I've not met, conversed with or debated anyone capable of defending WCR final conclusions, that includes this forum. Further, when you get published concerning Z-film alteration or non-alteration matters, and attain some measure of credibility, give me a call - we'll talk. Till then, you and Wild Bill remain on the sidelines....

The WCR is simply, a convenient lie. Now I understand how and WHY you steadfastly deny this. Moreover, we understand why 911 NYC & Wash film-photo issues (some justified, some non-justified) rankle those very same Lone Nut folks who defend the WCR...

Now why don't you show the world and me this threat: Lamson quote

"David has made his threat..."

rest assure I KNOW you know who Len Brazil is, you were cc'd the same email I (by accident) was. Len Brazil was also an addressee. Perhaps Len will fill you in. Think Roland Zavada's rewrite of his famous report. A topic of interest on this forum 2.5 years ago

[Guest David Guyatt]

Why does Len Colby need to prove that his name is really Len Colby, and why does nobody else need to do this for their respective names?

Why does he need to explain his responsibilities from a different website?

Sure, Colby's opinions regarding conspiracies differ from many of ours, but is that a good reason to treat him like this?

If it can be demonstrated that the "Len Colby" -- or whatever entity or entities control him/her/it -- who posts on this Forum uses a pseudonym to post elsewhere, we will have prima facie evidence for deception.

At such a point, all bets would be off.

The questions would then become: Who or what is "Len Colby"? Who controls "him"? Are the members and readers of this forum being deceived by "Len Colby"?

The opinons expressed by "Colby" are not the issue. At least for me. This is all about identity and agenda. And there are sound reasons to ask after both in this case.

I have analyzed the "Colby" posts in terms of their literay style, grammer, syntax, usage, construction, subtext, and other subtleties. It is my considered opinion that multiple personalities are writing under the "Colby" identity.

But don't take my word for it. Do a little forensic reading of your own. Compare the "Colby" posts to each other. Keep a keen eye open for prevarication.

An example: Note how one of the more literate of the "Colbys" seems to catch him/herself toward the end of a lengthy, well-written post and makes what I believe are intentional gaffes (spelling, tense, etc.) in a ham-handed effort to maintain what I perceive to be the "Colby" legend.

"Colby" is a veritable chorus!

Charles

Charles, I am always pleased to see your sensible and well written posts. I am, as ever, cognizant of your ability as a writer and, therefore, as an observer of the written style -- with all its give-away stylistic characteristics. I agree with you that it can often be regarded as a virtual fingerprint that is very often only apparent to a writer who understands the tell-tale nuances of the language in which they write.

On another forum, a private forum that I was a member of some years ago now, I also noted the writing style and characteristics of two fairly prominent posters, one of whom seemingly disappeared from the forum at different but returned again and again under a different identity. There were very good reasons at the time to follow the posts of this gentleman to discover his true identity. It took several years, but in the end I was able to achieve an identification. I have made none of this public hitherto (and ain't going into detail here either). But I can assure you that this gentleman camouflaged his trail with skill born of great intelligence, marked education, considerable natural cunning and deep training. It was his writing style that always gave him away and allowed his trail to be followed and his identity, drawn from a hundred odd clues, to be reached.

We are on the same page, my friend. Both with regard to the poster who uses the name Len Colby, AKA Len Brazil, AKA whatever other name may be used, plus others here who seem to protect him and leap to his defence when under threat.

Were I a true conspiracy theorist I would conclude a conspiracy was in progress. Instead, I simply offer the idea for debate that this forum is regarded as the disagreeable child of the EF - a sort of "cage fighter" version of the JFK forum, where due to lack of care, lack of attention and lack of considered, unbiased and objective moderation, things have been allowed to fester to the point where we are today.

This is a great pity because JFK is not the whole world, but rather only a minor (albeit significant) part of it. This forum is the world today.

This fact is, of course, recognized by the baiters and contrarians who enjoy nothing better than flaming and diverting a serious discussion in the (usually) secure knowledge that the head teacher doesn't have the time to spare, doesn't really give a toss anyway and that, therefore, all things are possible.

Note the apparent absence of the poster "Colby" from the thread today (he will appear after this, though) corresponding to

[John Simkin]

This fact is, of course, recognized by the baiters and contrarians who enjoy nothing better than flaming and diverting a serious discussion in the (usually) secure knowledge that the head teacher doesn't have the time to spare, doesn't really give a toss anyway and that, therefore, all things are possible.

Of course children cannot help but misbehave if they think the headmaster is away. See my post here for my views on the topic:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

Some members have started removing their avatars and the link to their biographies in their signature. Moderators have been instructed to place members who do this on moderation and for their posts to be made invisible until they abide by the rules.

It has also been noted that some members have once again started to accuse members of lying, being disinformation agents, etc. This will not be tolerated and such posts will be made invisible when this happens. Repeat offenders will be placed on moderation.

[Craig Lamson]

Nothing going on here but a bunch of paranoid old CT fools going off on nothing in a childish attempt at...well lets just say its childish.

Don't let the the screen door slap you in the azz on your way out to greener pastures.

(Craig Lamson)

But Craig,

That's exactly what your little gang desires. That the CTs all leave.

Sorry- Mission Accomplished-not!

Why would we want you to leave? You all provide the entertainment value and also the wonders of showing the CT community at its finest. This thread is a perfect example of the latter.

It seems it's the CT's that want the playground for themself. How much easier to spew disinformation without all of those nasty people who want to throw FACTS into the mix.

David has made his threat a number of times. I say good riddence if thats what he wants. Have at. As it stands he's not much more than the little boy who cried wolf.

Threat what threat? You back in that fuzzy logic world of trailer photograhy again?

After 10+ years on alt.conspiracy.jfk and I'm the little boy who cried wolf? ROTFLMFAO! I've not met, conversed with or debated anyone capable of defending WCR final conclusions, that includes this forum. Further, when you get published concerning Z-film alteration or non-alteration matters, and attain some measure of credibility, give me a call - we'll talk. Till then, you and Wild Bill remain on the sidelines....

The WCR is simply, a convenient lie. Now I understand how and WHY you steadfastly deny this. Moreover, we understand why 911 NYC & Wash film-photo issues (some justified, some non-justified) rankle those very same Lone Nut folks who defend the WCR...

Now why don't you show the world and me this threat: Lamson quote

"David has made his threat..."

rest assure I KNOW you know who Len Brazil is, you were cc'd the same email I (by accident) was. Len Brazil was also an addressee. Perhaps Len will fill you in. Think Roland Zavada's rewrite of his famous report. A topic of interest on this forum 2.5 years ago

You need to learn to read and the follow along David, then, perhaps you would not look as foolish as you do right now.

Skip back a bit and catch up, then I will accept your apology for this latest of your ill-informed rants.

I'll even give you a hint, since this seems ever so hard or you....David Guyatt

Edited August 8, 2008 by Craig Lamson