Deep Politics Forum

[William Kelly]

How and why can you possibly close a thead on the Deep Politics Forum, a forum started by former members of this forum, a forum that was said to have been hacked, similar to attacks that have shut down the Education Forum on more than one occassion.

There is no excuse close a thread on the import issues that are being brought up and discussed, and any attempt to stop this discussion will only lead to more discussion.

So just keep it open or I will start another thread on the subject.

Bill Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

How and why can you possibly close a thead on the Deep Politics Forum, a forum started by former members of this forum, a forum that was said to have been hacked, similar to attacks that have shut down the Education Forum on more than one occassion.

There is no excuse close a thread on the import issues that are being brought up and discussed, and any attempt to stop this discussion will only lead to more discussion.

So just keep it open or I will start another thread on the subject.

Bill Kelly

I agree with Bill. So much for John Simkin's belief in free speech.

[Evan Burton]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

[David G. Healy]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want?

YES!

<snip the nonsense>

Edited December 20, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Michael Hogan]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

John Simkin has always stated that he believes in free speech on these forums. I can see need to police obscenities and personal attacks that

cross a line. When you start policing ideas and opinions and yes, speculations -- that is a dangerous slope in my opinion.

And if you do decide to close a thread you could at least offer a less flippant rationale than you did.

[Guest Tom Scully]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

Bill, is it your opinion that the majority of the posts in the last two pages of the closed thread adhere to the rules of this forum? What is the point? The rules are in place here to maintain a level of respect for all of our members.

The majority of the people talked about in the closed thread are members in good standing on this forum. (a supporting example) Are there posts on the closed thread questioning the motives and the integrity of our fellow members, did that become the spirit in the now closed thread? I think the answers are yes, and yes.

It won't surprise me if it becomes necessary to close this thread also, in keeping with the rule intended to maintain civil and respectful relations among all of our members.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want?

YES!

<snip the nonsense>

I rarely agree with Healy and even more rarely agree with Hogan and this probably the first time I’ve agreed with both of them. Though I feel the latter’s truculent tone uncalled for I agree the thread should not have been locked.

Why not discuss these issues on the DPF? Perhaps because except for Jack and Dawn (and perhaps 1 or 2 others) the participants of that (and this) thread are NOT members there. And based on the thread linked below I doubt Myra would allow the subject to be broached. She wants to persist in the fiction that nothing happened. It seems the average member here knows more about what's going on there than the average member of the DPF itself.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=29874#post29874

Edited December 21, 2010 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

Bill, is it your opinion that the majority of the posts in the last two pages of the closed thread adhere to the rules of this forum? What is the point? The rules are in place here to maintain a level of respect for all of our members.

The majority of the people talked about in the closed thread are members in good standing on this forum. (a supporting example) Are there posts on the closed thread questioning the motives and the integrity of our fellow members, did that become the spirit in the now closed thread? I think the answers are yes, and yes.

It won't surprise me if it becomes necessary to close this thread also, in keeping with the rule intended to maintain civil and respectful relations among all of our members.

That is silly Tom the rule seems to apply to members motives for their posts here (if not then the Gary Mack threads would be in breech). And AFAIK of the “Gang of 6” only Dawn and Maggie/Magda have occasionally posted here since the schism. The latter has not particpated in either thread and the former has only done so to post misleading declarations.

[Len Colby]

Dawn has not posted anything misleading as far as my information goes.

She said the DPF had been hacked and was dedicated to free speeech. The latter could be chalked up to a difference of opinion the former was definately false unless you think a site can not he hacked by its owner using herown login.

[William Kelly]

Dawn has not posted anything misleading as far as my information goes.

Dawn:

"In fact, DPF was hacked..."

"The DPF is wholly dedicated to free speech...."

"We will not be making any further statements on the EF about the hacking we have suffered...."

Evan Burton: "Okay, the DPF is up and running and there is no need to keep this thread running...."

But apparently, even though the EF and the DPF have both been hacked, the EF repeatedly,

and allegedly by the same type of dedicatd server attack that the WikiLeaks hackers are using,

it should be of interest to all members, moderators and administrators, and I have a sneaky suspicion

that the attacks on both of these forums are not related to the WikiLeaks attacks at all, but are mounted

by members and/or former members of either/both forums. And any attempt to cut off discussion or

analysis of these attacks can only be interpreted as censorship.

We can either discuss these issues, or not, and if not, then we discuss why not.

And if Evan Burton doesn't care for the topic of any particular thread, he doesn't have to read it,

but his ability to shut off the discussion and try to keep people from talking about important issues

is beyond his monitor responsibilities.

IF the medium is the message, then we have to be able to discuss the medium as well as the message.

Bill Kelly

Edited December 21, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest Tom Scully]

Bill, you seem to object to a moderator enforcing the "do unto others..." forum rule?

Did you read the posts in the last two pages of the now closed thread? Did any of the members in good standing of this forum, who seemed to have been singled out for criticism because another forum they are leaders of was hacked, deserve to be criticized in such a disrespectful manner? Weren't the posts about them a follow on attack to the hacking?

Don't you recognize that the initial discussion of an internet attack you described, had devolved into personal attacks against people who are members of this forum?

That is silly Tom the rule seems to apply to members motives for their posts here (if not then the Gary Mack threads would be in breech). And AFAIK of the “Gang of 6” only Dawn and Maggie/Magda have occasionally posted here since the schism. The latter has not particpated in either thread and the former has only done so to post misleading declarations.

I've been thinking about the two Gary Mack threads, Len. I want to mention first that Charles Drago posted on this forum earlier this year and was last seen here quite recently.

There are members of this forum who check in regularly but almost never post. The rule about civil consideration of members does not differentiate between more active and inactive members.

Gary Mack is a member here and does not personally post on the forum, but he logs in often and posts through surrogate members, in itself a rules violation. Mr. Mack is a public figure, by his own choice. Is he of different consideration, pertaining to the forum rules, because of his unique job? Are prominent authors of books or websites related to the discussion here, also to be considered as public figures? What makes someone prominent, does a wikipedia biography define the threshold?

I think you've brought up a good point, Len, and it needs to be discussed because it should be obvious to more people besides Jim Di, Evan, other forum administrators and myself why it was not a controversial decision to close the other DPF thread. It should be obvious why the two Gary Mack threads remain open. It isn't obvious, though, not to Len, and not to me.

The forum rules should not be regarded by non-members who are prominent voices on topics related to the forum, as an enticement to seek membership for the purpose of avoiding strong criticism of their prominent opinions. Prominence invites proportional criticism.

Those of opinions we disagree with should not receive less civil or respectful treatment than those who who think more like we do.

Perhaps we'll have to leave it up to public figures like Gary Mack to complain about the content of a post before applying the same standard intended to preserve respectful communication between less publicly visible members. I do not expect anyone to be of the opinion that any of the DPF leadership are public figures.

[Jack White]

Is Jack White attacked because he is a public figure? Many people consider Jack White a public figure in the JFK case.

Does a different standard apply to Burton? For several years, before he attained sainthood, with every posting he

proclaimed "LITTLE WHITE LIES", referring to White. But calling White a xxxx was never considered a violation; was

it excused because White is a public figure?

Jack

[William Kelly]

Bill, you seem to object to a moderator enforcing the "do unto others..." forum rule?

Tom, I object to a moderator closing any thread to stop discussion on any subject.

Did you read the posts in the last two pages of the now closed thread? Did any of the members in good standing of this forum, who seemed to have been singled out for criticism because another forum they are leaders of was hacked, deserve to be criticized in such a disrespectful manner? Weren't the posts about them a follow on attack to the hacking?

I don't know who was criticized in a disrespectful manner, but who here monitors being disrespectful?

Don't you recognize that the initial discussion of an internet attack you described, had devolved into personal attacks against people who are members of this forum?

Wait a minute. If the thread devolved into personal attacks against members of this forum, then those threads should be isolated and those attacks responded to, but

not used as an excuse to close the thread, which is dedicated to a topic - hacking forums - that should be of interest and concern of everyone. And no, I didn't notice anything

different than what happens in almost every other thead.

That is silly Tom the rule seems to apply to members motives for their posts here (if not then the Gary Mack threads would be in breech). And AFAIK of the "Gang of 6" only Dawn and Maggie/Magda have occasionally posted here since the schism. The latter has not particpated in either thread and the former has only done so to post misleading declarations.

I've been thinking about the two Gary Mack threads, Len. I want to mention first that Charles Drago posted on this forum earlier this year and was last seen here quite recently.

There are members of this forum who check in regularly but almost never post. The rule about civil consideration of members does not differentiate between more active and inactive members.

Gary Mack is a member here and does not personally post on the forum, but he logs in often and posts through surrogate members, in itself a rules violation. Mr. Mack is a public figure, by his own choice. Is he of different consideration, pertaining to the forum rules, because of his unique job? Are prominent authors of books or websites related to the discussion here, also to be considered as public figures? What makes someone prominent, does a wikipedia biography define the threshold?

I think you've brought up a good point, Len, and it needs to be discussed because it should be obvious to more people besides Jim Di, Evan, other forum administrators and myself why it was not a controversial decision to close the other DPF thread. It should be obvious why the two Gary Mack threads remain open. It isn't obvious, though, not to Len, and not to me.

Well it's not obvious to me why any thread should be closed, especially thread I started on the DPF being down and said to have been hacked. Just as Burton said - you can go to DPF to discuss it - well, you don't have to read it, but don't try to stop the discussion just because you don't like it, or don't like where it is going.

The forum rules should not be regarded by non-members who are prominent voices on topics related to the forum, as an enticement to seek membership for the purpose of avoiding strong criticism of their prominent opinions. Prominence invites proportional criticism.

What? I'm sorry but I got lost there somewhere and have no idea what you are trying to say.

Those of opinions we disagree with should not receive less civil or respectful treatment than those who who think more like we do.

And threads should not be cut off and closed just because someone doesn't like it.

Perhaps we'll have to leave it up to public figures like Gary Mack to complain about the content of a post before applying the same standard intended to preserve respectful communication between less publicly visible members. I do not expect anyone to be of the opinion that any of the DPF leadership are public figures.

What does Gary Mack have to do with any of this?

The bottom line is that no thread should be locked for any reason.

BK

[Jack White]

If Myra Bronstein HIJACKED the forum from the other founding members, I am not interested

in participating, as that would be aiding and abetting an immoral if not an illegal act...and

certainly a cowardly act contrary to the ideal of free speech. I align myself with Dawn, Charles

and others interested truth, not in selfish self-interest.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

I rarely agree with Healy and even more rarely agree with Hogan and this probably the first time I’ve agreed with both of them.

Though I feel the latter’s truculent tone uncalled for I agree the thread should not have been locked.

You're not in the best position to pass judgment on what constitutes a truculent tone. I read your post on this thread before it was made invisible.

Apparently the moderator(s) felt it was your tone that was uncalled for.

I've remained silent while you totally mischaracterize your role in what happened a few years ago. You were far from blameless, although you try to portray otherwise.

Most members have you figured out. I know I do.