Complaints thread - Political Conspiracies

[Len Colby]

Craig being put on moderation, while Charles was not even admonished or warned for repeatedly violating forum rules and the expressed wishes of the forum’s owner put a lie to the claim that moderation here is tilted in favor of the debunkers against the CT’s. I beleve Stephen`s departure is one of the reasons for this imbalance and hope he returns as a moderator.

[Len Colby]

Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve.

I can fully understand your decision. Being a moderator on this forum is becoming an impossible job. Of course, that is the intention of those who are determined to cause problems. I am unwilling to ask anyone else to put themselves in the firing-line. I will noe take more responsibility for dealing with these people. In future, I will not be so tolerant and if any member appears to be intent on causing disruption, they will be immediately removed from the forum.

John,

Please be more specific.

Who among your posters is/are, in your opinion, "determined to cause problems"? Surely you must be able to name names. If you number me among such a group, I invite you, without anger and in the spirits of full disclosure and healing, to say so for the record.

He already made that quite clear:

“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.”

John Simkin Aug 8 2008 - Post on the “Len Brazil” thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151616

[Charles Drago]

For the information of readers on this thread:

"The Case of Len Colby" is a thread initiated by John Simkin and, as I understand it, devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum.

As such, and by definition, the "'Colby'" thread can exist and have meaning only if certain Forum rules are relaxed for posts appearing there only.

When I and others post our analyses of "Colby's" identity(s), methods, and agendas on that thread, we do so within an investigatory/laboratory context. We offer, test, and open to public scrutiny evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, in support of certain hypotheses. There is simply no way to do so other than to reference directly the "Colby" personae.

I understand that materials posted on the "'Colby'" thread would not be allowed to appear anywhere else on this Forum.

All of this being said, I urge readers to visit "The Case of Len Colby" as soon as possible so as to make their own judgments on its contents. There is no telling how long it will be available.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13278&hl=

I direct your attention to John's initial post, and to my response in post #3.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

For a most revealing experience, I suggest that you read posts 13, 17, and 19 extending over pages 1 and 2 of the "Case of Len Colby" thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13278

Then go to post 14 on the thread's first page. Your opinions on the question I pose there would be appreciated.

But please note: Detailed discussion of the issues referenced above should take place ONLY on the "'Colby'" thread.

Charles

Edited August 16, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

How exactly did you derive…

"The Case of Len Colby" is a thread initiated by John Simkin and, as I understand it, devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum.

As such, and by definition, the "'Colby'" thread can exist and have meaning only if certain Forum rules are relaxed for posts appearing there only.

[...]

I understand that materials posted on the "'Colby'" thread would not be allowed to appear anywhere else on this Forum.

…from what John wrote?

I direct your attention to John's initial post, and to my response in post #3.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

John made it clear he was displeased with the (Joseph or Charlie, take your pick) McCarthy like witch-hunt you and your “fellow travelers” were conducting and didn’t consider such behavior acceptable on his forum. Nowhere did he indicate that the thread was meant to be “devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum” or that rules should be relaxed on it. This is purely a figment of your imagination,. Either you have difficulty understanding plain English, which I don’t think is the case or you are so beset by cognitive dissonance that you understood the polar opposite of what John was trying to say.

Go ahead show me up, point to which specific parts of John`s post support you interpretation? Take also of his pronouncement in the “Len Brazil” thread cited in my previous post.

Interesting that you acknowledge that you and your buddies posts violate the forum’s rules. Thus you would have no room for complaint if a moderator applied appropriate sanctions.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Charles,

The reason for the Colby thread was plainly stated in the opening post.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

CLEARLY the purpose of the thread was to INFORM people of what was going on.

It stated you could discuss matters WITHIN the rules. This does NOT include questioning the motives or identity of a poster.

Address what is said, not who says it.

If you have concerns regarding the motives, identity, or other aspects of a poster, then address them to John or Andy via PM.

You were allowed to make your feelings known regarding that matter, Charles, and even after a number of posters correctly pointed out that the subject was not to be discussed, you continued to make the accusations. Let me make this totally clear:

THE SUBJECT IS CLOSED. ANYONE MAKING A PUBLIC POST ABOUT THE ABOVE MATTER (LEN / IDENTITY / MOTIVES) WILL BE REPORTED TO THE ADMINS WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF IMMEDIATE MODERATION.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Charles Drago]

Now Evan,

You just get a grip.

Minutes ago, on the so-called "'Colby'" thread, I thanked you and the rest of the powers-that-be for keeping that educational exchange up and open for review.

You and/or others may in fact desire the "'Colby'" thread to be taken down. To be blunt, I no longer have a dog in that hunt.

I'm away from my private computer as I type these words, so I must be uncharacteristically brief. I'll address the "Colby" post above within, say, 12 hours.

Until then, take a nice deep breath, enjoy a pint or three, and take some satisfaction from knowing that you are directly responsible for and engaged in one of the most important educational exercises in the history of this Forum.

Sincerely,

Charles

[Charles Drago]

How exactly did you derive…

"The Case of Len Colby" is a thread initiated by John Simkin and, as I understand it, devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum.

As such, and by definition, the "'Colby'" thread can exist and have meaning only if certain Forum rules are relaxed for posts appearing there only.

[...]

I understand that materials posted on the "'Colby'" thread would not be allowed to appear anywhere else on this Forum.

…from what John wrote?

I direct your attention to John's initial post, and to my response in post #3.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

John made it clear he was displeased with the (Joseph or Charlie, take your pick) McCarthy like witch-hunt you and your “fellow travelers” were conducting and didn’t consider such behavior acceptable on his forum. Nowhere did he indicate that the thread was meant to be “devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum” or that rules should be relaxed on it. This is purely a figment of your imagination,. Either you have difficulty understanding plain English, which I don’t think is the case or you are so beset by cognitive dissonance that you understood the polar opposite of what John was trying to say.

Go ahead show me up, point to which specific parts of John`s post support you interpretation? Take also of his pronouncement in the “Len Brazil” thread cited in my previous post.

Interesting that you acknowledge that you and your buddies posts violate the forum’s rules. Thus you would have no room for complaint if a moderator applied appropriate sanctions.

Don't have the time right now to address "Colby's" latest incoherence.

I'll do so within 12 hours.

Until then, I urge all readers to review posts 1 and 3 on the so-called "'Colby'" thread for a refreshing exposure to truth and sanity.

Sincerely,

Charles

[Evan Burton]

Charles,

You are free to do so... WITHIN THE RULES. This includes the identity or motives of a poster.

[Charles Drago]

You guys have a pleasant weekend.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

How exactly did you derive…

"The Case of Len Colby" is a thread initiated by John Simkin and, as I understand it, devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum.

As such, and by definition, the "'Colby'" thread can exist and have meaning only if certain Forum rules are relaxed for posts appearing there only.

[...]

I understand that materials posted on the "'Colby'" thread would not be allowed to appear anywhere else on this Forum.

…from what John wrote?

I direct your attention to John's initial post, and to my response in post #3.

For sometime now people have been sending me emails and PMs calling for Len Colby to be banned from the Forum. His critics claim that he is some sort of disinformation agent. I refuse to do this because in my judgment this is not true. Len seems to disagree with every conspiracy theory posted on this forum. This includes several threads started by myself. However, that does not make him into a disinformation agent. Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people. True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill. You can either try to answer the questions he poses or ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to judge whether his questions were valid or not.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len. This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers. Then this group decided to break other rules by removing the link to their biographies and removing their avatars or replacing them with something that is clearly not a photograph of them. These members have been placed on moderation and their posts made invisible until they abide by forum rules.

This group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum. That seems like a good idea to me. You can then create your own rules that pleases your own membership. Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views. The intention of this forum was to create something where members debated these issues. It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others.

The strength of this particular forum is that it gets a lot of page views. This is because of the way the search-engines work and the popularity of my own particular website. Therefore, it is always a good idea to publicize your views on this forum. This you are free to do as long as you abide by the rules.

John made it clear he was displeased with the (Joseph or Charlie, take your pick) McCarthy like witch-hunt you and your “fellow travelers” were conducting and didn’t consider such behavior acceptable on his forum. Nowhere did he indicate that the thread was meant to be “devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum” or that rules should be relaxed on it. This is purely a figment of your imagination,. Either you have difficulty understanding plain English, which I don’t think is the case or you are so beset by cognitive dissonance that you understood the polar opposite of what John was trying to say.

Go ahead show me up, point to which specific parts of John`s post support you interpretation? Take also of his pronouncement in the “Len Brazil” thread cited in my previous post.

Interesting that you acknowledge that you and your buddies posts violate the forum’s rules. Thus you would have no room for complaint if a moderator applied appropriate sanctions.

Don't have the time right now to address "Colby's" latest incoherence.

I'll do so within 12 hours.

Until then, I urge all readers to review posts 1 and 3 on the so-called "'Colby'" thread for a refreshing exposure to truth and sanity.

Sincerely,

Charles

You`re a bit over deadline now aren't you "Drago"? Imagine like you repeated promises to leave you won't abide by your word, you won't reply because you now realize you completely misunderstood what John said.

[Charles Drago]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13278&hl=

In particular, posts 1, 3, 14, 13, 17, and 19, in that order.

You guys enjoy your Sunday.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13278&hl=

In particular, posts 1, 3, 14, 13, 17, and 19, in that order.

You guys enjoy your Sunday.

Try again "Drago" I already quoted John's post in full you obviously completely misunderstood what he said. Posts made by you, me or others have no bearing on what he said which is all that's relevant. I'll take your failure to say what exactly in his post backs your interpretation as proof that even you now realize you were wrong.

[Dawn Meredith]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13278&hl=

In particular, posts 1, 3, 14, 13, 17, and 19, in that order.

You guys enjoy your Sunday.

Try again "Drago" I already quoted John's post in full you obviously completely misunderstood what he said. Posts made by you, me or others have no bearing on what he said which is all that's relevant. I'll take your failure to say what exactly in his post backs your interpretation as proof that even you now realize you were wrong.

A simple google search will turn up plenty of "Drago". Under his real name, playing himself.

Should not that be the standard here? If we are to use real names, real pics, real bios, should we also

be able to prove we are who we say we are? Now for example if Peter Dale Scott should happen to

grace us here with his presence, whould we even ask if this were the real deal? Would we not know

by the very words he choose to utilize in a post? How a person presents truely is signature.

Like Terry or Myra? Now NOONE could impersonate either of those ladies. Especially the "terror"

Do ya think someone pretending to be "Drago" gave the presentation referenced below?

Just curious.

Dawn

CONFERENCE VIDEOS CONFERENCE VIDEOS

THE DEATH OF JFK

14-16 MAY 1999 CONFERENCE

HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Robert B. Livingston

Honorary Program Chair

James H. Fetzer

Program Chair

Speakers include John Newman, Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, John Armstrong, George Michael Evica, and Douglas Weldon; commentators: Stewart Galanor, Debra Conway, Jack White, Charles Drago, Roy Schaeffer, and Robert Groden.

COMPLETE SET: $140.00.

INDIVIDUAL TAPES: $25.00 EACH.

Prices include shipping and handling.

DVD versions are also available:

$30.00 for individual discs;

$150.00 for the complete set.

Prices include Media Mail USPS shipping within the USA only.

SEND A PERSONAL CHECK MADE OUT TO ASSASSINATION RESEARCH.

TAPE #1

"OSWALD IN MEXICO: THE KEYS TO CONSPIRACY"

Speaker: John Newman; commentators: Debra Conway, Ron Redmon

(TOTAL TIME 2:31:53)

TAPE #2

"THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE"

Speaker: Gary Aguilar; commentators: Stewart Galanor, Charles Drago

(TOTAL TIME 2:20:47)

TAPE #3

"THE ZAPRUDER FILM"

Speaker: David Mantik; commentators: Jack White, Robert Groden

(TOTAL TIME 2:12:19)

TAPE #4

"Harvey, Lee and the FBI"

Speaker: John Armstrong; commentators: Jack White, Debra Conway

(TOTAL TIME 2:21:50)

TAPE #5

"Perfect Cover: A Theory of the JFK Assassination"

Speaker: George Michael Evica; commentators: Ron Redmon, Charles Drago

(TOTAL TIME 1:58:34)

[Charles Drago]

Thanks for the plugs, Dawn, but there is absolutely no sane reason to de-cypher "Colby" with a response.

Although I do acknowledge "his" extraordinary originality -- placing my names within quotation marks (or inverted commas, if anyone so prefers).

Wherever did "Colby" come up with the idea???

You just can't put a price tag on that level of wit.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Charles Drago