The Case of Len Colby

[John Simkin]

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.

[Len Colby]

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.

Firstly, I’d like to thank you for your support when the easy way out for you would have been to bow to the views of the majority (or very vocal minority) and engineered my removal from your forum especially since your worldview is closer to theirs than to mine.

True, he asks a lot of questions. He did that on my thread on Winston Churchill.

Perhaps, I give myself but I think I was (partially at least) responsible for changing your view on whether or not the Hess in Spandau was really Hess.

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len.

Ironically they insist that I and sometimes the other “debunkers” initiated the personal attacks but when pressed for details/evidence they either don’t reply or give vague non-answers or feign be insulted by words like nonsense.

This has resulted in the moderators rightly making these comments invisible to viewers.

This also unfortunately has led to personal attacks on them especially Evan, a couple of members of this group have even seen fit to insult you as well.

Most forums that deal with conspiracy issues prefer to have members who hold similar views.

Yes this forum is fairly unique in that there is rough equilibrium (on most matters other than the JFK and RFK assassinations) between CTs and skeptics

[Charles Drago]

John,

Insofar as I must rightfully take the credit/blame for instigating this latest, but I hope not final, round of "Colby" engagement, I am obliged to address the points you made when initiating this long-overdue thread.

First, however, I interpret your most recent PM to include permission for me to post an edited (to remove private content in no way related to this or any other public issue) version of my response to your previous PM in which you informed me that I have been "placed on moderation until I put the old avatar back." If I did not do so, you warned, "all [my] posts on the forum will be deleted."

As all who are reading this post can see, I have updated the avatar with a more recent, true, wonderefully rakish image.

Now for my edited response:

I find myself in a most unfortunate position.

I would be unfair to both of us if I did not note for the record how frustrated and saddened I am by the manner in which your Forum has been perverted by agents provocateurs and by the wholly misguided, Redcoat-like devotion to self-destructive "order" manifest in Forum owners' blind adherence to rules of engagement from which only the enemy profits.

Do you think I welcome the likes of "Colby" into my life? I engage "him" and "his" masters out of a sense of duty that cannot be denied. I chose to substitute for my photo/avatar a portrait of the actor Denzel Washington to symbolize and otherwise draw attention to the duplicity that is being visited upon your Forum by the likes of "Colby."

This isn't some pathetic Internet pissing contest in which I find myself. It is all about the war in which, like it or not, you have chosen to take part. Polite, collegial rules of engagement as practiced by you -- with nobility and the best of motives -- play into the hands of what I've previously described as a ruthless and implacable foe, and in turn make certain your ultimate defeat -- and my own.

Can't you understand that yours -- no, make that ours -- is most decidedly NOT an academic pursuit? Can't you come to grips with the FACT that we are at war with "Colby" and his masters?

Deep breath.

These [edited] thoughts and feelings combine with my commitment to fighting the good fight with all the weapons at my disposal in leading me to acquiesce to your request that I reinstate my previous avatar [actually, and as noted above, a new and improved version].

In turn, I ask two favors of you.

1. May I have your permission to post this exchange with the references to your personal life excluded?

2. Can you assure me that you are convinced that the avatar used by "Colby" in fact is an accurate depiction of an actual living human being named Len Colby who alone posts on Forum using that name and image?

In good faith, I am changing my avatar in advance of your response.

In utmost sincerity,

Permit me to conclude this post by responding to issues you raise above. And forgive me if I do not type "in my personal opinion" and/or "there is, I submit, good reason to conclude" after every reference to "Colby." If I am to accept your invitation to comment on "Colby" within this thread only, I must bend/break certain Forum rules.

1. "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." Agreed. It is not simply the fact that "Colby" presents as a vacuous contrarian that leads many to conclude that "he" is an agent of the enemies of truth and justice. Rather, the timing, targets, subjects, internal inconsistencies of language/style/intellect, rapidity of appearance, and conformity to established templates for psyops-driven tactics of "his" posts -- among other factors -- lead me to the inescapable conclusion that "Colby" is engaging in a deep political mission of disruption.

2. "Nor do I understand why his membership of this forum upsets so many people." Herein lies the rub. John, when you went public with your positions on issues residing at the core of the Forum you co-created and co-own, you went to war. Period. Yet to the dismay of many of us, you continue to operate as if you and all who contribute to these cyber pages are engaged simply in academic exercises. "Colby's" presence is, I submit, an act of war. Do you honestly contend that, knowing what you know of how the secret world operates, your enterprise has not been targeted for disruption?

As I previously posted, "The enemy' s agents who post on this and other Internet forums have been assigned the strategic goal of leveling the playing field for the lies that protect and otherwise support their masters and their agendas. Their tactics are self-evident and need no additional iteration in this post. They do not seek to win arguments, but only to prolong them ad infinitum. In doing so, they achieve their goal.

"Their target is history -- which is to say, future generations of victims."

Such is "Colby"s brief.

I cannot understand why "Colby's" membership of this forum doesn't upset you!

3. "In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len." So, John, do you wish to remain on record as attributing the anger, disappointment, and most righteous indignation driving my words and actions as nothing more than the petulance of a tantrum-pulling child?

4. "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." What choice do you leave us? Your so-called moderators, in whose honor and objectivity you maintain wholly unwarranted faith, conspire, in the name of Forum orthodoxy, to silence us and otherwise thwart our efforts to expose "Colby" and his ilk. All we can do is commit irony, satire, and other refined forms of sniping from the tree line.

This Forum is dying by its rules. And many of us hold it and you in such esteem that we will continue to fight the good fight even if you will not.

5. "[A] group of Len’s critics has warned me that they intend to set up their own rival forum." [emphasis added by Drago] No, John, you were not "warned." You were informed of the decision by David Guyatt, Jan Klimkowski, myself, and others to create a forum that is not intended to "rival" your effort, but rather to be inspired by the best of what you have accomplished and to serve as a weapon in the war we are fighting with "Colby" and his masters.

And by the way, we are not "'Len's' critics." Our war is not against "Colby," "who" is nothing more than a tactic. A war on "Colby" would be akin to a war on "terrorism." Or a war on "amphibious landings" or "carpet bombings."

6. "It seems to me that if your theories are correct, then they can withstand questioning by others." Of course. May I remind you of what became my long-running, civil, informed, and, I trust, enlightening debate with Robert Charles-Dunne of about a year ago? Why can't you differentiate between those exchanges and what "Colby" attempts to instigate?

It is approximately 10:00 AM, daylight savings time, on the east coast of America. I'll submit this post now with the understanding that, per your PM, I have been removed from moderation in the wake of my replacement of my avatar.

If I am notified that a moderator will review this post before publication, I will have no choice but to accept that I have been misled.

Sincerely,

Charles Drago

[i have corrected my rare misspellings. No other changes have been made. CD]

Edited August 16, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Sure enough, my posts are still being previewed by moderators even as "Colby" is given free access.

John, you wrote to me that, "You have been placed on moderation until you put the old avatar back."

Last evening I informed you, via PM, that "In good faith, I am changing my avatar in advance of your response." I did so, utilizing a true, updated image. And yet I remain on moderation.

How can I understand this state of affairs except as a betrayal?

Sadly,

Charles (10:03 AM, east coast USA, Monday, August 11)

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Sceptics-- of all sources other than the US government!

[John Simkin]

Sure enough, my posts are still being previewed by moderators even as "Colby" is given free access.

John, you wrote to me that, "You have been placed on moderation until you put the old avatar back."

Last evening I informed you, via PM, that "In good faith, I am changing my avatar in advance of your response." I did so, utilizing a true, updated image. And yet I remain on moderation.

How can I understand this state of affairs except as a betrayal?

Sadly,

Charles (10:03 AM, east coast USA, Monday, August 11)

I do not run this forum full-time. I also have to earn my living. I removed you from moderation as soon as I was aware that you had put back your avatar.

[Charles Drago]

Sure enough, my posts are still being previewed by moderators even as "Colby" is given free access.

John, you wrote to me that, "You have been placed on moderation until you put the old avatar back."

Last evening I informed you, via PM, that "In good faith, I am changing my avatar in advance of your response." I did so, utilizing a true, updated image. And yet I remain on moderation.

How can I understand this state of affairs except as a betrayal?

Sadly,

Charles (10:03 AM, east coast USA, Monday, August 11)

I do not run this forum full-time. I also have to earn my living. I removed you from moderation as soon as I was aware that you had put back your avatar.

Thank you.

[Michael Hogan]

Wrong again Paul your (sic) the one proposing that they removed a segment of the film previously seen by several witnesses and can't offere (sic) a resonable (sic) explaination (sic) as to why....

(Sorry to interupt (sic) the theological discusion (sic) with a post related to the topic of the thread)

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

Well, well some one should anoint you the forum’s hector-in-chief, but thanks again for your services as my unpaid proofreader. As far as I can tell you are the only person on this forum preoccupied with that. John seems to have added that almost as an after though (sic) four years ago and neither he nor Andy nor any of the moderators nor anyone but you has mentioned it since. Odd also that “violations” of this “rule” only seem to bother you when I make them as just about every regular poster, and that includes John, makes spelling and/or grammar errors without comment on your part.

No, you are in a class by yourself. Everyone understands an occasional typo or two, but you've made it clear you have never taken John's rule seriously and have little regard for John's wishes in that regard.

An afterthought by John? Only you would say something like that. Why not just do as he suggested?

[Michael Hogan]

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len.

Ironically they insist that I and sometimes the other “debunkers” initiated the personal attacks but when pressed for details/evidence they either don’t reply or give vague non-answers or feign be insulted by words like nonsense.

It's clear that Colby is referring to me. He has taken John Simkin's post, clipped one sentence from a paragraph and made it sound as if John was accusing me of making personal attacks. It's the very same tactic

he used in a recent thread that he initiated in the JFK and Moderating sections and that were subsequently deleted by a moderator(s). Here is John's statement in context:

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....

John made it clear he is referring to a particular group of members. That group does not include me.

Colby clipped a sentence out of context and used it to suggest something derogatory about me that he patently fails to demonstrate.

This is a major reason why so many members get upset with Colby. It's not because his views are anti-conspiratorial or his theories can't be refuted; it's because he will do things like the above in order to try and make his point.

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

[Charles Drago]

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

Because, Michael, such is the brief of "his" ilk.

"He" once attempted to decontextualize one of my posts, and I hammered "him" mercilessly until moderators had to act on my behalf and "he" backed down.

"Colby" will not deal with me because "he" dare(s) not.

Understand "Colby's" brief, and "he" is easily dispatched.

Charles

Edited August 12, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

Wrong again Paul your (sic) the one proposing that they removed a segment of the film previously seen by several witnesses and can't offere (sic) a resonable (sic) explaination (sic) as to why....

(Sorry to interupt (sic) the theological discusion (sic) with a post related to the topic of the thread)

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

Well, well some one should anoint you the forum’s hector-in-chief, but thanks again for your services as my unpaid proofreader. As far as I can tell you are the only person on this forum preoccupied with that. John seems to have added that almost as an after though (sic) four years ago and neither he nor Andy nor any of the moderators nor anyone but you has mentioned it since. Odd also that “violations” of this “rule” only seem to bother you when I make them as just about every regular poster, and that includes John, makes spelling and/or grammar errors without comment on your part.

No, you are in a class by yourself. Everyone understands an occasional typo or two, but you've made it clear you have never taken John's rule seriously and have little regard for John's wishes in that regard.

An afterthought by John? Only you would say something like that. Why not just do as he suggested?

You are right Mike I should take more care with my spelling, typing and grammar but last time I checked neither John nor Andy nor any of the moderators nor anyone so designated by the aforementioned have designated you the forum’s spellingmarm.

[Len Colby]

In their frustration of not getting their own way members have resorted to breaking the rules by making personal attacks on Len.

Ironically they insist that I and sometimes the other “debunkers” initiated the personal attacks but when pressed for details/evidence they either don’t reply or give vague non-answers or feign be insulted by words like nonsense.

It's clear that Colby is referring to me. He has taken John Simkin's post, clipped one sentence from a paragraph and made it sound as if John was accusing me of making personal attacks. It's the very same tactic

he used in a recent thread that he initiated in the JFK and Moderating sections and that were subsequently deleted by a moderator(s). Here is John's statement in context:

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....

John made it clear he is referring to a particular group of members. That group does not include me.

Colby clipped a sentence out of context and used it to suggest something derogatory about me that he patently fails to demonstrate.

This is a major reason why so many members get upset with Colby. It's not because his views are anti-conspiratorial or his theories can't be refuted; it's because he will do things like the above in order to try and make his point.

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

No Mike, to your credit you weren’t part of the hysterical lynch mob (my characterization, not his) that John was referring to and of course anyone reading this thread especially one who would be able to figure out I was referring to you (among others) would know that. But to imply that you haven’t engaged in personal attacks against or at least insulted me is to “Winston Smith” the truth. You are also among the group that has made ludicrous claims that I insulted them first.

[Len Colby]

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

Because, Michael, such is the brief of his ilk.

"He" once attempted to decontextualize one of my posts, and I hammered "him" mercilessly until moderators had to act on my behalf and "he" backed down.

"Colby" will not deal with me because "he" dare(s) not.

Understand "Colby's" brief, and "he" is easily dispatched.

Charles

"Drago" - I already called you on your completely inaccurate retelling of what transpired, but of course you failed to reply or make a correction.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151859

I "will not deal with you because I dare not"?!?! Absurd! I have in the past and will do so whenever I see fit.

[Charles Drago]

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

[Christopher Hall]

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.

Thanks, John.

Dissent (including dissent from the prevailing liberal orthodoxy) is not a crime.

As a conservative, I have learned quite a bit from participating in these forums.

It has expanded my worldview considerably.

I would say that almost all of the last 20 books I have read were authored by someone left of center (presently I am reading "Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeff St. Clair, who are left of left).

I have learned facts that I previously didn't know, because I intentionally read materials written by someone with whom I probably have little in common.

I challenge anyone else on these forums to do the same thing. You may just learn something.

It beats sitting smugly at your monitor knowing that you will never have a pet idea challenged.

A lack of diversity of thought is not a good thing.