The Case of Len Colby

[Dave Greer]

Charles

I've refrained from saying a great deal on this thread because I haven't had a strong opinion either way, and to be honest it makes me a tad uncomfortable discussing the motives or raison d'etre of other forum members.

However, I've been on the receiving end of similar accusations that Len Colby has, so I have a certain sympathy for the situation he's in at the moment. Whether he's a genuine member voicing his opinion, or whether he's some kind of entity as has been proposed, I have no idea. On one level, it doesn't really matter, since it is the quality (or otherwise) and content of his posts that should be addressed. If Len Colby truly is an agent of dark forces, surely it's more important to attack his message, and point out logical fallacies in his reasoning, rather than insisting that his true identity be discerned (something you've conceded wouldn't prove a great deal anyway).

Some of my less positive forum experiences. I've had people falsely accuse me of cyber-vandalism of their forum, simply because the form of language used in posts was similar to mine. I've been falsely accused of hacking and removing conspiracy sites, the only evidence being that I was a member who didn't agree with many of the conspiracies being discussed. I've been regularly accused on this forum and others of being a paid government shill, for voicing an opinion that doesn't support the CT angle on certain "conspiracies". I've had people on other forums attempt to use my real identity against me. I've had someone hack into my account on this forum and post abusive comments in my name, for reasons known only to themselves. I'm regularly accused on other forums of not believing what I'm saying, and being a paid whore of the US government. The M.O. seems to be, throw enough mud and some will eventually stick. Or maybe they're just trying to grind me down. (I'd like to think I'm made of sterner stuff.)

If the use of a nom de web on other forums is circumstantial evidence that someone's identity is suspect or compromised, then hang me now, as this forum is the only one on which I use my real name. In fact, this is the only forum I've known where pseudonyms are prohibited. The overwhelming majority of people on other forums post under assumed names. So if Len Colby posting as Len Brazil on another website casts doubt on his identity, then Dave Greer posting as HeadLikeARock or postbaguk must do the same for me, despite no direct accusations having been made against myself about my true identity.

For those reasons, I have sympathy for Len's position.

I agree that I can see discernible differences in the the two posts made by Len that you highlighted. I suspect you could do the same to me if you analysed some of my posts. You are always very erudite in your own posts, so I don't know if the same would apply to you Charles. My point is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using that as evidence that someone is posting under multiple identities. It may be an indicator such a thing, but in my opinion such evidence is wispy at best. There are other less damning explanations.

Another reason for me posting this is that to my surprise I've been approached to join another forum. I wanted to go on public record my opinion of the "Len Colby" situation, before I decide whether to accept, since the "Len Colby" situation seems to be the catalyst for a desire by some members to set up a new forum.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Charles Drago]

Dave,

Thank you for your candid and thoughtful reply. My comments follow.

Whether ["Colby" is] a genuine member voicing his opinion, or whether he's some kind of entity as has been proposed, I have no idea. On one level, it doesn't really matter, since it is the quality (or otherwise) and content of his posts that should be addressed. If Len Colby truly is an agent of dark forces, surely it's more important to attack his message, and point out logical fallacies in his reasoning, rather than insisting that his true identity be discerned (something you've conceded wouldn't prove a great deal anyway).

I could not be in stronger disagreement with you here. You see, there is a war going on between the deep political forces that committed the American political assassinations of the 1960s -- among other world-historic atrocities discussed on this Forum -- and those of us who oppose their hegemony. Accordingly, we must bring hard-earned levels of sophistication to our appreciations of the "Colbys" of the world. When we do so, "his" pathetic bleatings are revealed for what they are and for whose agendas they service.

"Colby's" messages are, in the final analysis, unimportant except insofar as they fit certain well-established patterns. "His" function is to naysay, obfuscate, and most significantly support the illusion that -- I'll stick to the subject matter I know best -- the JFK "lone nut" lie, for example, is as honestly presented and plausible an explanation for how the president was murdered as is the so-called "theory" of conspiracy.

The ONLY way to deal with "Colby" and his ilk is to expose them. They must not be collegially received. They must not be respected or tolerated in any way whatsoever.

Were any tender mercies on display in Dealey Plaza on that terrible day?

Where "Colbys" are concerned, we must attack the messenger.

Some of my less positive forum experiences. I've had people falsely accuse me of cyber-vandalism of their forum, simply because the form of language used in posts was similar to mine. I've been falsely accused of hacking and removing conspiracy sites, the only evidence being that I was a member who didn't agree with many of the conspiracies being discussed. I've been regularly accused on this forum and others of being a paid government shill, for voicing an opinion that doesn't support the CT angle on certain "conspiracies". I've had people on other forums attempt to use my real identity against me. I've had someone hack into my account on this forum and post abusive comments in my name, for reasons known only to themselves. I'm regularly accused on other forums of not believing what I'm saying, and being a paid whore of the US government. The M.O. seems to be, throw enough mud and some will eventually stick. Or maybe they're just trying to grind me down. (I'd like to think I'm made of sterner stuff.)

I'm sincerely troubled to learn of your difficulties. Let me state, however, as gently as possible that this thread must remain focused on the issue of "Colby."

If the use of a nom de web on other forums is circumstantial evidence that someone's identity is suspect or compromised, then hang me now, as this forum is the only one on which I use my real name. In fact, this is the only forum I've known where pseudonyms are prohibited. The overwhelming majority of people on other forums post under assumed names. So if Len Colby posting as Len Brazil on another website casts doubt on his identity, then Dave Greer posting as HeadLikeARock or postbaguk must do the same for me, despite no direct accusations having been made against myself about my true identity.

See above. Unless one is prepared to identify oneself with one's work, that work, I'm afraid, simply cannot be taken seriously. I mean no disrespect.

I agree that I can see discernible differences in the the two posts made by Len that you highlighted. I suspect you could do the same to me if you analysed some of my posts. You are always very erudite in your own posts, so I don't know if the same would apply to you Charles. My point is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using that as evidence that someone is posting under multiple identities. It may be an indicator such a thing, but in my opinion such evidence is wispy at best. There are other less damning explanations.

I'm afraid not. There are qualitative differences to note between common variations in language produced at different times by a single author, and instances of multiple posters writing above a common signature. The "Colby" posts referenced here and appearing elsewhere, in terms of their content, timing, and diversity of subject matters, and placed within the context of suspiciously similar work of disinformation specialists and agents provocateurs operating elsewhere (I'm immediately put in mind of Holocaust Deniers), support my contention that "Colby" is a vehicle for multiple posters -- even if in fact a "Len Colby" can be demonstrated to exist.

By the way, I'm composing this at the end of a very busy day. As a professional writer, I'm acutely aware of my literary performance at any given time. Right now I'm exhausted, and anyone with a mind to do so could demonstrate how this response is, shall we say, less artfully crafted than many other Drago offerings. However, my literary fingerprints are all over the vocabulary, constructions, pacing, and less quantifiable though clearly discernable aspects of this post.

But suppose I had written the preceding paragraph this way:

Im really tired and I apolagize for my writing which is not up to parr however my vocabulary, words,and other elaments of my writing are just like other samples ofmy writing.

Do you get my drift?

Another reason for me posting this is that to my surprise I've been approached to join another forum. I wanted to go on public record my opinion of the "Len Colby" situation, before I decide whether to accept, since the "Len Colby" situation seems to be the catalyst for a desire by some members to set up a new forum.

You are to be commended, sir, for your forthrightness.

You and all other readers of this thread should be aware that the material I present here represents but a small percentage of accumulated data supporting my conclusions.

Again, Dave, I thank you for your contributions to this dicussion.

Regards,

Charles

Edited August 15, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Peter McKenna]

Charles

I've refrained from saying a great deal on this thread because I haven't had a strong opinion either way, and to be honest it makes me a tad uncomfortable discussing the motives or raison d'etre of other forum members.

After reading many of Len’s posts since I joined the forum, I feel Len’s a real guy, who makes mistakes (typos) pretty much consistently, and has been pretty consistent in his personality.

I make mistakes myself typing, since I have poor typing skills, and see some of this quality in Len’s posts.

A lot of what Len has posted I have sided with, not all, but a substantial portion. To be honest, I couldn’t take Len’s position in this forum because frankly, I don’t have the energy. Possibly, some may feel Len maintains a provocative stance due to his ability to maintain a fairly high energy level.

Maybe some don’t like dealing with Len due to his ability to maintain a pretty high energy level in a debate. This can be draining, which some may feel shunts them from the point or issue they were tangling with in the first place. I know I likely could not outlast Len in an intellectual contest of attrition.

If anyone has ever read transcripts of the first Continental Congresses, in the United States, undertaking the debates that they held would challenge the sanity of any man. Debates would change to argument, provocation, fisticuffs, even fights to the death. Great stuff.

I hope people do not feel it necessary to depart, but remain to engage in debate, where it erupts, for often the most thoughtful of points are made in the heat of a debate. I understand that some feel the forum is not an appropriate location for debate. I disagree with that.

Maybe some posts are not made to be debated. Then, don’t debate them. I would even go so far as to qualify them in that sense, if you like.

The smart people here probably know Socrates and Hegel better than I and would agree that truth often requires debate. I felt this forum carried that spirit to a degree and that John felt that way. Some of the debates I have read on this forum were insightful, in ways that evolved out of the dialectic, and not the rhetoric.

I also would have great difficulty in having much regard for unchallenged theory or rhetoric. I think most people feel that way.

I’m just throwing my two cents in on this issue, FWIW.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Matthew Lewis]

Charles

I've refrained from saying a great deal on this thread because I haven't had a strong opinion either way, and to be honest it makes me a tad uncomfortable discussing the motives or raison d'etre of other forum members.

However, I've been on the receiving end of similar accusations that Len Colby has, so I have a certain sympathy for the situation he's in at the moment. Whether he's a genuine member voicing his opinion, or whether he's some kind of entity as has been proposed, I have no idea. On one level, it doesn't really matter, since it is the quality (or otherwise) and content of his posts that should be addressed. If Len Colby truly is an agent of dark forces, surely it's more important to attack his message, and point out logical fallacies in his reasoning, rather than insisting that his true identity be discerned (something you've conceded wouldn't prove a great deal anyway).

Some of my less positive forum experiences. I've had people falsely accuse me of cyber-vandalism of their forum, simply because the form of language used in posts was similar to mine. I've been falsely accused of hacking and removing conspiracy sites, the only evidence being that I was a member who didn't agree with many of the conspiracies being discussed. I've been regularly accused on this forum and others of being a paid government shill, for voicing an opinion that doesn't support the CT angle on certain "conspiracies". I've had people on other forums attempt to use my real identity against me. I've had someone hack into my account on this forum and post abusive comments in my name, for reasons known only to themselves. I'm regularly accused on other forums of not believing what I'm saying, and being a paid whore of the US government. The M.O. seems to be, throw enough mud and some will eventually stick. Or maybe they're just trying to grind me down. (I'd like to think I'm made of sterner stuff.)

If the use of a nom de web on other forums is circumstantial evidence that someone's identity is suspect or compromised, then hang me now, as this forum is the only one on which I use my real name. In fact, this is the only forum I've known where pseudonyms are prohibited. The overwhelming majority of people on other forums post under assumed names. So if Len Colby posting as Len Brazil on another website casts doubt on his identity, then Dave Greer posting as HeadLikeARock or postbaguk must do the same for me, despite no direct accusations having been made against myself about my true identity.

For those reasons, I have sympathy for Len's position.

I agree that I can see discernible differences in the the two posts made by Len that you highlighted. I suspect you could do the same to me if you analysed some of my posts. You are always very erudite in your own posts, so I don't know if the same would apply to you Charles. My point is, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using that as evidence that someone is posting under multiple identities. It may be an indicator such a thing, but in my opinion such evidence is wispy at best. There are other less damning explanations.

Another reason for me posting this is that to my surprise I've been approached to join another forum. I wanted to go on public record my opinion of the "Len Colby" situation, before I decide whether to accept, since the "Len Colby" situation seems to be the catalyst for a desire by some members to set up a new forum.

I was about to post nearly the same thing but you said it all much more eloquently than I ever could. I probably would have added something about a childish witch hunt as well.

Another thing, even if it could be proven that Colby's post are written by more than one person it could still be possible that some of them are directly copied from other sources. It is also possible that some posts are made while drunk or under the influence of other substances. It would prove nothing. I personally still fail to see why it would be better or cost effective to have multiple people post under one name. Why not have each person on the supposed team post as a different verifiable person? Surely this would be better right? Then each could have their own personal writing style but still benefit from other's research. Each would also be able to post at different times whenever their shift was. Multiple people on a team posting as one person seems like an incredible waste of time and money. But when have witch hunts ever been sensible?

And for the record, this is the only forum I ever use my real name on. Should this cast doubt on my identity as well?

Edited August 15, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Dave and Matt - agree with your posts... particularly the concept of addressing the content of the posts, not the poster. If I state that F = ma, then it is either right or wrong regardless of whether I am a physics professor, a supermarket stacker, or a serial killer. If I say the GWB is a womaniser, then people have to look at what evidence I use to support that statement and either accept the evidence, or argue that it is not correct and demonstrate why. It matters not if I am a staunch republican, a communist, or a 16 year old writing from an insane asylum.

Also, this is the only forum on which I use my real name, and I belong to several forums.

[Evan Burton]

Oh, BTW - Charles:

Although I disagree with your stance on this matter, and generally seem to be on the opposite side of the opinion fence to you, I do have to congratulate you for staying here and continuing to provide a voice for those who share your opinion. If what I / we / "the dark forces of this Forum" is / are spreading so much disinformation, I would have considered it the moral duty of all people who recognise the disinformation to remain and counter it, point out the flaws, tell people the truth.... however it would seem that you seem to be the sole representative of this faction.

I congratulate you for having the guts to "stand up" to me and my ilk. Seriously. You have a suitable avatar, you provide a link to your bio, and although I think your current posts fall into an area that violates Forum rules, you have the conviction to say it. Well done.

[Len Colby]

I was about to post nearly the same thing but you said it all much more eloquently than I ever could. I probably would have added something about a childish witch hunt as well.

Comparisons to McCarthy came to mind.

Not having any qualifications in the subject nor being able to cite anyone who does has not stopped him from spouting his rubbish ad nauseam.

[Len Colby]

* As Jan Klimkowski has explained:

On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to.

Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic: http://www.jod911.com/

The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers".

But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement."

Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote:

"As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10872&st=60

In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine".

So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

Most reasonable people, seeing an online publication named ~the Journal of Debunking 911" with members of the advisory board IDed as Shagster and Debunking911 etc would grok that its peer review process was not "akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine"". The review process is essentially the same as that as the one at the Journal of 911 Studies which really does try to parade itself as a "peer reviewed|" publication. Some of the leading names in the truth movement are associated with that publication. It was founded by Steve Jones and Judy Wood, it is currently edited by Jones and Kevin Ryan, it used to be part of a group headed by Jim Fetzer. In addition to the aforementioned PD Scott, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffen have had papers published. Many of the papers were written by the editors which is not kosher because they chose the reviewers who “reviewed|” them.

Strange that Drago, Jan and Maggie aren’t harping on about the peer review there.

"Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process."

A statement based on ignorance of the peer review process. Normally the names of the reviewers are never made public and are unknown to the authors though this appears to be changing.

As for the content of the journal, the papers themselves, I challenge anyone to find serious errors in any of them.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

I probably would have added something about a childish witch hunt as well.

Thank God good taste prevailed.

But hey, takes one to know one.

Another thing, even if it could be proven that Colby's post are written by more than one person it could still be possible that some of them are directly copied from other sources. It is also possible that some posts are made while drunk or under the influence of other substances. It would prove nothing.

In the face of such idiocy, the only intelligent and sane response is what you're are reading at this very instant.

I personally still fail to see why it would be better or cost effective to have multiple people post under one name.

The mind boggles at such a sophisticated understanding of the workings of propaganda and disruption.

Why not have each person on the supposed team post as a different verifiable person? Surely this would be better right? Then each could have their own personal writing style but still benefit from other's research. Each would also be able to post at different times whenever their shift was. Multiple people on a team posting as one person seems like an incredible waste of time and money.

One simply cannot put a price tag on such lofty logic.

Creating the illusion of a single erudite, encyclopedically knowledgeable "person" who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right?

Do they let you play with live ammo?

And for the record, this is the only forum I ever use my real name on. Should this cast doubt on my identity as well?

Yes. Not to mention your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Dave and Matt - agree with your posts... particularly the concept of addressing the content of the posts, not the poster.

Excellent tactic! Just continue to ignore my lessons regarding the distinctions between an honest and legitimate "poster" and a "Colby" disinformation entity.

It matters not if I am a staunch republican, a communist, or a 16 year old writing from an insane asylum.

Not to me, at least. But it would matter if you were a composite character/fictive construct employed by the worst people on the planet as a tactic in a grand strategy which I and others recognize.

By the way, I would never claim that you are 16 years old.

Also, this is the only forum on which I use my real name, and I belong to several forums.

See below. Such a practice casts the most serious doubts on your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity.

Why and what are you hiding?

Edited August 15, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Comparisons to McCarthy came to mind.

Indeed they do -- to Charlie McCarthy. Another famous puppet from American vaudeville and early television.

Not having any qualifications in the subject nor being able to cite anyone who does has not stopped him from spouting his rubbish ad nauseam.

These guys just can't stop talking about themselves.

[Charles Drago]

Oh, BTW - Charles:

Although I disagree with your stance on this matter, and generally seem to be on the opposite side of the opinion fence to you, I do have to congratulate you for staying here and continuing to provide a voice for those who share your opinion. If what I / we / "the dark forces of this Forum" is / are spreading so much disinformation, I would have considered it the moral duty of all people who recognise the disinformation to remain and counter it, point out the flaws, tell people the truth.... however it would seem that you seem to be the sole representative of this faction.

I congratulate you for having the guts to "stand up" to me and my ilk. Seriously. You have a suitable avatar, you provide a link to your bio, and although I think your current posts fall into an area that violates Forum rules, you have the conviction to say it. Well done.

Evan,

Contrary to what is indicated by the majority of my posts on this Forum, I neither seek nor enjoy taking opportunities for personal attacks.

I'll take you at your word here and thank you for your magnanimity. Seriously.

Although I must take issue with the following:

I think your current posts fall into an area that violates Forum rules[.]

Given the subject of this thread, the "Forum rules" which you reference apparently and properly have been relaxed -- or better yet, appropriately modified to permit unfettered expressions of opinion and fact regarding "Colby" and "his" game.

I would have considered it the moral duty of all people who recognise the disinformation to remain and counter it, point out the flaws, tell people the truth.... however it would seem that you seem to be the sole representative of this faction. [emphasis added by Drago]

Each to his or her own role in the great game. But to the degree that the closing, emphasized-by-me section of the immediately preceding quote may be interpreted as an effort to sow disruption, I recognize my moral duty to call you on it.

The problem, it seems, is all yours.

Thanks again,

Charles

[Evan Burton]

Charles,

Free speech can be difficult. Because the subject continues to revolve around Len being some type of composite character - and this discussion regarding a member is normally taboo - it is my responsibility to stop it. For instance, what if I claimed that the person/s posting as Peter Lemkin were not a single person but a conglomerate of people with a shared aim on this board? Would the accusation itself be fair? What if I demand proof of Peter's identity? Would it be fair? I am sure there are people who would complain if I took such a path.

Instead, I rely on John and Andy to regulate the board members. If they decide someone can post under a bogus name, then that is their concern - not mine. I'm interested in what is posted. If they decide a member's concern over an image is justified, then it matters not if I know or do not know that the member's avatar is a "fake" - all I need to know is that the Admins have approved it.

If someone has concerns - or even evidence - that a Forum member is not who they say they are, what should they do? Post accusations about? I would think the way to go is to contact the Admins, inform them of the concern, present the evidence, and await a decision.

For instance, let's hypothesise that Len's avatar is not actually of him. Does that show intent to deceive? Some would say YES... but what if it was done with John or Andy's approval? What if Len had a genuine concern regarding his image?

David has told us that his image was only similar to himself, not an actual image. This was done with John / Andy's approval.

Did the Mods know? No. Did David try to deceive us? No. He simply had reasons that John / Andy considered sufficient to justify using a likeness.

I have no problem with that.

What if Len has been granted similar status? I am NOT saying he has, but what if this were the case? Would the rule then be that some people had to reveal their identity, but others were protected? If you were on one side of a fence this rule applied, but if you were on the other it did not?

Anyway, you get my point.

Lastly, I am quite genuine about congratulating you. I would ask that you speak to any Forum members you are in contact with, and that have withdrawn from the forum, and ask them to follow your example and speak up for what they believe.

[Matthew Lewis]

I probably would have added something about a childish witch hunt as well.

Thank God good taste prevailed.

But hey, takes one to know one.

It takes a childish witch hunt to know a childish witch hunt? Perhaps you could point out where I have engaged in a witch hunt of any sort.

Another thing, even if it could be proven that Colby's post are written by more than one person it could still be possible that some of them are directly copied from other sources. It is also possible that some posts are made while drunk or under the influence of other substances. It would prove nothing.

In the face of such idiocy, the only intelligent and sane response is what your are reading at this very instant.

ad hominem noted

I personally still fail to see why it would be better or cost effective to have multiple people post under one name.

The mind boggles at such a sophisticated understanding of the workings of propaganda and disruption.

Why not have each person on the supposed team post as a different verifiable person? Surely this would be better right? Then each could have their own personal writing style but still benefit from other's research. Each would also be able to post at different times whenever their shift was. Multiple people on a team posting as one person seems like an incredible waste of time and money.

One simply cannot put a price tag on such lofty logic.

Creating the illusion of a single erudite, encyclopedically knowledgeable "person" who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right?

Did I say no value? Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I said it would be more cost effective if you have multiple people to have them post as multiple people. They could still then have the benefit of each other's research as well as the benefit of more people posting on "their" side and the benefits of having distinctive personal styles. Which appears better? One person opposing many or multiple people?

Do they let you play with live ammo?

ad hominem noted

And for the record, this is the only forum I ever use my real name on. Should this cast doubt on my identity as well?

Yes. Not to mention your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity.

Then apparently nearly everyone on the internet is insane according to you, including most on this forum that happen to post on other forums. If I had no personal courage then why would I even come to a forum where I had to use my real name? Your paranoia is showing.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

Free speech can be difficult. Because the subject continues to revolve around Len being some type of composite character - and this discussion regarding a member is normally taboo - it is my responsibility to stop it.

Evan,

I sincerely hope you are not planning to eliminate this thread or make it invisible. Given its subject and significant content, such a decision should be left to John.

For instance, what if I claimed that the person/s posting as Peter Lemkin were not a single person but a conglomerate of people with a shared aim on this board? Would the accusation itself be fair? What if I demand proof of Peter's identity? Would it be fair? I am sure there are people who would complain if I took such a path.

Leave Peter out of this. Why not make the claim about me? I haven't the slightest problem whatsoever with such a move. My life is an open, well-written book. A simple Google experience finds more about me than any sane person would care to know.

I do not post under a pseudonym. I have nothing to hide. Which is more than I can say for "Colby."

For instance, let's hypothesise that Len's avatar is not actually of him. Does that show intent to deceive? Some would say YES... but what if it was done with John or Andy's approval? What if Len had a genuine concern regarding his image?

I find it impossible to discuss this "Len" you keep referencing insofar as I cannot concede "his" existence.

Anyway, you get my point.

Lastly, I am quite genuine about congratulating you.

I reiterate: I happily take you at your word. Thanks again.

I would ask that you speak to any Forum members you are in contact with, and that have withdrawn from the forum, and ask them to follow your example and speak up for what they believe.

If the gunmen in Dealey Plaza had missed their target as often as you seem to miss my points, we wouldn't be enjoying this lovely exchange.

You are committing sophistry -- constructing a logical argument on a false premise: namely, that the individuals you reference are not "speak[ing] up for what they believe."

Just because some of my comrades no longer choose to post here does not mean that they have fallen silent on the issues which I continue to address on these cyber-pages. Yours is by no means the only Internet vehicle -- among other communication opportunities -- open to their participation.

So again, don't sweat the small stuff, baby.

Sincerely,

Charles