Jump to content

The Case of Len Colby


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The biggest problem is that Len has directly or indirectly caused some members to leave. Jan Klimkowski and David Guyatt have a lot to contribute to the political conspiracies debate and they wouldn't make the decision to leave lightly, imo. Frankly, I respect their opinions and research more than Len Colby's.

Len didn't cause anyone to leave. It was their choice, not his.

That is not correct. It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len

gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Ok this is a forum ABOUT conspiracies. We all know that they exist and the intent of John Simkin was that

researchers all over the world could better expose these antidemocratic, even fascist acts of various government

entities by sharing reasearch, and insight. To that end there had been much meaningful work and discussion.

Then the anti CT's arrive and reek havok. It's their MO. Anyone who has been to a JFK assassination lecture has witnessed

some agent type standing up and calling the presenter "CIA". It's what they are paid to do. Cause dissention and chaos.

Anything to impede furterance of understanding the conspiracy, and exposing its member. All one has to do is to read an article on co-intelpro and know these are the methods that were employed to destroy the black panther movement and the anti viet nam peace movement.

Does anyone truely think these folks don't moniter and post on these forums for precisely the same reasons

taught by the proponents of the counter intelligence program?

As for those who have left it's not a question of not standing up for what they believe. When they stood up- daily- they were censored. Kudos to CD for his perserverance!

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But seriously, I wish to go on record that I cannot and shall not be personally offended by a post on this Forum. So, dear moderators, please be advised that, for whatever it's worth, you needn't scold, censor, or in any other form or fashion punish any of our correspondents for even the boldest, most ignorant libel leveled or slander slung in my direction.

Charles

Thank you Charles, but the issue is not whether you will be offended; it is about a member violating the Forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously, I wish to go on record that I cannot and shall not be personally offended by a post on this Forum. So, dear moderators, please be advised that, for whatever it's worth, you needn't scold, censor, or in any other form or fashion punish any of our correspondents for even the boldest, most ignorant libel leveled or slander slung in my direction.

Charles

Thank you Charles, but the issue is not whether you will be offended; it is about a member violating the Forum rules.

I quite understand the distinction, Evan, and I wholly expected you and/or another moderator to make it.

I feel it is only fair to thank all who contribute to the decision-making on these pages -- starting with John Simkin -- for permitting this extremely important and educational thread to continue.

Sincerely,

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.

Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.

Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

If Len is Len, and entity, a conglomerate, whatever, should it not be the information he posts that concerns us?

I mean after all is this not a forum for debate, and exchange and examination of ideas? Who really cares what Len is, what should matter is the information he supplies. If its good, great, if its bad, debate him.....sounds simple enough to me.

Is the real issue here that some disagree with him, but can not refute his information, and such leads them to look for alternative ways to discredit him?

Or is it possible that since some can not refute him, they simply want him silenced?

People are leaving, being put on moderation etc etc....and that does NOTHING constructive for the debate and exchange......its just a shame.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case people have not seen my post on the Complaints thread:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense.

Dawn - Rubbish. Jan was offered a reasonable compromise - one which made the intention of his post clear - but chose to take offense and leave. His choice.

Jack refused make a simple effort to comply with the Forum rules - rules which applied to everyone. Instead he acted like a petulant child. His choice.

Thus far I have refrained from comment, but I do have something to say.

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

If Len is Len, and entity, a conglomerate, whatever, should it not be the information he posts that concerns us?

I mean after all is this not a forum for debate, and exchange and examination of ideas? Who really cares what Len is, what should matter is the information he supplies. If its good, great, if its bad, debate him.....sounds simple enough to me.

Is the real issue here that some disagree with him, but can not refute his information, and such leads them to look for alternative ways to discredit him?

Or is it possible that since some can not refute him, they simply want him silenced?

People are leaving, being put on moderation etc etc....and that does NOTHING constructive for the debate and exchange......its just a shame.

Mike

Mike - I agree. I would ask, however, no more discussion regarding Len. Please see my previous post.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter what or whom any of us are?

Nothing -- repeat: NOTHING -- could matter more.

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person.

Guess what, GI Joe: This is a civilian operation -- at least on paper.

If [whoever] is an entity, a conglomerate, whatever, should it not be the information he posts that concerns us?

Authorship is one of the indispensable components of all literary analysis. There is no escaping this reality. If George Bush, a known xxxx and war criminal, tells you that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, shouldn't the source of such information come into play in weighing its truthfulness?

I mean after all is this not a forum for debate, and exchange and examination of ideas? Who really cares what Len is, what should matter is the information he supplies. If its good, great, if its bad, debate him.....sounds simple enough to me.

"Simple" indeed. As opposed to "informed" and "sophisticated" and "learned." For starters.

Is the real issue here that some disagree with him, but can not refute his information, and such leads them to look for alternative ways to discredit him

Or is it possible that since some can not refute him, they simply want him silenced?

Schoolyard pablum.

But don't take my word for it. Is there anyone out there, with the exception of Burton, Lamson, and He Whose Name Must Not Be Written (HWNMNBW) who truly is of the "informed" opinion that this is all about the inability of the fearful Messrs. Klimkowski, Guyatt, and Stapleton, Ms. Meredith, and yours truly -- among others -- to engage in a battle of wits with HWNMNBW?

Seriously???

People are leaving, being put on moderation etc etc....and that does NOTHING constructive for the debate and exchange......its just a shame.

What this entire affair amounts to is an invaluable education in deep political strategies and tactics. "Debate and exchange" with the likes of HWNMNBW -- and, I might add, the successors who no doubt are being primed and auditioned as I type -- are impossible. By design.

Always have been. Always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len's name can be written; especially if you'd like to debate him. I am sure he would welcome the opportunity. As long as people stay within Forum rules, I am sure it would be a fascinating debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

It would seem to me that authorship is not the most important thing. The information provided is.

If one were to post something you did not agree with you are of course free to prove those facts wrong, no matter who penned them.

Is that not what research is all about?

The analogy to man and rank was made not in an attempt to list this as a military operation. Apparently you missed that all together, as did Rigby. It is no surprise Rigby missed it, but I am surprised you did.

The point I was trying to make simply is Respect, or reject the information, not the person.

When one can not refute the information given, then it seems some resort to bashing the poster.

You say that debate and exchange with the likes of some is impossible, always has been, always will be. My question is, why is that? Is it just because some lack to ability to refute the information they provide? IS that why you called what I had to say schoolyard pablum? You could not dispute what was said, so you try and belittle it? Not a very upright debate tactic Charles.

I also notice in the post you called me G.I. Joe. Another attempt at an insult? Why would that be Charles, had I insulted you in any way? No I did not. It is but another of the tactics some resort when they can not answer the statements made directly.

So it would seem in the end when faced with information there are some options involved:

1) Dispute the information and debate it with facts.

2) Pick up ones ball and go home.

3) Disrespect the poster in hopes that those watching will not notice that you cant refute there posts.

To those who chose option one, my heartfelt respect. To those who chose option 2, it is a shame you don't have the heart to carry your conviction. And to those who chose 3, I wish you had chosen option 2, and simply left.

I would like to thank you Charles for correcting a few of my literary mistakes. I have never been a professional assembler of words. I chose instead to insure that those who do assemble words would always have the right to speak them.

Best,

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

It would only be fair, then, to characterise you as a complete and committed ranker?

I am shocked and appalled to have received a complaint from a Mod about the above posting.

I have implied no more than that which I post below: A Mod has inferred, well, I dread to think, and he has yet to specify.

For the record, then, what is a "ranker"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ranker

rank·er (rngkr)

n. Chiefly British

1. An enlisted soldier.

2. A commissioned officer who has been promoted from enlisted status.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

To characterise Mikey as "a complete and committed ranker" is thus absolutely accurate, given his self-confessed militaristic view of human affairs.

Ignorance of the English language, not to mention a vague beastly-mindedness, is no defence.

I rest my case, probably in lost property.

EP Rigby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

It would only be fair, then, to characterise you as a complete and committed ranker?

I am shocked and appalled to have received a complaint from a Mod about the above posting.

I have implied no more than that which I post below: A Mod has inferred, well, I dread to think, and he has yet to specify.

For the record, then, what is a "ranker"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ranker

rank·er (rngkr)

n. Chiefly British

1. An enlisted soldier.

2. A commissioned officer who has been promoted from enlisted status.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

To characterise Mikey as "a complete and committed ranker" is thus absolutely accurate, given his self-confessed militaristic view of human affairs.

Ignorance of the English language, not to mention a vague beastly-mindedness, is no defence.

I rest my case, probably in lost property.

EP Rigby

Oh where to begin?

If your inference was to enlisted rank, then yep, I was enlisted and reached the top of that chain. However, I doubt you know enough about me to state my views as militaristic.

Was it militaristic to state that one should debate the issues rather than discredit the poster? Hardly.

Of course I would not expect Mr. Rigby to understand such distinctions.

Where in your definition Paul does it add beastly minded? Where does it add militaristic? Are those just little add ins that you try to associate to the base definition of an enlisted man?

Of course what is apparent is that you were unhappy with just the base definition of an enlisted man, so you try to add something to that in an attempt to slide in an insult.

Nice try.

However this does show that you have contemptible views towards the military. That is of course your right. But it also makes you by definition XXXXXX.

A contemptuous person.

So I will with pride be called a ranker, and given your contempt for the military you should be proudly called a xxxxxxx.

Mike

Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

It would only be fair, then, to characterise you as a complete and committed ranker?

I am shocked and appalled to have received a complaint from a Mod about the above posting.

I have implied no more than that which I post below: A Mod has inferred, well, I dread to think, and he has yet to specify.

For the record, then, what is a "ranker"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ranker

rank·er (rngkr)

n. Chiefly British

1. An enlisted soldier.

2. A commissioned officer who has been promoted from enlisted status.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

To characterise Mikey as "a complete and committed ranker" is thus absolutely accurate, given his self-confessed militaristic view of human affairs.

Ignorance of the English language, not to mention a vague beastly-mindedness, is no defence.

I rest my case, probably in lost property.

EP Rigby

Oh where to begin?

If your inference was to enlisted rank, then yep, I was enlisted and reached the top of that chain. However, I doubt you know enough about me to state my views as militaristic.

Was it militaristic to state that one should debate the issues rather than discredit the poster? Hardly.

Of course I would not expect Mr. Rigby to understand such distinctions.

Where in your definition Paul does it add beastly minded? Where does it add militaristic? Are those just little add ins that you try to associate to the base definition of an enlisted man?

Of course what is apparent is that you were unhappy with just the base definition of an enlisted man, so you try to add something to that in an attempt to slide in an insult.

Nice try.

However this does show that you have contemptible views towards the military. That is of course your right. But it also makes you by definition XXXXX.

A contemptuous person.

So I will with pride be called a ranker, and given your contempt for the military you should be proudly called a xxxxxxx.

Mike

You've lost it, Mikey, good style.

PS I thought it was only the Taiwanese military that got up tight about that sort of thing? Er, whatever it is.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the military its a matter of respect the rank, not the person. Something similar could be said here.

It would only be fair, then, to characterise you as a complete and committed ranker?

I am shocked and appalled to have received a complaint from a Mod about the above posting.

I have implied no more than that which I post below: A Mod has inferred, well, I dread to think, and he has yet to specify.

For the record, then, what is a "ranker"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ranker

rank·er (rngkr)

n. Chiefly British

1. An enlisted soldier.

2. A commissioned officer who has been promoted from enlisted status.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

To characterise Mikey as "a complete and committed ranker" is thus absolutely accurate, given his self-confessed militaristic view of human affairs.

Ignorance of the English language, not to mention a vague beastly-mindedness, is no defence.

I rest my case, probably in lost property.

EP Rigby

Oh where to begin?

If your inference was to enlisted rank, then yep, I was enlisted and reached the top of that chain. However, I doubt you know enough about me to state my views as militaristic.

Was it militaristic to state that one should debate the issues rather than discredit the poster? Hardly.

Of course I would not expect Mr. Rigby to understand such distinctions.

Where in your definition Paul does it add beastly minded? Where does it add militaristic? Are those just little add ins that you try to associate to the base definition of an enlisted man?

Of course what is apparent is that you were unhappy with just the base definition of an enlisted man, so you try to add something to that in an attempt to slide in an insult.

Nice try.

However this does show that you have contemptible views towards the military. That is of course your right. But it also makes you by definition XXXXX.

A contemptuous person.

So I will with pride be called a ranker, and given your contempt for the military you should be proudly called a xxxxxxx.

Mike

Evan,

How in the world could you conclude that word offensive?

I, unlike Rigby, used it in its unblemished definition? I added nothing, nor took anything away?

Rigby has openly shown his contempt for the military, and by such, has exhibited he is a contemptuous person, which is the EXACT definition.

Yet Rigby goes on to add parameters to the definition of ranker and remains unscathed? What is wrong with this picture?

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...