Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why are certain people here threatened by DPF?


Recommended Posts

It appears to me as though Charles Drago is having problems with his computer.

There is nothing unusually offensive (for Charles that is) in what he seems to have attempted to post and therefore no reason why anyone should have wanted to delete it.

His account is still active and not subject to any moderation restrictions. Sorry the reality isn't more exciting but there you go.

But it WAS deleted, immediately after CD posted it. First I saw it then it was gone. In fact I posted that it was gone.

Then IMMEDIATELY after that CD cannot access the forum.

"Having problems with his/her computer" is what you folks always resort to after you disable someone's account.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It appears to me as though Charles Drago is having problems with his computer.

There is nothing unusually offensive (for Charles that is) in what he seems to have attempted to post and therefore no reason why anyone should have wanted to delete it.

His account is still active and not subject to any moderation restrictions. Sorry the reality isn't more exciting but there you go.

But it WAS deleted, immediately after CD posted it. First I saw it then it was gone. In fact I posted that it was gone.

Then IMMEDIATELY after that CD cannot access the forum.

"Having problems with his/her computer" is what you folks always resort to after you disable someone's account.

Dawn

Click here and you will see that Charles is alive and well and as good looking as ever.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=5682

I have to say I am tiring of this paranoid nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paranoid is correct. People like to leave out little facts sometimes.

John S asked us to enforce the rule about avatars. Funnily enough, he even made a post about it and pinned it:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13072

Magda was politely asked - a number of times - to abide by the rules (as you could not see her face clearly). Her response was to place her current avatar up. Petulant little thing, isn't she? After repeated requests and warnings about the avatar, she was placed on moderation.

If Jan wants his account deleted, all he need do is ask John or Andy. No-one is forcing him to have an account here - especially after you said he was banned, and which you yourself subsequently showed was not correct.

Facts are stubborn things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was NO problem with my avatar/photo except in the mind of

vindictive moderators. It was there ALL that time before and NO ONE had a

problem with it. John S himself put it up on the forum and said nothing. He

said nothing when I wrote him asking if it was okay or not. Only Evan

(and maybe Antti) has a problem with it as I was the one who spoke out

and that was my punishment. No one else except for Jack (his biography

link didn't work unknown to him) was treated the same way. Even though David

came out and said it wasn't him in that photo still nothing was done to anyone else.

All the other people with dodgy photos or no photos were not ever dealt with until they were

brought to the attention of the EF moderators by ME and I was busy for days doing that.

Boy, I bet they really loved me by then.

BTW, perhaps Dawn and Magda would both be set straight about Jack's opinion regarding the avatars. From the pinned announcement about avatars:

I suggest this be amended to say IDENTIFIABLE FACIAL PHOTO. This would

rule out a distant photo of a man on a motorcycle or strolling the beach, or any

photo in which the face is not large and well lighted. A face in shadow or

silhouette is not suitable.

Jack

(my bolding)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=149441

Magda had best blame Jack for her woes, not me.

:zzz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan and Magda simply have to abide by the avatar rule - the same rule you and I and Andy and Jack and Daniel and Dawn and all the other people here abide by - and they can post freely.

Their decision, not ours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan and Magda simply have to abide by the avatar rule - the same rule you and I and Andy and Jack and Daniel and Dawn and all the other people here abide by - and they can post freely.

Maybe--although it depends on what you mean by "freely".

In any case, they're gawn. Damn shame for the EF, because the political conspiracies forum has lost a lot of its former energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was out of range of computers when this all happened, but they tell a slightly different tale than the 'official' EF version. I have also found that certain people are targeted more than others to 'conform' to the rules [i.e. they are not applied even-handed, at times]. At the risk of raising the 'ugly head' of yet one more 'breathing together', at times I and others have thought that a loss of energy in the political conspiracies section was just what some were long working toward. I'll not name names. They know who they are. Others do too. Some would like it to be the political anti-conspiracy section. I've long suggested there be one and they can play there in coincidental bliss.

Peter,

I believe that you may be the victim of "disinformation". For instance, I kept records of all e-mails and PMs I sent to people regarding this matter. I would be more than happy to post them - with the other person's permission - to show that certain people were not unfairly targeted, that they were given more than fair and adequate warning, and that the consequences are fully of their own actions and not of any campaign against them. If anything, they received greater latitude than was extended to other members.

Evan

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was out of range of computers when this all happened, but they tell a slightly different tale than the 'official' EF version. I have also found that certain people are targeted more than others to 'conform' to the rules [i.e. they are not applied even-handed, at times]. At the risk of raising the 'ugly head' of yet one more 'breathing together', at times I and others have thought that a loss of energy in the political conspiracies section was just what some were long working toward. I'll not name names. They know who they are. Others do too. Some would like it to be the political anti-conspiracy section. I've long suggested there be one and they can play there in coincidental bliss.

I don't know the full details of what happened either and I don't really care, but your point is well made. This is a subforum of the controversial issues in history forum, so what's the point of having such a forum with a management which appears to be controversy averse? Maybe it should be known as the uncontroversial controversial issues in history forum.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Hey there Len! Did you see this fascinating thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14076

"Conspiracy of Big Tobacco Companies - 100 Years of Deceit, They KNEW Smoking Was Addictive & Caused Cancer!"

Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Exactly. Notice he was setting things up exactly as I said - again? If he tried to debate Andy here, he'd pretend his posts were being deleted or he was banned or other nonsense. He can't risk a debate over at the Deep Bull Forum because he can't use his escape clause there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings, Fellow Travelers,

I'm checking in on a friend's computer.

Let's see how long this stays up.

Charles R. Drago

The fact that Drago can logon on normally from another computer pretty much confirms Andy's explanation that his problems are due to his computer rather than his account. Odd that he seems to think otherwise.

Exactly. Notice he was setting things up exactly as I said - again? If he tried to debate Andy here, he'd pretend his posts were being deleted or he was banned or other nonsense. He can't risk a debate over at the Deep Bull Forum because he can't use his escape clause there.

Ah, Evan,

You are so bold and courageous ... and a brilliant observer of human nature to boot.

I've asked John Simkin to check into the reason why my computer malfunctions so selectively. When he reports to me, as I know he will, the story of why I am "Forbidden" entry to the site of your breathtakingly insightful and honorable posts ...

You'll be the first to know.

Until then, be heartened by the fact that I won't be back for at least a week, so it's safe to continue your attacks.

I'll close with a fashion tip: Brown slacks nicely compliment the yellow of that streak down your back.

Charles Drago

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...