Lemkin and his double standard.

[Craig Lamson]

Clearly Lemkin operates with a double standard, not the thing we sould expect in a moderator.

I've made a number of posts today that have been denied by Lemkin.

In fact he just sent me a PM where he told me I was "one step closer to being booted" from this forum.

It appears Lemkin is afraid to take my replies to his private messages so I'm forced to do so in public.

Lets be quite clear here. Lemkin has lobbied for my removal LONG before his appointment to the position of moderator. And lets remember it was LEMKIN who stooped so low as to call me a NAZI.

To say he is biased is an understatement.

In any case the problem today centers on the term "hack"

Lemkin refuses to allow my posts that contain the word. Why is that? Is the word hack a banned word? I don't see that anywhere in the forum rules.

In fact Lemkin himself ENDORSED the use of the word when it was used by a friend to describe Bush:

"QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Sep 10 2007, 10:01 PM)

Thinking that Bush is anything other than a B-movie hack butchering his lines is like thinking that Lambchop had her paw up Shari Lewis's tush.

(Apologies to U.K. readers whose childhoods were not haunted by one of America's least clever puppeteers.)

It's like Bugliosi's circular anti-conspiracy argument: Do you really believe that the CIA or the Mafia would have hired a nut like Oswald to kill Kennedy?

Charles

Thanks for that belly laugh Charles...needed that after the attacks on the 'Debunk This' thread by the Borg. On target and a bullseye! "

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry117900

I have no problem with moderators or moderation.

I do have a problem with biased h--ks like Lemkin.

[Craig Lamson]

Clearly Lemkin operates with a double standard, not the thing we sould expect in a moderator.

I've made a number of posts today that have been denied by Lemkin.

In fact he just sent me a PM where he told me I was "one step closer to being booted" from this forum.

It appears Lemkin is afraid to take my replies to his private messages so I'm forced to do so in public.

Lets be quite clear here. Lemkin has lobbied for my removal LONG before his appointment to the position of moderator. And lets remember it was LEMKIN who stooped so low as to call me a NAZI.

To say he is biased is an understatement.

In any case the problem today centers on the term "hack"

Lemkin refuses to allow my posts that contain the word. Why is that? Is the word hack a banned word? I don't see that anywhere in the forum rules.

In fact Lemkin himself ENDORSED the use of the word when it was used by a friend to describe Bush:

"QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Sep 10 2007, 10:01 PM)

Thinking that Bush is anything other than a B-movie hack butchering his lines is like thinking that Lambchop had her paw up Shari Lewis's tush.

(Apologies to U.K. readers whose childhoods were not haunted by one of America's least clever puppeteers.)

It's like Bugliosi's circular anti-conspiracy argument: Do you really believe that the CIA or the Mafia would have hired a nut like Oswald to kill Kennedy?

Charles

Thanks for that belly laugh Charles...needed that after the attacks on the 'Debunk This' thread by the Borg. On target and a bullseye! "

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry117900

I have no problem with moderators or moderation.

I do have a problem with biased h--ks like Lemkin.

1] no PM came to me from you of any kind. Perhaps you have forgotten you have blocked PMs to and from me.

2] I did not remove or make invisible any post of yours that included the word hack - nor have I seen one - if such was done, it was done by another mod...more likely just waiting approval as you are on moderation, but choose to blame everything on me.

3] you never said peep about Burton's clear bias on things - as they coincide with yours. But political bias and bias in actions of moderators need to be discussed separately.

4] You posted today [i made it invisible and suggested another mod delete it] a request to Len to repost what I had removed as an ad hom against Jack, after letting him get away with another #3 on his post. You are now, IMO, engaging in a conspiracy on this Forum to try to remove me and to subvert what the moderators do. You are the one on moderation and I did not do that, nor even suggest nor vote on that...other mods voted and, I assume, JS did it. 

5] The rest of you hokum is not worth the keystrokes to respond to.

6] Watch your step.

1.. You are not blocked from sending PM's to me. In fact you sent just me one. I posted the contents in this thread. You deny sending me the message telling me I was "one step closer to getting booted'? Answer carefully.

2. I never claimed you removed or made invisable any of my posts. Learn to read. If you did not see any of the posts then how could you have appproved a post made just a fews mins...and I mean a FEW.. BEFORE a post you did approve? You were the only moderator here at the time.

But lets forget all of that. I posted a report on the subject. YOU reposted the report in public. You were VERY aware of the situation. You are not being truthful.

3. I was never asked about Burton and I've seen no proof he has engaged in any bias in regards to what he has done as a Moderator. In fact I can attest to the fact he has smacked me down many a time when others where posting worse (think Duane and Jack) He went OUT OF HIS WAY to avoid bias. Clearly unlike you.

4.I want to see exactly what it was you considered an Ad Hom...no make that " a very nasty ad hom". My post also contained the suggestion he SEND it to me. Nothing in my post warranted NOT being posted.

5. "I can think of no way of wording a response that would not involve obscenities hurled at you for that. "

6. Watch yours...I am.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Well then we are each watching the other most carefully........

I think its a wise idea to constantly expose those who are less than honest, including moderators....

A screen shot of my email client showing the PM Lemkin sent..that he said he never did. Honesty is always the best policy Lemkin...otherwise you just might get caught...

[John Dolva]

I don't think this Forum has ANY overt moderator more unsuited to the task than Peter.

[Len Colby]

I don't think this Forum has ANY overt moderator more unsuited to the task than Peter.

I agree of course but am surprised you feel that way and came out and said it. Don't be surprised if he calls you a Nazi in response.

[Dean Hagerman]

I do not agree that Peter is unsuited as a Mod

In fact I feel real good about having a mod that has some of the same thoughts as I do

I have been a Mod on another forum (Not a JFK forum, a beer bottle/can collecting/drinking reviewing forum) for a long time so I watch the Mods on this forum at all times to compare their actions against my own and I must say that Peter does a good job in his position

And if Peter was not a mod who would replace him from "our" side?

I think it would be very unfair to not have a Mod that shares at least some of the theories of the group of researchers that I am in line with

Dean

[Len Colby]

3] you never said peep about Burton's clear bias on things - as they coincide with yours. But political bias and bias in actions of moderators need to be discussed separately.

3. I was never asked about Burton and I've seen no proof he has engaged in any bias in regards to what he has done as a Moderator. In fact I can attest to the fact he has smacked me down many a time when others where posting worse (think Duane and Jack) He went OUT OF HIS WAY to avoid bias. Clearly unlike you.

He's slapped me down as well and edited some my posts. Lemkin tell when you have ever criticized and/or edited the posts of someone you agree with?

You do the opposite you criticized the victims of Jack's Goons thread for bothering to reply.

Evan is so biased that not only did he vote not to put you on moderation when other moderators voted to do so he is the person who recommended you become a moderator.

When have you ever voted against putting someone you disagree with on moderation? Simply abstaining doesn't count

[Craig Lamson]

Well then we are each watching the other most carefully........

I think its a wise idea to constantly expose those who are less than honest, including moderators....

A screen shot of my email client showing the PM Lemkin sent..that he said he never did. Honesty is always the best policy Lemkin...otherwise you just might get caught...

Since you like to expose the less than honest, I fear you are about to be exposed. You have blocked my PMs to you [as has Len - no coincidence that]. However, when I go into the place to raise or lower warning levels there is a screen that allows me to post a message as to why to you [i must also post a message as to why to the system, as a record]. That 'PM' if you want to call it that overrides your blockage of my PMs. So, I did not and can not send you a PM and can't even respond to your endless 'reports' to the moderators. When a moderator lowers or raises a warning level it is set up with fields to tell the person why and notify them at the same time. I did so. It was not really a PM - as you can see it doesn't even look the same. It was a moderator [in this case me] explaining the reason for taking an action vis-a-vis you.

So now who has egg on his face, Craig and why do you come to this forum with a huge chip of what I can only call extreme anger on your shoulder?! It is my own personal feeling that you don't just do battle with your favorite unfavored fellow forum members, but are here to do battle with and try to sink the whole Forum. That is my own opinion and had nothing to do with the moderation action.

You likely did not know about this over-ride, but I explained that to you in a previous post, but sensing a moment of 'advantage' to try to denigrate me [a trick Len also regularly stoops to], and you ignored or disbelieved my explanation. In my mind the two of you just try to stir up anger, and worse - bring down the whole Forum - or at least the level of it. It is not a matter of disagreements on principles it is about being civil and fair play. And those who provoke others, sometimes succeed in provoking the other into making angry statements. The provocateurs then take great glee in pointing out the reaction - never the initiating action that was theirs - and is a constant behavior pattern of a few. IMO

You have been unblocked for some time now, since you last complained about it. It's not my fault you can't figure that out for yourself. The egg it appears is STILL on LEMKINS face.

The screen capture I posted in the EMAIL NOTIFICATION I received telling me you sent a message. Clearly you sent me a PERSONAL MESSAGE It contained a short statement ..."your are one step closer to being booted"

You did exactly as I said and you were NOT truthful about it. Pretty bad when a moderatior can tell untruths to the entire forum.

Your paranoia has run AMUCK Lemkin...you need help.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Craig Lamson