Jump to content
The Education Forum

LOCKING THE PROTEST THREAD? I PROTEST!


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Removing Peter as a moderator was bad enough, but deleting his posts is, in my opinion, a criminal act. It is the destruction of intellectual property. I will recommend to Peter that, if they are not restored, he should pursue legal action against The Education Forum and whoever was responsible for this atrocity. I cannot believe that John Simkin could exercise such atrocious judgement. RESTORE THEM! Perhaps Tosh has set the right example for the rest of us.

This is outrageous!

Here are the latest thoughts from Judyth, which suggest that another motive may have been censoring his views:

Poor Peter Lemkin, I support him and he wrote a thank-you note...Can you magine?

ALL HIS POSTS WERE ERASED.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT HE EXPRSSED SOME SUPPORT FOR ME JUST BEFORE HE WAS ERASED?

THE ARCIVES HAVE HIS POSTS.

I HOPE DEMANDS WILL BE MADE TO HAVE HIS OVER 5,000 POSTS RESTORED.

THINK OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING. I HAVE HAD ALL THAT DESTROYED BEFORE..

IT IS A BLOW.

I HOPE THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PETER'S POSTS CANNOT HAVE EEN ERASED ALSO FROM THE BACKUP ARCHIVES.

IF SO, THAT IS NEFARIOUS.

I formally protest the removal of Peter Lemkin. The research community has lost a great man: Rich DellaRosa, someone with ethics. Now Peter is gone from here. A really bad week for those who remember President Kennedy. Think it over, moderators.

Kathy C

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Removing Peter as a moderator was bad enough, but deleting his posts is, in my opinion, a criminal act. It is the destruction of intellectual property. I will recommend to Peter that, if they are not restored, he should pursue legal action against The Education Forum and whoever was responsible for this atrocity. I cannot believe that John Simkin could exercise such atrocious judgement. RESTORE THEM! Perhaps Tosh has set the right example for the rest of us.

This is outrageous!

Here are the latest thoughts from Judyth, which suggest that another motive may have been censoring his views:

Poor Peter Lemkin, I support him and he wrote a thank-you note...Can you magine?

ALL HIS POSTS WERE ERASED.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT HE EXPRSSED SOME SUPPORT FOR ME JUST BEFORE HE WAS ERASED?

THE ARCIVES HAVE HIS POSTS.

I HOPE DEMANDS WILL BE MADE TO HAVE HIS OVER 5,000 POSTS RESTORED.

THINK OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING. I HAVE HAD ALL THAT DESTROYED BEFORE..

IT IS A BLOW.

I HOPE THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PETER'S POSTS CANNOT HAVE EEN ERASED ALSO FROM THE BACKUP ARCHIVES.

IF SO, THAT IS NEFARIOUS.

I formally protest the removal of Peter Lemkin. The research community has lost a great man: Rich DellaRosa, someone with ethics. Now Peter is gone from here. A really bad week for those who remember President Kennedy. Think it over, moderators.

Kathy C

I understand that there were conflicts with Peter Lemkin being a mod. However, that is one thing; his rights as a member, including his posts are something else, or should be.

Does that mean that any of us who come into conflict with a mod can end up not only being banned but having our posts removed? Is this somewhere in the forum rules and regs? If not, it either needs to be or Peter's posts need to be restored asap, it would seem to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing Peter as a moderator was bad enough, but deleting his posts is, in my opinion, a criminal act. It is the destruction of intellectual property. I will recommend to Peter that, if they are not restored, he should pursue legal action against The Education Forum and whoever was responsible for this atrocity. I cannot believe that John Simkin could exercise such atrocious judgement. RESTORE THEM! Perhaps Tosh has set the right example for the rest of us.

This is outrageous!

Here are the latest thoughts from Judyth, which suggest that another motive may have been censoring his views:

Poor Peter Lemkin, I support him and he wrote a thank-you note...Can you magine?

ALL HIS POSTS WERE ERASED.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT HE EXPRSSED SOME SUPPORT FOR ME JUST BEFORE HE WAS ERASED?

THE ARCIVES HAVE HIS POSTS.

I HOPE DEMANDS WILL BE MADE TO HAVE HIS OVER 5,000 POSTS RESTORED.

THINK OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING. I HAVE HAD ALL THAT DESTROYED BEFORE..

IT IS A BLOW.

I HOPE THEY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PETER'S POSTS CANNOT HAVE EEN ERASED ALSO FROM THE BACKUP ARCHIVES.

IF SO, THAT IS NEFARIOUS.

I formally protest the removal of Peter Lemkin. The research community has lost a great man: Rich DellaRosa, someone with ethics. Now Peter is gone from here. A really bad week for those who remember President Kennedy. Think it over, moderators.

Kathy C

I feel John Simkin is angered and has acted on that rage. Why not cool off and then make an intellectual decision?

Peter Lemkin is high strung. Are we going to lose him because of his temperament? I was surprised to read the following, Mr. Simkin:

"However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum." -- John Simkin

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel John Simkin is angered and has acted on that rage. Why not cool off and then make an intellectual decision?

Peter Lemkin is high strung. Are we going to lose him because of his temperament? I was surprised to read the following, Mr. Simkin:

"However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum." -- John Simkin

Kathy C

I always surprised that you have been posting comments on the Deep Politics Forum suggesting that I am a disinformation agent. If you really believe that I am not sure what you are doing remaining a member of this forum.

The reason people post on this forum as it provides a large audience for their views. I suspect that while that continues they will continue to post of this forum while spreading lies about me on other forums. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel John Simkin is angered and has acted on that rage. Why not cool off and then make an intellectual decision?

Peter Lemkin is high strung. Are we going to lose him because of his temperament? I was surprised to read the following, Mr. Simkin:

"However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum." -- John Simkin

Kathy C

I always surprised that you have been posting comments on the Deep Politics Forum suggesting that I am a disinformation agent. If you really believe that I am not sure what you are doing remaining a member of this forum.

The reason people post on this forum as it provides a large audience for their views. I suspect that while that continues they will continue to post of this forum while spreading lies about me on other forums. Enjoy.

That floored me as well, was she oblivious to the fact it would probably get back to you or was she being passive aggressive?

Still unanswered is why ALL of Peter's posts here have been deleted.This was done in such away that all the threads he started, along with all the posts by other members on them have been rabbit holed as well. This is an justifiable erasure of a significant part of the forum's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still unanswered is why ALL of Peter's posts here have been deleted.This was done in such away that all the threads he started, along with all the posts by other members on them have been rabbit holed as well. This is an justifiable erasure of a significant part of the forum's history.

I assume that Andy Walker will eventually explain why he did this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet ANOTHER Peter Lemkin "OH, the sky is falling. the sky is falling!!" controversy????

The man needs help -- real, serious psychological help and always has, and he NEVER gets it in these venues ............. but then how could ANYONE??? And he's managed to make the issue NOT about his multitude of questionable actions but about allegations of harassment of ONE other person (and so his word against theirs)

How fugging typical of all this nonsensical farce of toe-fiddling, with Colby jumping along to get advantages of his own

This type of thing is the very reason why anyone in their right mind eventually looks up and says this conspiracy stuff is worse than worthless. Not even worth the time one spends reading

A1.

Except I can see reasons to consider that Len was unjustly attacked.

His opinion of Peter was well known so he was forced into a defensive pose early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pressure (imo) on the owners on this forum at this time on these issues is not helpful imo. They are humans. This is a valuable educational resource.

And it has sustained numerous attacks over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all,

A few of my friends have alerted me that Maggie Hansen/Magda Hassan or whatever her name is has mentioned my name on the DPF a couple of times

in the thread about Peter Lemkin's removal.

Therefore, I am now going to mention some important points concerning the issue since Maggie/Magda carefully edited them out in her post. (Surprise surprise!!).

1. It was Peter who contacted me about the recent problems he was having on the Education Forum, not the other way around.

2. It was Peter who apologized to me (in his emails dated 10.03.2010 and 11.03.2010), repeatedly, about the email he sent me several months ago that read "cyber sex" in the subject line.

3. He was also the one who emailed me and told me that the message in question was meant to be a joke, and he did that not after he sent it to me but after the issue was brought up here on the EF by Jack White.

4. It was also Peter himself who asked me to contact the admins and tell them there had been a misunderstanding.

5. The claim that he was removed because of a complaint I made months ago is ridiculous. If that were the case, he would have been removed long ago.

Having said that, the people (either here or on the DPF) who have been desperately hunting down a scapegoat can look elsewhere and stop bothering me. Or better, mind their own business.

Edited to add : I also sent a copy of this message to Maggie/Magda and asked her to post it on the DPF for me. I'm not keeping my hopes high, though.

Edited by Cigdem Göle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all,

A few of my friends have alerted me that Maggie Hansen/Magda Hassan or whatever her name is has mentioned my name on the DPF a couple of times

in the thread about Peter Lemkin's removal.

Therefore, I am now going to mention some important points concerning the issue since Maggie/Magda carefully edited them out in her post. (Surprise surprise!!).

1. It was Peter who contacted me about the recent problems he was having on the Education Forum, not the other way around.

2. It was Peter who apologized to me (in his emails dated 10.03.2010 and 11.03.2010), repeatedly, about the email he sent me several months ago that read "cyber sex" in the subject line.

3. He was also the one who emailed me and told me that the message in question was meant to be a joke, and he did that not after he sent it to me but after the issue was brought up here on the EF by Jack White.

4. It was also Peter himself who asked me to contact the admins and tell them there had been a misunderstanding.

5. The claim that he was removed because of a complaint I made months ago is ridiculous. If that were the case, he would have been removed long ago.

Having said that, the people (either here or on the DPF) who have been desperately hunting down a scapegoat can look elsewhere and stop bothering me. Or better, mind their own business.

Edited to add : I also sent a copy of this message to Maggie/Magda and asked her to post it on the DPF for me. I'm not keeping my hopes high, though.

frankly if your not posting concerning JFK Conspiracy matters, perhaps you'll tell us WHY we should care what you think or mention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This plenty big foum david, this just bit, bigger too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankly if your not posting concerning JFK Conspiracy matters, perhaps you'll tell us WHY we should care what you think or mention?

Are you some sort of a joke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still unanswered is why ALL of Peter's posts here have been deleted.This was done in such away that all the threads he started, along with all the posts by other members on them have been rabbit holed as well. This is an justifiable erasure of a significant part of the forum's history.

I assume that Andy Walker will eventually explain why he did this.

John,

Spartacus is a great, GREAT research asset. Concerning JFK assassination research? The Ed Forum has ceased functioning in that realm, becoming nothing more than a glorified rah-rah JFK Lancer....

Frankly I doubt anyone really cares what motivates Andrew, I doubt he even knows himself, maybe it's all got to do with a nine iron?

Seeya later, John.... Keep Spartacus up and running!

I resign my membership on this forum..... and Dolva, get to a meeting, ya need it hon ya make a horrible waterboy for Len! LMFAO!

David Healy

03.14.2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frankly if your not posting concerning JFK Conspiracy matters, perhaps you'll tell us WHY we should care what you think or mention?

Are you some sort of a joke?

David seems oblivious to the obvious fact that none of the posts on this or the earlier Lemkin threads had anything to do with"JFK Conspiracy matters" odd this only seems to bother him when the truth about one of his supporters comes out.

The ironic thing is that his posts are normally incoherent but when one can make out what he is trying to say they are still nonsense.

Perhaps if John, Andy, Cigdem and Peter agree the best thing would be to post the texts of the e-mail exchange here or if former two demure and the latter two accept on the DPF.

PS - David Guyatt who wrote (on the DPF):

"Apparently the new approved commissars line is that Peter's expulsion was not about sexual harassment but something altogether else."

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...318&page=11

I know reading comprehension was never your strong point but the charge of sexual harassment was never cited as the reason for his removal it was Peter and his buddies especially Jack and Maggida who focused on it. As Cigdem pointed out the fact that the incident happened months before Peter was shown the door shows it was not the reason for his downfall. Logic was never your strong point either. You do have a good sense of humor though.

Edited by Len Colby
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...