LOCKING THE PROTEST THREAD? I PROTEST!

[Craig Lamson]

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

Amazing, the first post you have made in years that actually made sense is your last.

[Mark Knight]

I came to this forum to learn, and to gain access to information and insight not available elsewhere on the subject of the JFK assassination. I find myself surprised to be on the same side as Len Colby where the removal of Peter Lemkin's posts is concerned, as Mr. Colby and I have never found common ground before on ANY subject. And it wasn't Peter Lemkin, but the esteemed Dr. James Fetzer, who called me a disinfo agent when I raised a question about a point someone was trying to make awhile back.

I have no interest in going to the DPF, nor do I have any intention of trashing this forum there or anywhere else.

I have a lot less problem with Peter Lemkin's removal from the forum [for cause, according to many who should know] than with the removal of Peter's posts, which have historical value to the forum itself.

But I have concerns for what Andy Walker's actions imply toward the unfettered free flow of information in the discussion of the JFK assassination. Does this mean that anyone else whose position differs from Andy's position is subject to having their non-aggressive posts likewise removed? I would certainly hope that is not the case, but over time I have found many of Andy's posts to be mean-spirited towards those with whom he disagrees...so I must entertain the possibility that vindictiveness might be directed at others, for whatever reason he might choose.

Still, as we used to say in the '60's: It's YOUR world, man; I'm just walkin' through it.

And if these actions signal the end of the JFK discussion forum, then I will add that I have found the majority of my time here to be quite educational and enlightening, and most of the discussions--at least those NOT of the Dan Akroyd/Jane Curtin "Jane, you ignorant slut!" variety--to have broadened my understanding of the events surrounding the JFK assassination. For that opportunity, I salute both John Simkin and Andy Walker for their part in providing the forum.

And I also agree with Mr. Colby that Mr. Healy's comments on the subject add heat, but no light.

[Joel D. Gruhn]

I don't agree with much of what Peter wrote, but I must defend his presence here.

If a you work on your home, and thereby increase the value of your property, that increase is often referred to as "sweat equity"

In the case of an open forum of ideas, that sweat equity is the sharing of research by members, and their objective commentary on the subjects at hand. IMHO

I know of no other web forum where the moderators routinely fall back on justifications of "ownership". Yes - they own the server, and put up with complaints, and I respect that. But does that make it wise or legitimate to erase another person's intellectual effort utterly? retroactively? without 5 minutes warning? without allowing the author to move his work to a more stable and tolerant venue?

There is real value in the contributions made by so many qualified people here. I am grateful for the stunning knowledge and effort shown on these pages. What respect does it show to all who contribute to see an active contributor's efforts disposed of unilaterally?

The subject of this forum, the JFK Assassination Debate, is likely to inflame passions and stimulate political arguments. If we cannot all agree with the point of view of each post or contributor, can we not at least make this forum safe for diversity?

Going forward, we can make this forum more valuable by valuing the diverse, sometimes polemical, "sweat equity" of all contributors.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Joel D. Gruhn

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

I dont believe anything you say

[Craig Lamson]

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.

I dont believe anything you say

fanboy

[Don Jeffries]

This is turning into a real soap opera. Now that Cigdem Gole has identified herself, I am a bit baffled by her post. If I'd been in Peter's shoes, I would have expected her to state emphatically that this was overblown, a misunderstanding, whatever. I would have expected her to dismiss any claims of harrassment more emphaticaly. Instead, it seems to be a tepid, self-serving swipe at Peter. I don't know anything about what transpired between you two- but if you're going to go so far as to identify the subject line of his email as "cyber sex," then it seems to me you are stil making a vague accusation against him.

I would urge Cigdem to post the entire email exchanges at this point, because all you've done is raise doubts again. From his emails and posts on the DPF forum, Peter seems obviously distraught about all this, and maintains he did nothing wrong. If that's the case, I think Cidgem owes it to him to clear his name publicly, since the charges were made on a public forum.

[Pat Speer]

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.

I dont believe anything you say

Dean, this seems unnecessarily harsh. She, apparently, complained about Peter's email months ago. His recent ouster, apparently, is only tangentially related to her charges. Isn't Peter saying the same thing?

As far as Peter's ouster, well, while it is disappointing, we can't exactly call it a surprise, now can we?

It is my hope that Andy unpublished the posts and threads in which Peter participated for legal reasons, and that these will be restored once it's clear that no lawsuit is pending. In this I agree with Len and Mark, and I'm sure quite a few others.

I see this trouble as an extension of the trouble encountered a few years back. Some CTs want online forums to be a club, of sorts, in which CTs can exchange information and ideas. Like Spanky and his gang, however, with his He-man Woman-haters Club, they want their forum to be unblemished by the nay-saying of those with whom they largely disagree. Others, like myself, find value in the whole-hearted debate of ideas with whom they largely disagree, for, through this debate, I learn the weaknesses of their arguments, and my own. Now, admittedly, this can be tedious, but when I get a prominent LN--such as McAdams, Myers or Von Pein--in a corner, and they end up admitting something which can be used to show others that the conclusions they are selling are speculative and bizarre, it makes it all worthwhile.

Peace to all.

[Terry Mauro]

This is turning into a real soap opera. Now that Cigdem Gole has identified herself, I am a bit baffled by her post. If I'd been in Peter's shoes, I would have expected her to state emphatically that this was overblown, a misunderstanding, whatever. I would have expected her to dismiss any claims of harrassment more emphaticaly. Instead, it seems to be a tepid, self-serving swipe at Peter. I don't know anything about what transpired between you two- but if you're going to go so far as to identify the subject line of his email as "cyber sex," then it seems to me you are stil making a vague accusation against him.

I would urge Cigdem to post the entire email exchanges at this point, because all you've done is raise doubts again. From his emails and posts on the DPF forum, Peter seems obviously distraught about all this, and maintains he did nothing wrong. If that's the case, I think Cidgem owes it to him to clear his name publicly, since the charges were made on a public forum.

Don,

I am in total agreement with you. To write that the subject line of an email read "cyber sex" hardly explains anything.

C'mon Cigdem did Peter Lemkin sexually harass you or not?

[Terry Mauro]

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.

John, I believe she wrote that Rich Dellarosa considered you an disinformation agent.

[Pat Speer]

This is turning into a real soap opera. Now that Cigdem Gole has identified herself, I am a bit baffled by her post. If I'd been in Peter's shoes, I would have expected her to state emphatically that this was overblown, a misunderstanding, whatever. I would have expected her to dismiss any claims of harrassment more emphaticaly. Instead, it seems to be a tepid, self-serving swipe at Peter. I don't know anything about what transpired between you two- but if you're going to go so far as to identify the subject line of his email as "cyber sex," then it seems to me you are stil making a vague accusation against him.

I would urge Cigdem to post the entire email exchanges at this point, because all you've done is raise doubts again. From his emails and posts on the DPF forum, Peter seems obviously distraught about all this, and maintains he did nothing wrong. If that's the case, I think Cidgem owes it to him to clear his name publicly, since the charges were made on a public forum.

Don,

I am in total agreement with you. To write that the subject line of an email read "cyber sex" hardly explains anything.

C'mon Cigdem did Peter Lemkin sexually harass you or not?

Terry, does it really matter? What Peter may or may not have written to her at this point is not the point. If he did try and connect with her, does that make him a bad person? I wouldn't say so. Would you? And if she did over-react to something that was entirely harmless, does that make her a bad person? I wouldn't say so. Would you?

IMO, the problem was between Andy and Peter. Peter rubbed Andy the wrong way. Someone complained about Peter. Andy over-reacted and "punished" Peter. Peter then raised a holy stink, bad-mouthing Andy to anyone who would listen. Andy was thereby put in a corner. He kicked Peter off the forum.

This kind of crud happens in small businesses. street gangs, and rock bands every day. It's boys being boys.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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

Ah well, there is little point going on now, pass me the service revolver smithers, i'm going to do the honourable thing.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Stephen Turner

[Bernice Moore]

pat i think what perhaps ter was getting at as a woman, that cigdem had the opportunity and took it to post and clarify all, instead perhaps deliberately perhaps not, i do not know, but it appears she has thrown more onto the fire, a clear simple

explanation was required, she has chosen not to do so, but it appears she has thrown in another implication...that perhaps and it will and has in somes eyes, only makes the matter worse by doing so...as they sometimes say, it is time to xxxxe or get off the pot..no more befuddled posts,this has gone on way too long now, imo... i think Peter deserves after all this, a clear explanation...and as you have surmized if that is what happened between he and Andy then i think Andy needs to say so clearly...see it's easy for you and or others to surmize , but you are not and have not been put in Peter's shoes...ta b..

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mark, If I did something that dumb--I presume that I did!--

please accept my apology. It's probably not my worst offense.

Peter has asked this be posted:

I just went through about half of all of the 150 email exchanges I

had with her over a period of over 16 months. I'll stand 100% behind

my original and consistent statement - they were not anything even

close to 'problematic' for either - a mutual exchange; mostly

totally innocuous - with a few, for a short while, MUTUALLY

flirtatious for some months - end of it. This is all much ado about

nothing!! They do, however, contain personal information about both

persons and are not the stuff of public posting! So, I'd ask all

calls for postings from either side cease and desist - now! This

should have long ago, if needed be done in private. As I even asked

for this and was ignored by one Admin. and sent more venon by the

other, the chance was missed and NOT my doing! I would however,

mention that in one about six months into the exchange she says to me

Quote: At 11:22 12/31/2008, you wrote:

My dear Peter,

You're a true gentleman. I'm so glad I've met someone like you.

Cigdem

Now, does that sound like a response to a pest, or anything but a

friend being responded to?! It was such friendship throughout. Even

a few nice e-mails after the one announced as 'the smoking gun' Much

was so innocuous, as to be banal to others. I will post no more of

the exchanges. Four other persons have seen the actual original of

this above to verify its authenticity. Now, If Mr. Walker had seen

the original 'smoking gun' and/or taken up my offer to clear my name

- none of this escalating NONSENSE and defamation/abuse would have

taken part - but that was not his game nor aim. I hereby formally

ask that ALL my deleted posts be restored [keep out the few you find

offensive or of threat to you on a legal level during the massacre

and my being dragged behind a truck until dead if you like those I

have in safe keeping] But do not tamper with history. So, now as far

as I'm concerned no coherent or even incoherent accusations stand

for me to have been 'voted on' as a moderator; removed as such; put

on permanent moderation hours after; my membership stopped and IP

blocked [when Mr. Walker LIED and said it had not been as he has

lied consistently throughout this entire matter as well as acted

in very bad faith and worse!] and then the most egregious of all

acts the destruction of history of unique matters of the JFK

assassination, RFK, MLK, Mengele, WW2's secret ending, Marrs, White,

Plumlee, Shaw, R. White, Wecht, many witnesses including Marina,

Penn Jones, Weisberg and MANY others and other matters told as only

known by me - from my perspective and personal experiences/research.

This also disrupts the work of others here removing whole threads

I started. It is intellectual theft to me and all forum members

all past, current and future viewers of the Forum. History and

truth, itself. It is a form of punishment for ‘crimes’ never

presented; never given a chance to challenge and never a one

[hitnted at] true not even with a basis for charges (never made -

except some invented post facto)! An apology and retraction of all

charges would be the least expected along with the re-posting of

my 6 years of 'sweat equity' into the Forum.

N.B. I’ll have more to say to prove with a timeline soon that all

the allegations made couldn’t have happened as the vague

precipitating acts were actually AFTER the punishment for them. It

was a set-up on the part of Mr. Walker (and others); who by the way

had told others long ago about the non-harassment to other Forum

members, who all were enemies of mine for political reasons, just

like him a conspiracy? I'’ll let the members decide.

I also note the supposedly 'offending' email was dated 5/21/09. I

received an abusive PM from Walker on this in late Sept 09 along

with being called 'thinking like a Nazi', dangerous, boilingly mad,

and other such; this in such a polite and labored explanation as to

why I declined a verbal 'duel' with him on the Forum. It also

included the (also false) accusation that there were other women.

Produce that evidence!! - now that the real/fake Big Lie is proven

false; try to support the 'Unmentionable' others!! The timing of all

events, as are the apparent/transparent motives, trumped-up and

time-impossible accusations are all highly suspect!! - IN THE EXTREME!!

Peter Lemkin

I came to this forum to learn, and to gain access to information and insight not available elsewhere on the subject of the JFK assassination. I find myself surprised to be on the same side as Len Colby where the removal of Peter Lemkin's posts is concerned, as Mr. Colby and I have never found common ground before on ANY subject. And it wasn't Peter Lemkin, but the esteemed Dr. James Fetzer, who called me a disinfo agent when I raised a question about a point someone was trying to make awhile back.

I have no interest in going to the DPF, nor do I have any intention of trashing this forum there or anywhere else.

I have a lot less problem with Peter Lemkin's removal from the forum [for cause, according to many who should know] than with the removal of Peter's posts, which have historical value to the forum itself.

But I have concerns for what Andy Walker's actions imply toward the unfettered free flow of information in the discussion of the JFK assassination. Does this mean that anyone else whose position differs from Andy's position is subject to having their non-aggressive posts likewise removed? I would certainly hope that is not the case, but over time I have found many of Andy's posts to be mean-spirited towards those with whom he disagrees...so I must entertain the possibility that vindictiveness might be directed at others, for whatever reason he might choose.

Still, as we used to say in the '60's: It's YOUR world, man; I'm just walkin' through it.

And if these actions signal the end of the JFK discussion forum, then I will add that I have found the majority of my time here to be quite educational and enlightening, and most of the discussions--at least those NOT of the Dan Akroyd/Jane Curtin "Jane, you ignorant slut!" variety--to have broadened my understanding of the events surrounding the JFK assassination. For that opportunity, I salute both John Simkin and Andy Walker for their part in providing the forum.

And I also agree with Mr. Colby that Mr. Healy's comments on the subject add heat, but no light.

Edited March 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

I dont believe anything you say

fanboy

Sure Craig

Im a fanboy in your eyes because I support Peter and you dont like Peter

Peter cares about the truth in the JFK assassination

Something that you dont care about

[Len Colby]

Peter has asked this be posted:

I would however,

mention that in one about six months into the exchange she says to me

Quote: At 11:22 12/31/2008, you wrote:

My dear Peter,

You're a true gentleman. I'm so glad I've met someone like you.

Cigdem

Quite the strawman since as he notes later

"I also note the supposedly 'offending' email was dated 5/21/09."

It was such friendship throughout. Even

a few nice e-mails after the one announced as 'the smoking gun'

If true this would be a mitigating factor I think Cigdem should clarify this but a prior friendly exchange doesn't justify unwanted sexual harassment. However based on Jack and Drago's comments at the DPF Peter wasn't the only older male she contacted. To be fair to her based on what she told me she only mentioned this to John and Andy to explain why she was stepping down as a moderator and did ask that he be punished. He resignation is fairly strong evidence she felt put upon.

Peter it seems was less than straight forward as well, he complained about the topic being discussed here but failed to note he was the person who made the brouhaha public. He also failed to mention he had solicited her retraction.

Since this was not the reason for his sanctions if neither Peter nor Cigdem want to discuss this soap opera it should be dropped. I realize this contradicts what I said in the underlined phrase above but it's hard to know what to think about this case.

Contrary to wild speculation from members of the Deep Phertilizer Forum, Andy didn't tell me about this, nor am I on some "special distribution list". I contacted Cigdem about an unrelated matter and asked her why she was no longer a mod, without identifying who it was she told me she'd been harassed by a member of the forum.