LOCKING THE PROTEST THREAD? I PROTEST!

[Kathleen Collins]

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 Simkin, I didn't mean anything bad about you. I quoted someone else, whom I hold in high regard and who died last week. Everyone has opinions about everyone else. And being CTs, we do get paranoid. I like this forum -- as I'm allowed to ask questions. But getting rid of Peter Lemkin, and now David Healy. I wish it could be handled more democratically by putting it to a vote of the members, not the moderators.

I was under stress when I posted about disinfro, as I was at my brother's house in another state and he is critically ill. I was trying to sooth Peter, as in "if it's any comfort, so-and-so thought this about the person you had a falling out with." I wasn't being passive-aggressive towards you. I was just being me. I'm still under Rich's spell and I still protest Peter Lemkin's exit. But I want to stay on this forum. At least Bernice is still here. When I joined, Kathy Becket told me I could join other JFK sites as well. Two days ago, I joined the Deep Politics forum. Do I have to choose between that forum and this one?

Kathy C

[Evan Burton]

Can I remind all of some facts?

David resigned. No-one "...got rid of..." him.

....

I resign my membership on this forum....

David Healy

03.14.2010

No-one is saying anyone must choose between forums; why not be a member of both? Magda is, except she is under moderation. Why? Because her avatar does not meet Forum requirements... which has been pointed out numerous times. As soon as she meets the requirements - which applies to others as well - her moderation will be removed.

As for why Peter was removed, I suggest that people re-read John Simkin's post on the matter:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=186629

[John Simkin]

I was under stress when I posted about disinfro, as I was at my brother's house in another state and he is critically ill. I was trying to sooth Peter, as in "if it's any comfort, so-and-so thought this about the person you had a falling out with." I wasn't being passive-aggressive towards you. I was just being me. I'm still under Rich's spell and I still protest Peter Lemkin's exit. But I want to stay on this forum. At least Bernice is still here. When I joined, Kathy Becket told me I could join other JFK sites as well. Two days ago, I joined the Deep Politics forum. Do I have to choose between that forum and this one?

Of course you can be a member of both forums. I don't mind you passing on stories about me being a disinformation agent. The idea is so daft that it is funny. Rich took this view after I was booted of his forum for having the nerve to criticise the dominant ideology of his forum. This seems to be the normal strategy of JFK Forums. In the UK we take freedom of speech more seriously.

Shortly thereafter, she complained that Lemkin had become obtrusive and was presuming to make unwanted sexual overtures; I advised her to put him on her email block list. She said that he was still sending emails through the Education Forum and she’d brought up the matter to John Simkin, complaining that he hadn’t given much indication of doing anything about it. I explained that John was unusually laissez-faire on many subjects, might very well be amused if not a bit titillated on this one, and that she should contact Andy Walker instead – him being an honorable & no-nonsense fellow who was the man to see about getting anything done at the Education Forum. And there the matter rested, problem solved, taken care of, quite some time ago now.

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

[Terry Mauro]

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.......

You just don’t know when to quit, do you dumb#ass?

When the controversy got heated, you contacted her privately and suggested she ”step forward” as “the mystery woman.” When she declined your invitation, you let everyone know anyway.

And now you STILL think this is some kind of point-counterpoint debate where you make “points of order” and calls for clarification among those fellow lunatics you live with and feed off of

But on this one point at least, it ought to be made clear that anyone who gives it even the least bit of thought – a lot to ask for here – might come to the much more likely conclusion that it was “older males” such as Drago and Lemkin who initiated the contacts, not the other way around (and as it plays out in their nasty old minds)

Other than saying that, I want you to know that if I ever see your ignorant face in real life I plan to sh#t on it.

Other than saying that, I want you to know that if I ever see your ignorant face in real life I plan to sh#t on it.

Your too late. GG Allin beat you to that act years ago

[Don Jeffries]

Daniel,

You are certainly an equal opportunity offender. I don't think Len Colby and I have ever agreed on anything on this forum, but to call him a "dumbass" was out of line, and closing your post with an obscene threat was worse. I think Len's predictable positions can be debated without resorting to any of that.

Your attack on Peter is uncalled for on several counts. First, he's no longer a member and can't defend himself. Second, you resort to the same kind of tactics Peter himself has been accused of; slanderous defamations of charscter based on heresay and supposition. Accusatons that he's an imposter? Kind of like accusing someone of being a disinfo agent, isn't it? Then you bring up more serious accusations from an anonymous source. What is the point of that? Again, Peter can't respond to those charges because he's been banned.

For the record, Peter has shared several of the email exchanges in question with me. I found them to be friendly and caring in tone on both ends. According to Peter, he and Cigdem exchanged some 150 emails over the period of about a year. That's an enormous amount, and indicative of a strong cyber relationship. I wasn't going to bring this subject up again, but after reading your nasty attack on him, I felt the need to defend him, since he can't defend himself here.

[Dean Hagerman]

What a bunch of lies and damn lies - and how unfair to talk about me when my voice is silenced there and I can't defend myself easily - and this was even so before much of this broke - the refusal of JS to see the evidence or respond to my email that AW was setting me up - still have it JS - add to that AWs first allegation and "thinking like a Nazi, dangerous, unstable, boilingly mad" PM - followed by one warning me NOT to talk about the matter [i.e. you are not allowed to clear your name of the false charges - publicly or privately - you are simply guilty]!

Colby's points are garbage [with the small exception of his call for all the posts to be restored]. Cigdem had multiple emails or PMs from multiple men to which she objected. Can prove that. NONE OF MINE were objectionable. The one cited I have reviewed and it was harmless and even followed by a friendly reply from her. NONE were via PMs - ALL were done by email outside the Forum - so IMO never a matter of Forum business. JS is correct in only one thing. They never saw the evidence - but AW didn't care - those he hates are presumed guilty until executed - no evidence needed, nor trial, nor defense - summary execution. Shame on JS for going along to get along - and now lying. I do NOT know, but can only guess that some weeks after the alleged [and NON] offensive email [not PM], Cigdem had in the meantime [unknown to me] been contacted by several unwanted men, and some of those emails or PMs were highly objectionable to her. For whatever reason or by whatever psychological mechanism she complained about all of them throwing me in, or just me - I don't know...but I do know one thing. The tone on the short extract you saw was the same friendly tone throughout as I can prove....

Interesting how all those who keep on looking for hidden clues to challange my stating the truth - or even Cigdem's saying it was a mistake and misunderstanding are longstanding political adversaries...it says it all!! J.S.s last post only tries to make me look worse to defend himself. He admits they never saw the email [not PM] nor knew of the context - a long friendly, and for a short time, mutually flirtatious exchange over many months. I never sent her a PM - our mutual friendly exchange [even including ones friendly by her beyond the so-called offensive email WHICH I HOLD] were consistent. A final angry and very strange surprise (to me) email said to stop writing - which I did. It think it has more to do with what other persons had emailed / PMd her and not with me.

However, this all PURPOSEFULLY avoids the real issues.....NO REASONS for ANY of the actions done against me....lies inserted.....timing reversed to CYA there - making my reactions the 'reason' for your [at an earlier time] action against me - and thus the rationale for the new punishments after. Post facto invented creations to hide the misdeeds, lies and set-up! Shame on the EF and its Administrators! Walker wanted me out at all/any cost - any excuse or provocation, in which he tried many times, and were used. Who is next who speaks without fear and with conviction on a matter not on the 'approved' list of topics of AW hates for speaking of a conpiracy after the death of Caesar - or was that only a 'conspiracy theory too Mr. Walker? More later. Peter Lemkin

[Karl Kinaski]

Dean Hagermann quoting Peter Lemkin:

What a bunch of lies and damn lies - and how unfair to talk about me when my voice is silenced there and I can't defend myself easily - and this was even so before much of this broke - the refusal of JS to see the evidence or respond to my email that AW was setting me up - still have it JS - add to that AWs first allegation and "thinking like a Nazi, dangerous, unstable, boilingly mad" PM - followed by one warning me NOT to talk about the matter [i.e. you are not allowed to clear your name of the false charges - publicly or privately - you are simply guilty]!

Colby's points are garbage [with the small exception of his call for all the posts to be restored]. Cigdem had multiple emails or PMs from multiple men to which she objected. Can prove that. NONE OF MINE were objectionable. The one cited I have reviewed and it was harmless and even followed by a friendly reply from her. NONE were via PMs - ALL were done by email outside the Forum - so IMO never a matter of Forum business. JS is correct in only one thing. They never saw the evidence - but AW didn't care - those he hates are presumed guilty until executed - no evidence needed, nor trial, nor defense - summary execution. Shame on JS for going along to get along - and now lying. I do NOT know, but can only guess that some weeks after the alleged [and NON] offensive email [not PM], Cigdem had in the meantime [unknown to me] been contacted by several unwanted men, and some of those emails or PMs were highly objectionable to her. For whatever reason or by whatever psychological mechanism she complained about all of them throwing me in, or just me - I don't know...but I do know one thing. The tone on the short extract you saw was the same friendly tone throughout as I can prove....

Interesting how all those who keep on looking for hidden clues to challange my stating the truth - or even Cigdem's saying it was a mistake and misunderstanding are longstanding political adversaries...it says it all!! J.S.s last post only tries to make me look worse to defend himself. He admits they never saw the email [not PM] nor knew of the context - a long friendly, and for a short time, mutually flirtatious exchange over many months. I never sent her a PM - our mutual friendly exchange [even including ones friendly by her beyond the so-called offensive email WHICH I HOLD] were consistent. A final angry and very strange surprise (to me) email said to stop writing - which I did. It think it has more to do with what other persons had emailed / PMd her and not with me.

However, this all PURPOSEFULLY avoids the real issues.....NO REASONS for ANY of the actions done against me....lies inserted.....timing reversed to CYA there - making my reactions the 'reason' for your [at an earlier time] action against me - and thus the rationale for the new punishments after. Post facto invented creations to hide the misdeeds, lies and set-up! Shame on the EF and its Administrators! Walker wanted me out at all/any cost - any excuse or provocation, in which he tried many times, and were used. Who is next who speaks without fear and with conviction on a matter not on the 'approved' list of topics of AW hates for speaking of a conpiracy after the death of Caesar - or was that only a 'conspiracy theory too Mr. Walker? More later. Peter Lemkin

Is Cigdem a honey-trap set up for Peter Lemkin, to destroy his reputation??? To make a persona non grata out of him? Are the moderators of the Ed-forum the victims of a witty cyber-attack, created to harm the whole assassination debate?

My recommendation:

Launch cigdem to outer space, and let Peter Lemkin be back!

KK

Edited March 16, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Dean Hagerman]

Lastly, if legal action is going to, in the end, have to be taken I'll hold the Forum and perhaps some members liable for continuing to allow and/or post personal and private details of my life - often totally false or spun to make partial fact into totally misleading lies - as with that of Dunn's latest. Are there not Forum rules about keeping private information about a person off the Forum. I insist Mr, Dunn's slanderous and 99% false post be removed or will be added to the other libel and defamation. Disgusting people there with no morality; not sense of fair play; only loving to kick a person when they are down if they don't like their politics - more 'beat the victim' mentality, so common there. You further trying to discredit, slander, lie about and libel me - as well as give out details of my life that are private - should all be ashamed of yourselves; but have not enough morality to be. Mr. Dunn is a hateful and despicable xxxx. Remove his post! Of post where everyone works/worked and any other personal details about every member. Where will it end? Sick site full of sick hateful people, with a few exceptions.

Peter Lemkin

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Dean, please stop acting as a de facto conduit for Peter. He has been banned. if you have something to add yourself please go ahead, but that does not include spamming this forum.

[Dean Hagerman]

Dean, please stop acting as a de facto conduit for Peter. He has been banned. if you have something to add yourself please go ahead, but that does not include spamming this forum.

Thats real fair Stephen

So its ok for members to post Gary Macks thoughts but its not ok for me to post Peters?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Dean, please stop acting as a de facto conduit for Peter. He has been banned. if you have something to add yourself please go ahead, but that does not include spamming this forum.

Thats real fair Stephen

So its ok for members to post Gary Macks thoughts but its not ok for me to post Peters?

Sigh, Gary Mack Isn't banned. And as far as I know has never threatened legal action against the site in a series od sock puppet posts. I have reported my action to my fellow Mods and Admin. if their collective wish is that Peter should be allowed "beyond the grave" rights I shall retract, If not, I shall make all further such invisible.

[Dean Hagerman]

I wont post anything else then as I do not wish to cause problems or break any "rules"

But I think Peter should have a voice when other members are allowed to post smear comments about him (And im sure you know what posts im talking about)

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I wont post anything else then as I do not wish to cause problems or break any "rules"

But I think Peter should have a voice when other members are allowed to post smear comments about him (And im sure you know what posts im talking about)

Thats fine then. there are several posts awaiting adjudication in this thread, if they are found to break Forum rules they will be deleted or set to invisible, un fortunatly i can't spend 24 hours a day here. i'm sure you understand. And please don't feel inhibited from posting your own thoughts on this matter.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Stephen Turner

[Jack White]

Dean Hagermann quoting Peter Lemkin:

What a bunch of lies and damn lies - and how unfair to talk about me when my voice is silenced there and I can't defend myself easily - and this was even so before much of this broke - the refusal of JS to see the evidence or respond to my email that AW was setting me up - still have it JS - add to that AWs first allegation and "thinking like a Nazi, dangerous, unstable, boilingly mad" PM - followed by one warning me NOT to talk about the matter [i.e. you are not allowed to clear your name of the false charges - publicly or privately - you are simply guilty]!

Colby's points are garbage [with the small exception of his call for all the posts to be restored]. Cigdem had multiple emails or PMs from multiple men to which she objected. Can prove that. NONE OF MINE were objectionable. The one cited I have reviewed and it was harmless and even followed by a friendly reply from her. NONE were via PMs - ALL were done by email outside the Forum - so IMO never a matter of Forum business. JS is correct in only one thing. They never saw the evidence - but AW didn't care - those he hates are presumed guilty until executed - no evidence needed, nor trial, nor defense - summary execution. Shame on JS for going along to get along - and now lying. I do NOT know, but can only guess that some weeks after the alleged [and NON] offensive email [not PM], Cigdem had in the meantime [unknown to me] been contacted by several unwanted men, and some of those emails or PMs were highly objectionable to her. For whatever reason or by whatever psychological mechanism she complained about all of them throwing me in, or just me - I don't know...but I do know one thing. The tone on the short extract you saw was the same friendly tone throughout as I can prove....

Interesting how all those who keep on looking for hidden clues to challange my stating the truth - or even Cigdem's saying it was a mistake and misunderstanding are longstanding political adversaries...it says it all!! J.S.s last post only tries to make me look worse to defend himself. He admits they never saw the email [not PM] nor knew of the context - a long friendly, and for a short time, mutually flirtatious exchange over many months. I never sent her a PM - our mutual friendly exchange [even including ones friendly by her beyond the so-called offensive email WHICH I HOLD] were consistent. A final angry and very strange surprise (to me) email said to stop writing - which I did. It think it has more to do with what other persons had emailed / PMd her and not with me.

However, this all PURPOSEFULLY avoids the real issues.....NO REASONS for ANY of the actions done against me....lies inserted.....timing reversed to CYA there - making my reactions the 'reason' for your [at an earlier time] action against me - and thus the rationale for the new punishments after. Post facto invented creations to hide the misdeeds, lies and set-up! Shame on the EF and its Administrators! Walker wanted me out at all/any cost - any excuse or provocation, in which he tried many times, and were used. Who is next who speaks without fear and with conviction on a matter not on the 'approved' list of topics of AW hates for speaking of a conpiracy after the death of Caesar - or was that only a 'conspiracy theory too Mr. Walker? More later. Peter Lemkin

Is Cigdem a honey-trap set up for Peter Lemkin, to destroy his reputation??? To make a persona non grata out of him? Are the moderators of the Ed-forum the victims of a witty cyber-attack, created to harm the whole assassination debate?

My recommendation:

Launch cigdem to outer space, and let Peter Lemkin be back!

KK

I second the motion. Include Dunn.

Jack

[John Dolva]

This is such a typical evolution of thinking in a patriarchial world. I can only suggest that people read some Germaine Greer ( and try to understand it ) plus books such as ''The Womens Room'', and many others.

edit:typo

Edited March 16, 2010 by John Dolva