Deep Politics Forum

[John Simkin]

The most shocking part of Myra's explanation is the part about Drago and Bevilacqua not always seeing eye to eye. Shocking!

Myra's point is surely correct. You cannot have moderators posting abusive comments about other members on the forum. I can understand her frustration when she was outvoted, but that is the way democracy works.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

All of these speculations are WAY off track.

One side of a story told and agreed in secret, evidence ignored in favour of loyalty to old friends - reminds me of how the Warren Commission Report was constructed.

Sheeple indeed!

[Michael Hogan]

You're not in the best position to pass judgment on what constitutes a truculent tone. I read your post on this thread before it was made invisible.

Apparently the moderator(s) felt it was your tone that was uncalled for.

I've remained silent while you totally mischaracterize your role in what happened a few years ago. You were far from blameless, although you try to portray otherwise.

Most members have you figured out. I know I do.

I’m not going to get into a $#!t tossing match with you, that’s far more up you ally than mine. All I was saying was that I agreed with your general sentiment (the thread should not have been locked) but not your flaming of John. The truculence of my post that was made invisible was directed at people aren't or are only nominally members of this forum.

Your statement that I flamed John Simkin is untrue, yet typical of you. My comments were clearly directed at the person

that closed the thread, and their disregard for John's principle of free speech as long as Forum rules are not violated.

Just so the record is clear, here were my posts:

How and why can you possibly close a thead on the Deep Politics Forum, a forum started by former members of this forum, a forum that was said to have been hacked, similar to attacks that have shut down the Education Forum on more than one occassion.

There is no excuse close a thread on the import issues that are being brought up and discussed, and any attempt to stop this discussion will only lead to more discussion.

So just keep it open or I will start another thread on the subject.

Bill Kelly

I agree with Bill. So much for John Simkin's belief in free speech.

and:

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

John Simkin has always stated that he believes in free speech on these forums. I can see need to police obscenities and personal attacks

that cross a line. When you start policing ideas and opinions and yes, speculations -- that is a dangerous slope in my opinion.

And if you do decide to close a thread you could at least offer a less flippant rationale than you did.

I have supported John Simkin since I joined the Education Forum, and I still do. Your attempt to imply otherwise

is a perfect example of why you've earned the reputation that you have here.

[Len Colby]

You're not in the best position to pass judgment on what constitutes a truculent tone. I read your post on this thread before it was made invisible.

Apparently the moderator(s) felt it was your tone that was uncalled for.

I've remained silent while you totally mischaracterize your role in what happened a few years ago. You were far from blameless, although you try to portray otherwise.

Most members have you figured out. I know I do.

I’m not going to get into a $#!t tossing match with you, that’s far more up you ally than mine. All I was saying was that I agreed with your general sentiment (the thread should not have been locked) but not your flaming of John. The truculence of my post that was made invisible was directed at people aren't or are only nominally members of this forum.

Your statement that I flamed John Simkin is untrue, yet typical of you. My comments were clearly directed at the person

that closed the thread, and their disregard for John's principle of free speech as long as Forum rules are not violated.

Just so the record is clear, here were my posts:

How and why can you possibly close a thead on the Deep Politics Forum, a forum started by former members of this forum, a forum that was said to have been hacked, similar to attacks that have shut down the Education Forum on more than one occassion.

There is no excuse close a thread on the import issues that are being brought up and discussed, and any attempt to stop this discussion will only lead to more discussion.

So just keep it open or I will start another thread on the subject.

Bill Kelly

I agree with Bill. So much for John Simkin's belief in free speech.

and:

We saw it as starting to speculate on the DPF management and their motivations / problems / disputes. Is that what you really want? If so, why not discuss it on the DPF itself?

John Simkin has always stated that he believes in free speech on these forums. I can see need to police obscenities and personal attacks

that cross a line. When you start policing ideas and opinions and yes, speculations -- that is a dangerous slope in my opinion.

And if you do decide to close a thread you could at least offer a less flippant rationale than you did.

I have supported John Simkin since I joined the Education Forum, and I still do. Your attempt to imply otherwise

is a perfect example of why you've earned the reputation that you have here.

I assumed since you mentioned John that you flame was aimed at him, how deceitful of me! OK I amend my statement I didn´t agree with your flaming of Evan.

It was not really a free speech issue in thast Evan didn’t close a thread where he or other moderators were being criticized nor where an issue he disaproved of was being debated. It is common for forums to look askance at threads debating the problems of other forums. When Peter was bitching about the EF on the DPF he was told to stop, the same when Jack complained about if on the DellaRosa forum and even Tom saaid he prefered that the DPF melt down not be debated here. That said Evan made a bad call but he was mature enough to admit it.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

LC: So you could be misleading calling it a "pure and simple" "Hacking" but you could not say something closer to the truth like 'The Forum went ofline due to an internal dispute, for legal reasons we can not make any furthur comments at thins time'? I don't believe that was the case.

ANd you should know right? I mean you were there right in the middle of it.

If you were a judge, you would have to recuse yourself for unmitigated bias.

Yes I’m biased but that does not change the facts

1) The DPF was not hacked

2) Dawn knew what was going on but still described the situation as a 'hacking'

3) In response to my suggestion that the DPF “was dissolved due to a disagreement among the administrators” she said “Sorry to ruin your fairytale. We were hacked and we will be back. Pure and simple”.

In other words not only did she give a misleading description of what transpired but she described my guess, which was closer to the truth than her version, as a “fairytale”. Saying they had to be deceptive for legal reasons makes no sense.

Jim should I take your failure to reply as a tacit admission on your part Dawn’s posts were deceptive?

[Jack White]

DPF is closed down again.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

The most shocking part of Myra's explanation is the part about Drago and Bevilacqua not always seeing eye to eye. Shocking!

Myra's point is surely correct. You cannot have moderators posting abusive comments about other members on the forum. I can understand her frustration when she was outvoted, but that is the way democracy works.

That's not how the DPF democracy was supposed to work. When deciding something as substantial as a staff change (e.g., firing Drago from the moderation team or inviting David Guyatt back into the team) a unanimous vote was always required. For 2.5 years. No exception. Until Jan posed the vote to bring Drago back from purgatory. Even though I voted "no way no how" it was clear that he'd be coming back anyway.

It was the pre-coup.

They ignore rules when the rules hinder them from doing what they want: dusting off the abusive Drago, using pseudonyms, whatever.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Myra Bronstein

[John Simkin]

The most shocking part of Myra's explanation is the part about Drago and Bevilacqua not always seeing eye to eye. Shocking!

Myra's point is surely correct. You cannot have moderators posting abusive comments about other members on the forum. I can understand her frustration when she was outvoted, but that is the way democracy works.

That's not how the DPF democracy was supposed to work. When deciding something as substantial as a staff change (e.g., firing Drago from the moderation team or inviting David Guyatt back into the team) a unanimous vote was always required. For 2.5 years. No exception. Until Jan posed the vote to bring Drago back from purgatory. Even though I voted "no way no how" it was clear that he'd be coming back anyway.

It was the pre-coup.

They ignore rules when the rules hinder them from doing what they want: dusting off the abusive Drago, using pseudonyms, whatever.

If that was the case, you were clearly in the right.

[Jack White]

I dispute the characterization of Drago.

Jack

[Len Colby]

I dispute the characterization of Drago.

Jack

He was under moderation here and fired as a moderator at the DPF what does that tell you about his winning personality?

[Len Colby]

The (Gang of 5 + 1) DPF is back and they seem to have recovered most (if not all) the pre 12/17 posts. One of the few new posts is one where they give their version of events which is of course quite different from Myra’s. It includes nasty attacks on Evan an a rationalization of their misleading description of what happened as a hacking.

http://deeppoliticsforum.net/forums/showthread.php?5656-Recent-Events&p=29872#post29872

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I have been asked to delete the post I was asked to post. I do my best to oblige my peers.

Edited December 24, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

So all the mods were using a single fake name to make posts under?

No matter how you try to defend doing that its still wrong

If the post you want to make is to dangerous to make under your own name then dont make it at all

I post under my real name on every forum, and if I post something intense then I have to take the heat for it

I would never hide behind a fake user name

[Myra Bronstein]

So all the mods were using a single fake name to make posts under?

No matter how you try to defend doing that its still wrong

If the post you want to make is to dangerous to make under your own name then dont make it at all

I post under my real name on every forum, and if I post something intense then I have to take the heat for it

I would never hide behind a fake user name

Dean, to clarify, all DPF staff posted under, what they said were, their real names. I certainly posted 100% under my real name and have never used an alias at EF or at DPF.

In addition to posting under their real names at least one staff member--Magda Hassan--posted under pseudonyms according to Jan Klimkowski.

I learned this fact on December 4 when I noticed a post on DPF listing supposedly REAL NAMES and ADDRESSES of neo-nazis. It was posted by a "Peter Tosh." I was concerned about the potential libel issues of listing supposed neo-nazis on DPF, so I locked the post and added a note that I wanted to discuss it with the other mods.

I emailed Jan, Magda, Dawn (the only other mods at the time) with the following:

"WTF is this? "Know your fascists" posted by Peter Tosh--URGENT

Myra Bronstein to Magda, Jan, Dawn

Dec 4

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5168

Is this "fascist list" acceptable on DPF?

It has names and addresses of (presumably) real people.

And the author--"Peter Tosh"--has long been suspect 'cause of his "name."

Then I sent a second email to Magda, Jan, Dawn under the same "WTF..." subject line:

"I locked the thread until we have a chance to discuss it, and posted a short vague message, both under "The Moderators" login. Hope that's ok. Nothing will actually be done/irreversible until we discuss and vote.

I think the thread should remain, the posts should be edited to remove the names, and Peter Tosh should be warned and maybe banned."

After a few minutes Jan sent the following email:

On edit 1/02/11, Myra:

Email quotes are being removed so that EF will not be targeted by current DPF staff members.

The full body of evidence is being assembled at http://deeppoliticsforum.info.

At that point, with the disclosure that 'Peter Tosh' was one of Magda's pseudonyms I got MAD, given the fact that DPF had the following rules:

7. You agree to register on this forum with your real name as User Name, i.e., your first name and family name.

13. All members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement.

Rule #13 is the “Drago rule.” We were forced to add it last February after Drago became verbally abusive with members, calling one member a “xxxx” and a “poor, deranged cretin,” in spite of another rule forbidding such abuse. That is also when he was asked to leave the staff but was allowed to remain a member so he could "save face."

Edited January 2, 2011 by Myra Bronstein

[Len Colby]

So all the mods were using a single fake name to make posts under?

No matter how you try to defend doing that its still wrong

If the post you want to make is to dangerous to make under your own name then dont make it at all

I post under my real name on every forum, and if I post something intense then I have to take the heat for it

I would never hide behind a fake user name

Dean, to clarify, all DPF staff posted under, what they said were, their real names. I certainly posted 100% under my real name and have never used an alias at EF or at DPF.

In addition to posting under their real names at least one staff member--Magda Hassan--posted under pseudonyms according to Jan Klimkowski.

I learned this fact on December 4 when I noticed a post on DPF listing supposedly REAL NAMES and ADDRESSES of neo-nazis. It was posted by a "Peter Tosh." I was concerned about the potential libel issues of listing supposed neo-nazis on DPF, so I locked the post and added a note that I wanted to discuss it with the other mods.

I emailed Jan, Magda, Dawn (the only other mods at the time) with the following:

"WTF is this? "Know your fascists" posted by Peter Tosh--URGENT

Myra Bronstein to Magda, Jan, Dawn

Dec 4

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5168

Is this "fascist list" acceptable on DPF?

It has names and addresses of (presumably) real people.

And the author--"Peter Tosh"--has long been suspect 'cause of his "name."

Then I sent a second email to Magda, Jan, Dawn under the same "WTF..." subject line:

"I locked the thread until we have a chance to discuss it, and posted a short vague message, both under "The Moderators" login. Hope that's ok. Nothing will actually be done/irreversible until we discuss and vote.

I think the thread should remain, the posts should be edited to remove the names, and Peter Tosh should be warned and maybe banned."

After a few minutes Jan sent the following email:

"I think Peter Tosh is one of Magda's pseudonyms."

If you really got such an e-mail from Jan it seemingly puts a lie to the claim “In the case of "Peter Tosh,” the identity of the person (or persons) posting under this pseudonym were known to the moderators” because it indicated he only suspected but was not sure Maggie was Tosh.

The irony of her outing others but objecting to outted herself seems to have been lost on them. Due to my family history I’m certainly no fan of neo-Nazis but as long they are doing nothing illegal they have as much right to believe and say what they want as anybody else and her lists gave contact info such as addresses, phone numbers screen names and even passwords. As such it might have violated some countries’ privacy laws and of course as you suspected probably opened the forum up to libel claims if any of the hundreds of people listed were not (or claimed not to be) neo-Nazis. One also has to consider the legal ramifications of posting material obtained by hacking. I also wonder what the purpose was of posting this info, the only one I can think of is to encourage harassment of people on the list.