Deep Politics Forum

[Evan Burton]

I'm wondering why it was asked to be deleted? Peter Lemkin sent it out by e-mail to all and sundry, including me.

Peter should beware though, and EF members should take note: if you want to send an e-mail out to a group of people, some who may not have others e-mail addresses, you should send the mail to yourself and BCC (Blind carbon copy) to everyone else. This means recipients can see who sent the message, but not to whom it was addressed to.

The way it was sent out means that all recipients can see the e-mail addresses of all it was sent to.

[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.

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

This is <wrong> and Myra knows it It was ALWAYS a majority vote from day one. MB tried to unilaterally change the rule on 12/16. Just before she pulled the plug-her words- on DPF.

She's in good company now. I'm sure she will begin picking fights with you all over here very soon. Her nasty temper is legendary.

Dawn, why don't you offer evidence when you make such claims?

You are an attorney Dawn.

Are you truly unaware of the value of evidence?

Or do you lack evidence?

I am in the process of responding to the post by DPF's remaining members, and I am providing evidence as part of my response.

When people see evidence they can make an informed decision about the events being discussed.

It's kind of like a courtroom Dawn, with a jury.

If you have evidence that supports your allegations, by all means post it.

Also, from a logical standpoint why do you say "She's in good company now."

Presumably you are referring to the EF, and you are in the very same company since you opt to post here at the EF.

Dawn.

Mere logic MB. If we had a "must be unanimous" rule then you could have disappeared CD with your vote.

Alas, becasue it is and always has been majority rule, your only option was to "pull the plug". Thereby showing your true colors.

Goodbye forever. I have ZERO left to say to you, ever.

Dawn> "...it is and always has been majority rule..."

That's demonstrably false Counselor.

In fact Magda emailed the following to all of us, including you, after I found out that Drago was promoted to Moderator in spite of the non-unanimous vote. Apparently she didn't realize that I discovered Drago was promoted behind my back.

> "On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM, magda... wrote:

> As you said this requires an unanimous vote so I don't even this this should

> be a bloody issue.

You guys need to get your stories straight.

[Dawn Meredith]

I'm wondering why it was asked to be deleted? Peter Lemkin sent it out by e-mail to all and sundry, including me.

Peter should beware though, and EF members should take note: if you want to send an e-mail out to a group of people, some who may not have others e-mail addresses, you should send the mail to yourself and BCC (Blind carbon copy) to everyone else. This means recipients can see who sent the message, but not to whom it was addressed to.

The way it was sent out means that all recipients can see the e-mail addresses of all it was sent to.

It is there in full on the thread I began referenceing the return of DPF. Just click on the link, there is the full

statement.

I came back to EF because I have many friends here and I was so enjoying Jim DiEugenio's posts that I decided I wish to post occassionally myself.

For those who observe, Merry Christmas.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

Two points, in this long excerpt, CD actually says a majority vote is required. So there is the proof.

Secondly, is it not unfair to CD to eliminate from the discussion:

1.) The fact of his close friendship with the late George Evica? Just what went into that while George was alive and is now dead, and

2.) Exactly what JB's comments were about CD's dead friend.

Jim,

Are you actually saying that CD's comment in the midst of an email argument wherein he was being fired from DPF is "proof" of official DPF policy?

No, that is not proof.

But if you still consider email to be "proof" then here is email from Magda, specifically on the Drago vote in question [Emphasis mine]:

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.

And here is an older email from Jan and Magda (co-written), to Dawn, explaining why (since Dawn had been out of town when the hammer fell) Drago was fired [Emphasis mine]:

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.

Regarding the unfairness of eliminating CD from the discussion, I have no control over that and am not eliminating anyone from any discussion. If he wants to post here yet is banned (which may be the case), I'm sure one of his minions will be happy to post for him.

And regarding: "Exactly what JB's comments were about CD's dead friend." I think we've established that the entire exchange can be read via Google cache (as Evan pointed out). Just search google for "Deep Politics Forum deranged cretin" and you'll have the context you asked about.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:usMBGLNQUwYJ:www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D3057%26page%3D2+deep+politics+forum+deranged+cretin&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

However, if you are suggesting that Drago or anyone is justified in breaking DPF rules if someone insults a friend then I disagree. That is not justification.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Myra Bronstein

[Myra Bronstein]

From what you said it could easily be deduced that to ban someone you needed unanimity. But for other decisions you did not.

...

Correct. There was MUCH discussion about this. We concluded that for major administrative decisions (like changes in staff or banning a member) unanimity was required. Likewise, when any Mod/Admin posted under "The Moderator" login, i.e., using the 'collective voice of DPF' unanimity was required.

From what you said it could easily be deduced that to ban someone you needed unanimity. But for other decisions you did not.

Are you really saying that for every administrative decision you needed six votes?

...

No, that would be impractical and paralyzing.

That's why I, for example, felt comfortable locking the post by the "Peter Tosh" entity--a totally reversible action that I eventually did reverse--on December 4 until I had a chance to consult with my fellow Mods and assured them “Nothing will actually be done/irreversible until we discuss and vote.”

...

By eliminating Drago's friendship with George and JB's comments about it, you deprive the reader of why CD got so angry in the first place and tried to provoke JB. ANd by leaving out what JB said specifically, you deprive the reader of any idea of why he should be banned.

I mean to use one exaggerated parallel. When Truman fired MacArthur, George Marshall was on the fence about it. Truman then gave him the letters in which MacArthur made some notably negative comments about him in public and then proposed bombing CHina. Marshall read them and told Harry, "You should have fired him a year ago."

As I said, this is not the same of course. But by cutting off both factors, you reduce CD to a caricature. WHich, I am sure you know, is what some people here want to see.

Jim, I gave relevant excerpts from the JB/CD exchange. And, once I learned that the entire exchange was readable via Google cache, I edited the account and added the link to it. I am not depriving the reader of anything. Quite the opposite, I am making it easy for people to see what JB said and what CD said by adding the link. It's as easy as that. Click on the link and read all you want.

That's why your “exaggerated parallel” is not apt. Maybe if Truman gave Marshall a hyperlink to the entire conversation the letters were culled from so that all parties were quoted in context, then it might be apt.

I also can't help what “some people here want to see.” That is not my doing.

Bottom line, if Drago want's to seem like more than a caricature he can achieve that by responding instead of hiding. There are many ways he could respond even if he is banned from EF, but so far I haven't seen any attempt from him to do so. Perhaps he can post via Dawn Meredith, possibly through Jim Fetzer, maybe EF mods would even make an exception and let him post for a limited time. It's up to him to speak up if he has something to say. But, as David Guyatt noted, Drago “enjoys the victim role as much as the tyrants.”

[Myra Bronstein]

By the way, in spite of the direction this thread has taken this is not all about Drago. In fact, as I mentioned straight away, the original coup was perpetrated by Jan, Magda, Charles, David, and Dawn. My back story focused on Drago because it was essential to understanding why the conniving of former colleagues to re-install him as a Mod was so outrageous and unacceptable. He had already demonstrated that he could not be trusted in a position of authority, that he would not respect rules all were subject to, and that his temper clouded his judgment.

So the treachery of the ol' gang was as much against DPF members as it was against me. They clearly don't care how abusive Drago is. A DPF member deserves better than a Mod who intentionally goads him into reacting, then crows that he “got him to explode,” and bans him from the forum.

Restoring him to Moderator status behind my back was an act of spite for daring to object to Magda's breach of the real name rule. I believe it was a concerted effort to bully me out of applying rules to staff. Well I don't appreciate being bullied. I don't appreciate scare tactics like their repeated vague references to lawyers. I don't appreciate the collusion and scheming and mechanizations that went into their little caper.

And I don't appreciate their posting and removal of a pack of lies and hyperbole on EF. I can only conclude that it was orchestrated as a smear and run, to trash me yet give me nothing tangible to respond to. This from the group that is trying to claim the moral high ground.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Myra Bronstein

[Len Colby]

Myra,

Countering any evidence from the Gang of 5 you seem to have clearly established that unanimity was needed for such decisions but it is still unclear if you knew about Magda’s pseudonym if that e-mail you replied to of course proves nothing because Jan who forwarded it said later he ‘thought’ (i.e. he wasn’t sure) it was her and Dawn who also received it said she had no idea. Based on my experience with them I'll give you benefit of the doubt.

Len

[Dawn Meredith]

From what you said it could easily be deduced that to ban someone you needed unanimity. But for other decisions you did not.

Are you really saying that for every administrative decision you needed six votes?

By eliminating Drago's friendship with George and JB's comments about it, you deprive the reader of why CD got so angry in the first place and tried to provoke JB. ANd by leaving out what JB said specifically, you deprive the reader of any idea of why he should be banned.

I mean to use one exaggerated parallel. When Truman fired MacArthur, George Marshall was on the fence about it. Truman then gave him the letters in which MacArthur made some notably negative comments about him in public and then proposed bombing CHina. Marshall read them and told Harry, "You should have fired him a year ago."

As I said, this is not the same of course. But by cutting off both factors, you reduce CD to a caricature. WHich, I am sure you know, is what some people here want to see.

Jim: It was always a majority rule. The email she posted was Madga's attempt at trying to reason with MB. Humor her if you will.

I had known about the Peter Tosh name back in 08, but had forgotten. And Myra knows this. She is cherry picking her emails. She is desperate. To say WE hacked DPF is absurd. She has admitted she pulled the plug.

I will not be responding further to her or Colby. Fitting that they are fast friends now.

Her attempt to destroy DPF only backfired. We will be better than ever and no more bitchy emails all time.

As to my freaking job, MB and Colby always resport to THAT. I have done the same thing for over twenty five years. Successfully.

Some people change jobs and towns like other's change shoes. Ya gotta wonder about that.

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

From what you said it could easily be deduced that to ban someone you needed unanimity. But for other decisions you did not.

Are you really saying that for every administrative decision you needed six votes?

By eliminating Drago's friendship with George and JB's comments about it, you deprive the reader of why CD got so angry in the first place and tried to provoke JB. ANd by leaving out what JB said specifically, you deprive the reader of any idea of why he should be banned.

I mean to use one exaggerated parallel. When Truman fired MacArthur, George Marshall was on the fence about it. Truman then gave him the letters in which MacArthur made some notably negative comments about him in public and then proposed bombing CHina. Marshall read them and told Harry, "You should have fired him a year ago."

As I said, this is not the same of course. But by cutting off both factors, you reduce CD to a caricature. WHich, I am sure you know, is what some people here want to see.

Jim: It was always a majority rule. The email she posted was Madga's attempt at trying to reason with MB. Humor her if you will.

I had known about the Peter Tosh name back in 08, but had forgotten. And Myra knows this. She is cherry picking her emails. She is desperate. To say WE hacked DPF is absurd. She has admitted she pulled the plug.

I will not be responding further to her or Colby. Fitting that they are fast friends now.

Her attempt to destroy DPF only backfired. We will be better than ever and no more bitchy emails all time.

As to my freaking job, MB and Colby always resport to THAT. I have done the same thing for over twenty five years. Successfully.

Some people change jobs and towns like other's change shoes. Ya gotta wonder about that.

Dawn

We now know the rules of Rules of Engagement:

1.0--All evidence presented by Myra, even forum threads visible in Google cache, will be dismissed as “cherry picking her emails.”

1.1--Email evidence supporting the existence of the requirement for unanimity in significant DPF decisions, presented by Myra, and sent by Magda on December 16, 2010 will be dismissed as attempts to “humor her.”

1.2—Both pieces of email evidence supporting the existence of the requirement for unanimity in significant DPF decisions, sent by Magda and written by Jan, on February 16, 2010 will be ignored.

2.0--All three statements emailed by Dawn on December 4, 2010 stating she was unaware that Magda was using pseudonyms on DPF (e.g., “I didnot realize Magda was using other names”) will be explained away by Dawn as follows: “I had known about the Peter Tosh name back in 08, but had forgotten.”

3.0—Dawn (and presumably all current DPF staff members) will not provide any evidence of any kind for any reason to support their allegations.

3.1—In lieu of evidence supporting their allegations, The “Custodians” of DPF will make frequent ad hominem attacks against Myra to distract from things that matter.

3.1.1—The following are among the areas to be used in ad hominem attacks against Myra by The “Custodians” of DPF:

3.1.1.1—Myra has relocated from one city to another.

3.1.1.2—Myra is currently posting on EF.

3.1.1.3—Myra is desperate.

4.0—When Myra posts on EF it is clear evidence of her advanced state of moral decay.

5.0—When Dawn posts on EF it means that has friends here and enjoys certain posts and therefore decided to post occasionally but in no way diminishes her absolute moral superiority.

6.0—Everything that has ever happened is clear evidence of Myra's advanced state of moral decay.

6.1—Even things that have not happened provide clear evidence of Myra's advanced state of moral decay.

7.0—The “Custodians” of DPF are free to post long misleading inaccurate attacks against Myra on EF using a proxy.

7.1—The “Custodians” of DPF are free to remove long misleading inaccurate attacks against Myra from EF using a proxy, without allowing time for close inspection and/or response.

8.0—DPF reserves the right to come back and be better than ever.

8.1.1—DPF will be “better than ever” by being more homogenous than ever.

8.1.1.1—DPF will be more homogenous than ever by neutralizing any staff member who dares to insist that staff members comply with forum rules.

9.0—Dawn's gotta wonder why some people change shoes.

9.1—Dawn might have smelly feet.

10.1—DPF staff may and will violate these rules, and/or any rules, for any reason at any time, because rules don't apply to DPF staff.

10.1.2—DPF members must comply with all rules at all times because rules only apply to DPF members.

10.1.3—Any person who dares to expose violations of these rules, and/or any rules, by DPF staff will be insulted, bullied, intimidated, smeared and threatened.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

...but it is still unclear if you knew about Magda’s pseudonym if that e-mail you replied to of course proves nothing because Jan who forwarded it said later he ‘thought’ (i.e. he wasn’t sure) it was her and Dawn who also received it said she had no idea. Based on my experience with them I'll give you benefit of the doubt.

Len

I just cherry-picked another email thread from December 4 to flesh this out further.

To put it in context, as I said here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17126&st=75, post #87:

"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 and emailed Jan, Magda, Dawn with the following:

DECEMBER 4--

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

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

Now here's the email exchange I just found, that occurred after Jan's disclosure that Peter Tosh is one of Magda's pseudonyms:

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.

Myra>

> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Myra Bronstein... wrote:

> Wait a minute, you have a pseudonym that you're using on the forum and I didn't know about it?!

> Is it really necessary to tell you that pseudonyms are not allowed? Plus the fact that you have misled a fellow staff member.

> And what do you mean "Be out and proud like us"? YOU are hiding behind a pseudonym!

>

> I object to this and I feel that it violates both the rules of the forum as well as my trust. [Emphasis in original.]

> I think you should either put the posts under your real name or remove them... Maggie.

> If you don't do that then I will remove them and ban the Peter Tosh pseudonym that is breaking the most basic forum rules.

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.

To summarize:

-This is the fourth time on December 5 that Dawn said in email that she didn't know about Magda's 'Peter Tosh' pseudonym.

-I didn't know about Magda's 'Peter Tosh' pseudonym either.

-The hypocrisy of the "Out and Proud" crowd bothered me then and bothers me now.

-Apparently Magda, Jan, Dawn see no irony in boasting that fascists should "Be out and proud like us" while hiding behind a pseudonym.

-Use of pseudonyms on the DPF forum was against the rules.

-DPF staff were expected to follow the same rules as DPF members (and this was explicitly stated in rule #13, aka 'The Drago Rule").

-All emails I'm posting are authentic, else I would be attacked over it by the "Out and Proud" crowd.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Myra Bronstein

[Mark Knight]

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me.

Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it.

Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

...but it is still unclear if you knew about Magda’s pseudonym if that e-mail you replied to of course proves nothing because Jan who forwarded it said later he ‘thought’ (i.e. he wasn’t sure) it was her and Dawn who also received it said she had no idea. Based on my experience with them I'll give you benefit of the doubt.

Len

Here is cherry-picked evidence that I locked the forum (eventually unlocked by me) after discovering the 'Peter Tosh' "Know your fascists" post on DPF that gave real names and addresses of presumably real people.

This is an an email to the forum contact from a DPF member.

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.

I immediately forwarded the email to Jan/Magda/Dawn:

Myra >

> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Myra Bronstein... wrote:

> Input from [Firsname], FYI.

> We need to discuss this thread asap.

>

> Myra

> [input from member was attached.]

Edited January 2, 2011 by Myra Bronstein

[Myra Bronstein]

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me.

Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it.

Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Actually no other sandbox exists but there's certainly no reason why you should care Mark. I agree.

If EF Admins and Mods tell me to stop posting on this subject I'll stop.

Until then I'll respond to questions from anyone and to allegations from DPF staff.

[Mark Knight]

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me.

Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it.

Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Actually no other sandbox exists but there's certainly no reason why you should care Mark. I agree.

If EF Admins and Mods tell me to stop posting on this subject I'll stop.

Until then I'll respond to questions from anyone and to allegations from DPF staff.

ONE sandbox is www.deppoliticsforum.com ...the other sandbox is www.deeppoliticsforum.net . So there ARE indeed TWO sandboxes now.

[Myra Bronstein]

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me.

Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it.

Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Actually no other sandbox exists but there's certainly no reason why you should care Mark. I agree.

If EF Admins and Mods tell me to stop posting on this subject I'll stop.

Until then I'll respond to questions from anyone and to allegations from DPF staff.

ONE sandbox is www.deppoliticsforum.com ...the other sandbox is www.deeppoliticsforum.net . So there ARE indeed TWO sandboxes now.

Oh, gotcha.

I was just thinking outside the box.