+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship (/thread-14155.html)
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Tom Scully - 23-09-2015
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Quote:WOW!!! Some people just don't want to study reality either. This is very disheartening. It was bad enough that the naysayers were so many and calling the "trutheres" names, but to just disappear an entire threat. Brings to mind what they did to Jim D. And as a result lost the brilliance of RCD.
Dawn
EF has a long history of things like this. I had my account terminated before I could even defend myself against false claims [allegedly happening outside of the EF no less] and removed as a moderator at the same instant. Then within hours all 5000 of so of my posts were deleted forever.
Speaking of RCD, who really was brilliant, does anyone know why he requested and obtained permission for the covering on his face. All I remember is Simpson once telling me [back when he and I were friends and in regular contact] that Dunne had 'good reason and approved reason' to hide his face...without the specifics. As it may be a delicate matter for the internet, if anyone knows, kindly PM me as to what you know. Just curious. He was brilliant in his analyses and in his writing style! Most of the better people at EF have left out of disgust or been banned. IMO.
Peter, do you accept that Jim DiEugenio was abused specifically by John Simkin ....... suddenly banned with none of the outlined and expected steps of discipline, and with no
prior warning or hearing (as was I....) by Simkin, unilaterally, and in DiEugenio's case, his posts deleted unilaterally by Simkin, while you were treated quite a bit differently?
My point is that I would have appreciated being afforded the opportunities afforded to you by Simkin, and the support he gave you, as DiEugenio probably also would have. I've
read your description of what happened, leading to the deletion of your posts and your ouster, and although this post I expect will earn me no favors here, I have to tell you I
think you received a "fair shake" compared to the abuse experienced by DiEugnio, EXCEPT FOR WALKER'S UNILATERAL DELETION OF YOUR POSTS.
If you have an interest, I will post support for my take on this, and I assure you I am motivated only in reaction to the many times you've described, and I've read your description
of what happened to you, and also by the striking differences I perceive in the way you were separated from the EF, compared to the way Jim DiEugenio was. I'm saying I believe you
had many options "near the end," options afforded to neither Jim or I. I agree completely that Andy Walker committed a crime against you by deleting your posts, and as in the deletion of DiEugenio's posts, every post of every other EF member in every thread either you or Jim started, were also deleted.
You brought this up, Peter, and I'm sorry to be responding to you, here. Walker's crime against you, aside, and I am no friend or supporter of EF, I believe I can support my take that
you were afforded options you did not take advantage of, and you had an opportunity to mitigate your situation and remain at the EF. DiEugenio was not, nor was I.
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15638&p=186627
John Simkin Posted 12 March 2010
......I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay......
No comparison, Peter ..... none, as you were afforded input and you were afforded votes, and escalating steps, as well as support during votes neither I nor Jim D. were granted.:
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259
John Simkin Posted 09 June 2013
......
I find I am in complete agreement with Hank's comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum.....
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275626
John Simkin Posted 17 June 2013 -
............
Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum. .....
Again, Peter, if you are not apoplectic after reading my reaction to your claims, there is much more I can post related to the contrast in our experiences leading to the end of our
respective tenures on the EF. If you can separate what Walker did to you from the rest of the events leading to your exit from the EF, I believe it is clear you were afforded the opportunites to effect a different outcome, and ironically, your description of your separation from the EF is much closer to what actually happened to Jim Di and I, and your experience, aside from the unilateral abuse by Walker, was an experience Jim Di and I could only wish for, in comparison.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Magda Hassan - 23-09-2015
Peter was treated appallingly by Simkin, Walker and others there. The original accusation by Miss Turkey was just complete BS. I have entrusted female friends to Peter's compay in his country and he has behaved impeccably. I had other men contacting me saying that she had contacted them in a very, ahem, apparently enticing way. Contact was not initiated by Peter nor reciprocated in the way she seemed to intend it. When asked for his photo Peter sent her one of him and his dog. Dog being center stage of course as any one who knows Peter will attest. Not what she was expecting I would say. Peter only has one love in his life and that has always been his beloved dogs. Everything spiralled from this original suspect accusation with many men leaping to defend the honour of some one who had none or using the opportunity to undermine Peter because of their personal animosity against him. It was a disgusting public attack on his reputation and Peter was entitled to defend himself.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Tom Scully - 23-09-2015
Magda Hassan Wrote:Peter was treated appallingly by Simkin, Walker and others there. The original accusation by Miss Turkey was just complete BS. I have entrusted female friends to Peter's compay in his country and he has behaved impeccably. I had other men contacting me saying that she had contacted them in a very, ahem, apparently enticing way. Contact was not initiated by Peter nor reciprocated in the way she seemed to intend it. When asked for his photo Peter sent her one of him and his dog. Dog being center stage of course as any one who knows Peter will attest. Not what she was expecting I would say. Peter only has one love in his life and that has always been his beloved dogs. Everything spiralled from this original suspect accusation with many men leaping to defend the honour of some one who had none or using the opportunity to undermine Peter because of their personal animosity against him. It was a disgusting public attack on his reputation and Peter was entitled to defend himself.
Magda,
Am I to assume that these Simkin statements are deeply flawed, riddled with inaccuracies? I am sure you are more familiar with Peter's description of his last days and expulsion from the EF
than I am. I've read your description, above. I have to hold my nose when I quote Simkin, but please consider what Jim Di and I were subjected to, compared to Peter. I came upon
this claim (in quote box below) posted by Simkin in the course of compiling my last post. Simkin posted that the "original accusation" you referenced was discussed during the deliberation of whether to appoint Peter as a moderator, but was given little weight because of the lack of suppporting evidence. Simkin infers this matter did not preclude Peter becoming a moderator and it is claimed, did not drive the votes to keep or remove him as a moderator. I cannot emphasize enough that Simkin made himself my enemy, unlike I have experienced at the hands of anyone else I can reccall, but I am cursed with being a stickler for
accuracy. If we cannot accurately understand and describe what has happened to us, how accurate of a job will we perform in deciphering what strangers have been up to, especially those dead for decades
or much longer?
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15641&p=187035On June 8, 2013, I had been a member and a moderator in good standing on the EF. I had no disciplinary record and I had recieved not so much as a warning.:
John Simkin Posted 16 March 2010
........
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.
On June 9, I woke and soon read this.:
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259
John Simkin Posted 09 June 2013
......
I find I am in complete agreement with Hank's comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum.....
Contrast the message above and the circumstances I described the day before, on June 8, with this. ( is the following inaccurate? ) How many "votes" were extended to Jim Di, or I ? Consider also
that this voting process only had to do with the question of Peter's continued status as a moderator, and his EF membership was not yet in jeopardy. Magda, if you feel so strongly about the treatment of
Peter, how much more intense is your reaction to the treatment of Jim Di ..... no process, no warning...... membership and all posts suddenly deleted?
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&p=186629
John Simkin Posted 12 March 2010 -
.................
It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a "moderator" who was behaving that way.
Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter's supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.
Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a "slime-pit". I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.
This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.
Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action........
I never expected to be posting similar to this, but if we do not maintain a high standard of accuracy, what is our higher purpose, considering we seem to be on a quest for the truth?
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Peter Lemkin - 23-09-2015
The original LONG thread on what happened to me and at the EF at that time is here https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3318-Just-Was-Removed-By-Walker-On-Other-Forum&highlight=banned+walker+lemkin
Nothing Simkin said is true or is entirely misleading regarding me and what happened - in fact Simkin was away when the main events happened attending his wife's funeral. It was Walker who done it to me. No vote was EVER an authorized event to put in nor remove moderators...and I was not allowed to present my case - not one word of it - having already been silenced. Those who tried to post for me were threatened with expulsion. The 'vote' was a rigged sideshow and not by Forum rules nor protocol. And there was much, much more.....
TS is bringing up irrelevancies or erroneous statements as if they were perhaps fact in his 'effort' to be precise. That'll get you nowhere toward the true story, that a way.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Tracy Riddle - 23-09-2015
Never did join the Education Forum, and I'm glad I missed out on the fun. Any place where you have that much drama and carrying-on is a place that isn't going to be focused on solving the assassination.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Albert Doyle - 23-09-2015
Any site that gives equal weight to Lone Nutters and Conspiracy Realists is bound to have trouble.
The Education Forum has rules that you can't criticize it. It has a British-based ethic. Any site that pretends equal rights should tolerate any criticism of itself according to the American Free Speech standard. You should be able to say the Education Forum is a corrupted site run by biased moderators enforcing unfair, unjustly-applied rules that protect Lone Nutters at the expense of the truth and still be able to post.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Dawn Meredith - 23-09-2015
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Quote:WOW!!! Some people just don't want to study reality either. This is very disheartening. It was bad enough that the naysayers were so many and calling the "truthers" names, but to just disappear an entire threat. Brings to mind what they did to Jim D. And as a result lost the brilliance of RCD.
Dawn
EF has a long history of things like this. I had my account terminated before I could even defend myself against false claims [allegedly happening outside of the EF no less] and removed as a moderator at the same instant. Then within hours all 5000 of so of my posts were deleted forever.
Speaking of RCD, who really was brilliant, does anyone know why he requested and obtained permission for the covering on his face. All I remember is Simpson once telling me [back when he and I were friends and in regular contact] that Dunne had 'good reason and approved reason' to hide his face...without the specifics. As it may be a delicate matter for the internet, if anyone knows, kindly PM me as to what you know. Just curious. He was brilliant in his analyses and in his writing style! Most of the better people at EF have left out of disgust or been banned. IMO.
Why do you think anyone would know? I would think this was shared only with John S. -and perhaps Andy- who never cared about JFK so doubtful even that. And any speculation would be foolish, in my opinion. Yes I am on record, about 1000 times now, as one of his biggest "fans" as a writer, and most deliberate careful analyst of the JFK assassination. One of the finest minds- if not THE finest- that EF ever produced.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Dawn Meredith - 23-09-2015
Magda Hassan Wrote:Peter was treated appallingly by Simkin, Walker and others there. The original accusation by Miss Turkey was just complete BS. I have entrusted female friends to Peter's compay in his country and he has behaved impeccably. I had other men contacting me saying that she had contacted them in a very, ahem, apparently enticing way. Contact was not initiated by Peter nor reciprocated in the way she seemed to intend it. When asked for his photo Peter sent her one of him and his dog. Dog being center stage of course as any one who knows Peter will attest. Not what she was expecting I would say. Peter only has one love in his life and that has always been his beloved dogs. Everything spiralled from this original suspect accusation with many men leaping to defend the honour of some one who had none or using the opportunity to undermine Peter because of their personal animosity against him. It was a disgusting public attack on his reputation and Peter was entitled to defend himself.
Bravo Magda. I had forgotten about all that bullcrap leveled against Peter.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Tom Scully - 23-09-2015
Dawn,
The Charles-Dunne avatar "issue" was dredged up more than once, by the same provocateur.... J. Raymond......
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861&page=1&#entry188617
He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16104&p=196246
Well it shouldn't be so remarkable, since that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do here, behind your thin disguise.
I see here a study in contrasts. In the thread Peter linked to, he acknowledges that there was at least one vote taken as to his continued status as EF moderator.
Simkin claimed he informed Peter that a vote would be taken, and he also claims he gave Peter advance notice of the planned vote, and that Peter sent emails to the voters in response to the advance notice Simkin gave him.
Simkin claimed there was a later, second vote on the question of Peter's continued status as EF moderator, after Peter "won" the first vote, and that the second vote was in reaction to communications Peter made in response
to the advance notice Simkin gave him about the planned, coming first vote. If these specific details are inaccurate, I had hoped Peter would respond with specifics.
OTOH, I received no advance notice. I was an EF moderator one day, and a barred "guest" the next day. However, none of my posts were deleted.
Jim DiEugenio was not an EF moderator. He also received no notice or process before he was banned, and all of his posts (5000) and every thread he authored, were also all deleted with the announcement that we were both
suddenly banned.
DiEugenio is recently a restored EF member, posting prolifically. My question is, what, if anything, could Peter have done differently after he recieved, compared to Jim or I, the "gift" of advance notice of that pending first vote.
Simkin describes Peter sending emails to all of the voters? If this is true, before Peter's status was voted on, (and only on the question of his continuing as a moderator) he received advance notice of the pending vote, and sent email messages to the voters. After the first vote, Peter continued as a moderator and a member.
I guess I am a tad jealous. I received NONE of the courtesies Peter described as "improper". I was also an EF moderator and I knew of no "procedure" related to the question of whether a moderator continued in that status, or not.
Peter, how do you know to say that the vote departed from procedure? You, according to Simkin, were afforded two votes, and only on the question of your continued status as EF moderator.
Quote:https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3318-Just-Was-Removed-By-Walker-On-Other-Forum&p=18622#post18622
Posted for Peter Lemkin Mar 12 2010,
......Vote on what and a vote taken just before the 'news' that the 'rumour' was false....great timing....one might even say a bit 'too good' to be true. .....
It seems if you had opted to remain silent, you would at least have retained your EF membership and access to your EF posts. Can you see that Jim Di received no courtesies, none, and on the issues of my status as EF moderator or
member, neither did I.
Peter infers that he received the same "exit treatment" Jim Di and I received and any points to the contrary are untrue or of a hidden agenda?
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15638&p=186586
Evan Burton Posted 12 March 2010
Gee - have a few more goes at me Professor. You forget I actually voted for Peter to stay a moderator. That it was my suggestion he become a moderator. That in previous discussion about Peter's behaviour (the latest was not the first) I voted for him to stay then, too.
People can't seem to accept that I don't need to like someone in order to think they have value.
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275576
Robert Charles-Dunne, on 09 Jun 2013 - 1:16 PM, said:If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.
![[Image: snapback.png]](http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png)
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275587
Robert Charles-DunnePosted 16 June 2013
Quote:Evan Burton, on 16 Jun 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:
Robert,I haven't missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine. ..........
I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.
John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.
For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?
If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.
If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.
................
Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they'd be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don't think this is John's living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.
Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors' part?
This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney's book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I'm wrong on this), and subscribes to the book's central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney's scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)
Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney's book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer's murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don't have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney's favour:
"The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend."
If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn't need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum's raison d'etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.
Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.
I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.
Online Assassination Forum Resorts to Open Censorship - Jim DiEugenio - 24-09-2015
Not only was I not told I was banned, the other moderators did not know either.