23-09-2015, 09:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-09-2015, 10:35 PM by Tom Scully.)
Dawn,
The Charles-Dunne avatar "issue" was dredged up more than once, by the same provocateur.... J. Raymond......
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.
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?
The Charles-Dunne avatar "issue" was dredged up more than once, by the same provocateur.... J. Raymond......
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry188617
He has given me good reasons why he should have his current avatar.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....4&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/sho...#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....8&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....9&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....9&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.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.