Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Peter Lemkin]

I see that the usual history modification is beginning to take hold over at the swamp.

To those who understand how history modification happens there, it is simply important to remember that when the record has been totally expunged, one can thereafter state anything they like without fear of being caught in the act of untruth, fact-twisting and numerous other disagreeable, not to say, disreputable expediencies.

Apparently the new approved commissars line is that Peter's expulsion was not about sexual harassment but something altogether else. He acted in a way not suitable for moderators. That from a non moderator. He is also said to have said angry things in PM's. How inconsolable the recipients must have been.

But at least it is a rather unique argument. If one lived in sensory isolation, that is. In my personal experience sufficient nastiness and foulness was on daily public display there, that anything said in PM's would not, could not, be worse.

On the other new accusation I have a dilemma. Presumably, moderators sharing with selected ordinary members intimate "moderators only" information about what other members do is not a sacking offense. Or rather, it is if your not of the ruling clique, but it isn't if you are. And there we have it. A non moderator and non admin speaking authoritatively about a forum he is just an ordinary member of.

I've been looking for a word to describe what I believe has taken place at the swamp, and after much searching I think this may be it:

A right fooking royal, malice driven, stitch up.

If it were done in private, as these things should be done - if for no other reason than that out of common decency and forum dignity - then none of this would've come about. But such is the malice there that the execution was designedly done in public.

What a charming bunch they are.

Being blinded to that url, I'll have to await my daily briefing paper. However, I can state that I didn't start sending any angry PMs to Admin - the angry PMs were first directed at me. Yes, I did defend myself, and was a bit upset at the nature of, tone of, and accusations within said PMs. My response was commensurate to the charges and epithets contained within. I did ask then, and again later, to settle this all out of the public arena - met with deafening silence and venom. As to having done something inmoderator-able, it was never stated. One can only guess [?] that use of the word 'tricksters' was taken by one as the 'step too far'. Tough word, ya gotta admit! It was always the rule that moderators were free to post their thoughts, just as were all members; and were to be judged upon their actions as moderators. I think it was really just a decision made first, based on prejudice, looking desperately for a 'reason' in an attempt to prop-up that decision already made. Apparently, the rationale keeps changing, in an endless search for one that at least seems 'to fit' the drastic actions taken.