Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Magda Hassan]

I find it interesting that Len is calling to have Peter's posts reinstated.
IS this all just an effort to: 1.Get rid of Peter's VIEWS and 2. Have the entity known as Len Colby now come across as "reasonalble"? Even sympathetic.
Subtle.

I have many good friends in the assassination reasearch world who NEVER post on moderated forums. Many having been burned in the past.
In fact one of my favorite of these people is a person who once had a few "posts" at that forum, under her name and photo and said she never joined. That they were responses to emails then "posted" by someone in control there to make it APPEAR that she was a member. This sort of "honesty" also occurred with two other individuals that I have personal knowledge of: ie emails from both persons saying their "posts" there were NOT posts, they they were responses to email questions and that neither person had ever joined that forum.

The internet can be one very strange place. Deception is so easily accomplished.

Caveat emptor,

Dawn

Yes, Dawn, and I find it most interesting that Len seems to be on some sort of private distribution list that is meant to be for moderators. Last time I checked Len wasn't a moderator. But he is, it seems, given the supposedly private information of the complaint against Peter from the lady in question.

And there are many questions indeed. Other men have contacted me to say that they also received emails from the same person. Has she made allegations about them all? On the other hand I have had no contact from any of the other EF women to say that they have also received emails from her. Some thing to think about there.

The woman in question has sent me an email and asked me to post it here. Peter however has asked me not to. Given that this woman has already posted something almost identical on the EF I am inclined to not post it again here and instead support Peter's wishes as Peter is a member here and a friend. I will respond to it here though since I have had my posting privileges removed on the EF with out explanation.

For point 1.
Yes, Peter contacted you. And why did he have to do that? Why did you not come forward at the time when you saw that your original allegations (the misunderstanding) were being against Peter? You sat there watching Peter being abused and did nothing. So he wrote to you to. You seem to imply that it was a bad thing he write to you. I think it was a bad thing he needed to write to you and you did not come forward earlier.
Point 2
Peter was accused by Walker of being some sort of cyber sex pest based on your original complaint against Peter. Of course Peter would have been mortified to think anything he may have written to you could be construed as such a thing. He hates to upset anyone over anything. He is very sensitive. I have had apologies from Peter as well. Not that he has ever written anything I have taken offense to, he hasn't, but because he thought I might take offense perhaps because he wrote while tired or what he wrote could be taken another way other than how he intended it. Why wouldn't he use that in the title? Seems logical enough to me.
Point 3
Not even sure what you are getting at here so cannot address it fully. Not sure where or why Jack fits into this but of course it was a joke. Peter would never sexually harass anyone.
Point 4
Yes, why did he have to do that? Why did you not do this yourself, unasked, as would have been the right and decent thing to do? You knew it was all unfounded but you said nothing until asked. Unbelievable!
Point 5
Yes it is ridiculous. Why was Walker (and I think JS) using it against Peter? Why indeed? I know you, lady in question, don't have the answer to this one. But others do.

No one is trying to 'scapegoat' you. It seems to me you are as a much abused in this whole charade as Peter is. The trouble lies with the administration of the EF. That is obvious. You are just a tool in abuse. A cowardly bunch of thugs using your 'honour' to hide their deeds behind.

Oh, and by the way, is it Chi or Cigdem? And is it Gole or Eski? They're very particular about having the proper name over there at the EF. I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation for it, as there is for me. Probably the same one even. Diminutive and marriage. Yes?