Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Magda Hassan]

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.

Magda,
I have to disagree with you and Peter about not posting the email here that the woman involved asked you to do.I am thinking in terms of fairness and openness.These are important concepts in a situation like this.I hope you understand my position.What we don't want to become,is that which is what we despise.Peace and Goodnight.......

Here you are Keith:
To all,

I see that Magda Hasan has mentioned my name a couple of times in her posts in this thread, carefully
editing out some important points in my brief email exchange with her.

1. It was Peter, not ME, who contacted me first about the problems he was having on the EF.

2. It was Peter who apologized to me (repeatedly) about the email in question which he sent me several months ago that
read "cyber sex" in the subject line.

3. He was also the one who emailed me and told me that the email in question was meant to be a joke when the "sexual harrassment" issue
was brought up by Jack White on the EF.

4. It was also Peter himself who asked me to email the admins and tell them there had been a misunderstanding.

5. The claim that Peter was removed because of a complaint I made months ago is ridiculous. If that were the case, he would have
been removed long ago.

All in all, you will have to look elsewhere to get your scapegoat.

Sincerely,
Cigdem Gole

On edit because original on another page now:
My response below.

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 Eksi? 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?