19-03-2010, 07:21 AM
Posted by: Mark Knight Mar 12 2010, 07:17 AM [From EF, but cannot give a url, as it has been 'disappeared' along with all my defense threads and then those started by others coming to my defense. On last lone one remains in which no one is allowed to post anything from me nor, apparently, even in support of me]
I was going to let this one pass...and then an old poem came to mind:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out...because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me...and there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoller
So effectively Peter Lemkin is gone from the forum, banned because he stood up for himself in the face of charges that were later withdrawn. If it can be done to someone as well-known within the community as Peter, how much easier would it be to do likewise with someone such as me...or you?
I understand the concept of attempting to mitigate one's liability...especially when it regards the assassination of a man's character based upon charges that were made and them withdrawn. Perhaps that's the way to silence ALL those who believe in conspiracy...make charges against their character, use those charges as justification to withdraw their priveleges here, and then withdraw the charges...but prevent the wrongly-accused party from using the forum in which they were "convicted" to defend themselves against what appear to be spurious charges. If it can happen to Peter Lemkin, who's next on the hit list in this grand non-conspiracy [since Andy Walker doesn't believe in conspiracies]? One of the lower-level contributors such as me? Someone as visible as Jim Root? Or perhaps a frequent-flier such as Bill Kelley?
It would appear that, from a legal standpoint, one of the administrative "birds" of this forum has apparently "fouled" his own nest...this from a layman's point of view, since I am not an attorney.
I was going to let this one pass...and then an old poem came to mind:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out...because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me...and there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoller
So effectively Peter Lemkin is gone from the forum, banned because he stood up for himself in the face of charges that were later withdrawn. If it can be done to someone as well-known within the community as Peter, how much easier would it be to do likewise with someone such as me...or you?
I understand the concept of attempting to mitigate one's liability...especially when it regards the assassination of a man's character based upon charges that were made and them withdrawn. Perhaps that's the way to silence ALL those who believe in conspiracy...make charges against their character, use those charges as justification to withdraw their priveleges here, and then withdraw the charges...but prevent the wrongly-accused party from using the forum in which they were "convicted" to defend themselves against what appear to be spurious charges. If it can happen to Peter Lemkin, who's next on the hit list in this grand non-conspiracy [since Andy Walker doesn't believe in conspiracies]? One of the lower-level contributors such as me? Someone as visible as Jim Root? Or perhaps a frequent-flier such as Bill Kelley?
It would appear that, from a legal standpoint, one of the administrative "birds" of this forum has apparently "fouled" his own nest...this from a layman's point of view, since I am not an attorney.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass