The Simkin Spectacle

[Peter Lemkin]

David

John alone would never. QED he is not the Mickey the Dope he would have us believe.

It's just that over the years, it's teeth-gnashingly apparent.

I like your Prof's rumpled rags and the wisdom that goes with them.

In case you're wondering, I don't have it in for teachers. One of my daughter's in law is one, a damned good one too, and she's really great.

But English head masters of John's age were of a far different calibre than those of today. Autocratic would have been common-place, I think.

No, he's not a dope. But he is incredibly stubborn, I think - often to his own detriment.

You might remember he brought in a rule that all member's had to have an accurate, seeable avatars, when a great many members didn't use them, or purposely eclipsed their faces - or, for various reasons, used what I shall describe as foto de plume's. A small number of members were either expelled or suspended for declining this diktat, as I recall. Others, I suppose, might just have quietly left. I myself had previously told John that I wasn't going to use an accurate avatar (I downloaded and used one from the internet) as I had recently suffered two very menacing death threats - that saw, for example, a police sergeant scrambling around beneath my car and it's bonnet and then sweating profusely after he got in, pumped the accelerator several times and turned the key. That was one very brave cop.

Anyway, even some years after that rule was brought in, Len Colby's picture was still that of some simmering black dude.

One rule for them. Double standards, etc.

But I think we all now understand the difficulties involved in managing a forum. It's not easy graft. There are periods of quietude and then periods of intense activity - sometimes when you least need it to happen. There is also always a search for choosing the right thing and trying to balance the irreconcilable opposites. Sometimes, perhaps too often, errors of judgement happen, frustrations arise, emotions burn etc. It's just the great diversity of human nature at play.

As I was a moderator [until summarily removed - even as a pleb], I can assure you that although not mentioned much, it was official policy, that anyone who presented reasonable evidence that a 'realistic/true' photo of themselves might endanger themselves in some way, would be allowed to have something other. Many more than Colby were given 'leeway'....I could easily list 15 or more who were given carte blanche to put up whatever they wanted for an avatar. However, even-handedness was not followed - those on JS's 'good' list were allowed to do this; those on his 'shit' list could never have a photo that fit the 'bill'. While moderators had little to no input or information on this [it was JS's decisions 99.9%], I could clearly see that some who had NO legit reason to hide their faces or obscure them, were allowed to. Others who had valid reasons were given a hard time or denied......and removed eventually. Anyone who posted about the apparent unequal treatment was dealt with very harshly by JS, who abides NO criticism of his god-like abilities to be 'fair'. Oh, and a very very few were allowed to use 'pen names' rather than their own real ones - on the same basis of their personal security. Not aware that was abused - but have no information on which to determine.