It's All Been a Tremendous Lark

[Magda Hassan]

I am sorry you have taken this decision and I hope you reconsider. This door will always be open for you and you will always be welcomed by me. I will miss your great mind and wit and humor and no one has a finer pen than you. I will miss your spirit and your big heart. I know you are on the side of the angels and on a spiritual mission for truth and justice and a life worth living for all of us. But as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, the DPF is worth fighting for. I fought for it because if I didn't there would be no DPF. I don't think you ever quite realized we don't need 'enemy agents' here to damage the forum because that is what you were doing all on your own. To use your own words you were unwittingly doing the enemy's work in your zeal to impose your will on all here and in your attacks on practically all. Very soon it would have turned into an empty room an echo chamber with your one lone voice and maybe one maybe two others shouting in the dark with no one to hear what you said anyway because every one has stayed away in droves or been driven out because of the undisciplined and hostile treatment of members.
Go and live in your fox hole, where ever that is, and fight your windmills with razor blades on their tips if that is your wish. I think your energies would be better spent here. But not in attacking the members. Meanwhile, we here have a forum to run where members have a right not to be verbally eviscerated by others and where they have a right to work in an environment that is conducive to productive research and the exploration of ideas and and the exposure of facts in a world of secrecy and lies. There is a lot of work to do. Join us or not. It is up to you.

[Peter Lemkin]

CD, What would your long-time friend and collegue/mentor George Michael Evica do in this situation? Your knowledge of the events of 11/22/63 and related would be greatly missed here. My two pence..

[Albert Doyle]

I have sincerely learned from Charles Drago and consider his strict emphasis on the Deep Political model to be important to understanding the full form of the conspiracy. I would say cut the dramatics and stay.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Perhaps off topic...

I've been reading a lot about the JFK assassination the past week and one thing which struck me was the quality of research and analysis by the independent researchers. Admittedly this has had a 50 year trajectory and I suppose new pieces of the puzzle are still being added. Interested persons can learn the names of those in the cover up and many in the operation (mechanics, managers). The entire event has been framed rather well in the over arching political context.

In thinking about 9/11... I see similarities... but much more differences. We don't see the names suggested of the mechanics... We don't see the sort of complexity of a conspiracy that JFK was... despite the fact that it was physically a far more complex and destructive event.

If one considers JFK a coup (which I do) 9/11 clearly was not... as the coup was pretty much in control and had gotten what they were after once JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcom X were killed. Nothing stood in the way of the MIC, the generals and the ascendency of the empire. The communist boogie man was gone... and perhaps a new raison d'etre would be needed. But it seems clear that the deal was simply to carry on with more of the same... and the coup used the same sort of tactics and the mighty wultizter to forge ahead into the ME and the Caucuses... where they have been stirring up trouble (or brewing it) for decades.

9/11 was not a coup... there was no need to re direct the nation's trajectory which appeared to be turning toward peace. There was perhaps simply a need to inject the MIC with some trillions and a new enemy. No way Jose was the MIC and the Pentagon going to downsize... and allow the sort of redirection JFK represented and died for... Perhaps it was more of a reminder the people... We're not finished with the manifest destiny of the empire.

Take note.

[Lauren Johnson]

other than assuming a role as Op-Ed contributor who sends in his copy and goes about his life. When Magda said he would drive everyone away, she was correct. He simply could not tolerate comments for any number of reasons. He wanted to cull out the membership and purify the stock, no matter what the cost.

I hope he starts his own Forum and I would look forward to it. He would be wise, in my view, to cut off comments, as is often the case amongst other bloggers.

[Magda Hassan]

other than assuming a role as Op-Ed contributor who sends in his copy and goes about his life. When Magda said he would drive everyone away, she was correct. He simply could not tolerate comments for any number of reasons. He wanted to cull out the membership and purify the stock, no matter what the cost.

I hope he starts his own Forum and I would look forward to it. He would be wise, in my view, to cut off comments, as is often the case amongst other bloggers.

I agree Lauren. And we have those facilities here if he wishes to make use of them. It is obviously not his fine mind any one has troubles with just the temperament and inappropriate social interactions. If he can control himself or limit exposure or interactions with the unenlightened masses all would be well for all concerned. Neither the twain need meet.

I've have received many many PM's and emails from members, including several good friends of Charles deploring his online behavior towards members if not themselves. Many have left because of it. Others never came because they didn't like what they saw. I certainly never allowed anyone I knew personally to join the forum because of what was likely in store for them. So while it may have been all a tremendous lark for Charles it was far from that experience for most others.

From Charles' Taking the Pledge thread here

Please note that I'm not totally buying what I'm selling. But hey, at least I'm trying -- and looking myself in the eyes.

If Charles' isn't buying his own stuff why should we? Maybe he is doing us all a favor and knows he is incapable of change? Time will tell. Certainly his post there shows it to be a long standing issue of "bellicose attitudes" which he admits to and that these have also been inflicted upon "some well meaning individuals". As if it is not enough for us all to be collaterally damaged by the 'enemy' we must also cop it from Charles. No thank you.

[Matthew Poe]

I have been reading DPF for around two years and have yet to post anything but I feel compelled to break this record of silence over this moderator dust-up. During a time when Charles Drago--who is responsible for establishing this forum, no?--needs the support and kindness of his erstwhile comrades more than ever, he has instead been subjected only to further criticism and chilly unconcern.

This lack of sympathy was especially evident in some of the responses to Mr. Drago's admission of his own shortcomings and pledge to do be more conciliatory (no doubt a difficult gambit for a man so stubborn) in the future. Such a heartfelt plea would have been the perfect opportunity for his fellow moderators to open their arms and give him another chance. Instead they doubled down on their efforts to provoke him into walking away, claiming in effect that he was beyond rehabilitation. I call BS. While I sense no conspiracy at work in Mr. Drago being pushed out, I do see evidence of a much more common phenomena: an elementary school playground style pile-on. Could some who are so knowledgeable when it comes to deep politics and such be so lacking in self-awareness when it comes to more mundane inter-personal matters?

Of course, I am a newbie, and could be doing the new ruling clique a disservice. (I too have cringed at the treatment Mr. Drago has subjected posters he feels are not up to his exacting standards on matters deep political; but it also seems clear that his zeal has been motivated not mainly by hauteur or grandiosity but rather by a fear that DPF will degenerate into a version of the EF "swamp"--where anything goes and hours are wasted on the most baroque, useless theories--we have all come here to avoid.)

I urge the moderators, and Mr. Drago, to consider rapprochement. If they do not, only time will tell whose respective visions are better suited to the growth of the forum.

[David Healy]

When it comes to the JFK assassination, enough is enough. There is more than enough case evidence for conspiracy, enough to choke a damn horse, yet it continues to be vacillation time. When in doubt do more needless research? You don't win a war by sitting on the sidelines convincing other researchers you can make a case, you make the damn case! If you don't want to make a case, do what Hollywood has always done, make a film about it, let the chips fall where they may!

I agree with Charles, this is war, shit or get off the pot-- JFK researchers just can't get off the damn pot! :fullofit:

[Magda Hassan]

This seems especially evident in that--in what was no doubt a difficult gambit for a man of his stubborness--Mr. Drago admitted his shortcomings and pledged to do better. This seemingky heartfelt admission would have been the perfect time for his fellow moderators to open their arms to him. Instead they seemingly doubled down on their efforts to get him to leave, claiming in effect that he was beyond rehabilitation. I call bs. Not that I see a conspiracy in the pushing out of Mr. Drago, but something much more common, a scholl playground pilie-on.

Let me make it crystal clear. There is no 'conspiracy' to make Charles leave. There is no coup. All that is happening is that Charles is required to lift his game when it comes to his on forum behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. No one wants Charles to leave. On the contrary. If he leaves it is because Charles has chosen to do so. This is what he has told us he intends to do. Several times in fact. Maybe he will maybe he wont. He is an independent grown man with a mind of his own free to stay or leave. He has full posting privileges on the forum if he wishes to use them. What he is not free to do is also what other members are not free to do. It is really quite simple. Charles has had an awfully long time and lots of grace to change his behavior. He still has.

Of course, I am admittedly a newbie, and could be doing the new ruling clique a disservice. (I too have cringed at the treatment Mr. Drago has doled out to posters that he feel do not meet his exacting deep political standards; but it also seems obvious that he has abeen motivated not mainly by hateur but by a desire for DPF not to morph into a version of EF "swamp"--where anything goes including hours devoted to the most baroque, useless theorizing.) Time will tell.

We know that Charles' motivations are not in questions. As I said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately Charles' behaviour has created here exactly what we did not want. The DPF is not the sort of place where any thing goes and all is tolerated. It isn't.

[Matthew Poe]

Magda, What I don't quite understand is that on the one hand you urge Drago to reconsider and stay on, yet in the same breath write:

"I don't think you ever quite realized we don't need 'enemy agents' here to damage the forum because that is what you were doing all on your own.
To use your own words you were unwittingly doing the enemy's work in your zeal to impose your will on all here and in your attacks on
practically all."

While this reflects a great deal of general wisdom as far as the machinations of movement politics, I can't see how it specifically jibes with the sentiments that precede it re: Drago. In fact, I can't imagine a worse thing for a man to read about himself (i.e that he has been unwittingly doing the enemies' work) when he is down-- a man who I imagine has spent a good deal of his life fighting to shine light on the JFK assassination. Doesn't it strike you as kicking him when he's low?

Also, for the record, I did not accuse the moderators of a conspiracy to remove Drago, rather a failure of empathy for a comrade. Quite a difference.