Trolls and proxy posts against Harvey and Lee.

[Peter Lemkin]

Ms. Loney, Reading your posts [and the thread on the 'other forum' in which a group egged you on to promote certain agendas here on this Forum], I find that you have not come to enlighten with information regarding any Deep Political events or any political, historical, social, or cultural events at all...but to provoke on two themes, thus far. Provocation for the sake of provocation is not valid under the rules of engagement here. If you care to remain, keep it civil and to points of subject matter based on informed study, information, or facts. Personally, I find the agenda of trying to discredit Armstrong's work when you freely admit you have not read it and don't even plan to is ludicrous. I imagine all those who put you up to this on the 'other Forum' are following it with glee...but be warned....this could soon come to an abrupt end if it doesn't get into substantive issues on historical, political or deep political matters. Cross-Forum trolling always creates problems and ill will. From reading the thread on the Forum you more often frequent, neither you nor the other posters seem to think much of this Forum and refer to it in deprecating terms....so one wonders exactly what you motive[s] are here, now.

[Jim DiEugenio]

BTW, some people question the idea of Oswald in Florida in 1961 because Marita Lorenz is the person who talked about this.

I note that Jim Hargrove brought up another witness to it.

But further, I saw this photo of Oswald in military civvies at Gus Russo's house once.

I asked him about the picture since I had never seen it and it was sitting on his kitchen table. I said "Where is that from and when?"

He instantly replied, "Its from Florida in 1961."

[Vanessa Loney]

Ms. Loney, Reading your posts [and the thread on the 'other forum' in which a group egged you on to promote certain agendas here on this Forum], I find that you have not come to enlighten with information regarding any Deep Political events or any political, historical, social, or cultural events at all...but to provoke on two themes, thus far. Provocation for the sake of provocation is not valid under the rules of engagement here. If you care to remain, keep it civil and to points of subject matter based on informed study, information, or facts. Personally, I find the agenda of trying to discredit Armstrong's work when you freely admit you have not read it and don't even plan to is ludicrous. I imagine all those who put you up to this on the 'other Forum' are following it with glee...but be warned....this could soon come to an abrupt end if it doesn't get into substantive issues on historical, political or deep political matters. Cross-Forum trolling always creates problems and ill will. From reading the thread on the Forum you more often frequent, neither you nor the other posters seem to think much of this Forum and refer to it in deprecating terms....so one wonders exactly what you motive[s] are here, now.

Mr Lemkin,

I'm sorry but I'm at a loss here. I have never criticised DP so I'd appreciate it if you could point out where I have. Otherwise you are accusing me of guilt by association and we all know how legitimate that is.

I've only commented on two threads here; one of which is an attack on the EF and the other which appears to be an attack on me. These are fundamentally matters of personal opinion. I don't see any Deep Political factual events raised in either thread which I could rebut with counter-facts.

In the absence of a debate between JA and GP on H&L then I suggest the best way to progress the H&L discussion is for Mr Di E to go on EF and discuss H&L over there rather than talking about it with others over here. Don Jeffries has invited him to do so.

As far as I'm aware I've not said anything particularly disparaging about JA's theory because I am doing my level best to avoid discussing that theory at all! I really don't have anything to contribute to it. But I think those that do, should, together, on EF.

As I've mentioned before, I came on here to address the criticisms of EF, ROKC and myself and to propose a debate between JA and GP.

By all means, ban me if you wish but I really don't believe the basis for any such banning exists.

If I was on one of the factual threads and refusing to discuss the substance of that thread then I could see the point of your argument. But I am only commenting on threads which are based on personal opinion and involve personal attacks on me and my colleagues at ROKC and EF.

Once again, no-one has put me up to anything. I'm very much my own woman. But it's illustrative that you all should think that. I also believe I've been civil - if I haven't please point it out to me and I'll apologise.

[David Guyatt]

I found this post on ROKC:

Vanessa at April 12, 2015 at 4:31 AM

Hi Lee and Hasan


I"m a member at the Deep Politics Forum and am happy to post whatever you want about Albert Doyle. I can't seem to do anything but type on this computer though due to the browser so if you have something for me to post it will have to be sent to my private email Vanessa.Loney@transact.net.au.


Having said that, I don't think anyone is going to believe for one second I am the one making the case about Albert Doyle. I don't mind being booted of there though as I've never posted.

The answer is no. You do not bring that here. If the members there want to discuss that subject there with Albert then do so. But keep it there. You do not hound members here.

Also, you do not post here the views and opinions of other ROKC members -- as their pen for hire. That is a banning issue.

Having read your posts here my analysis is that almost everything you have posted is actually on behalf of others at ROKC who appear to have an agenda here -- but can't or don't wish to be present it themselves.

I can't tell you how reprehensible I find that attitude.

I can tell you I am recommending you for banishment.

[Vanessa Loney]

I found this post on ROKC:

Vanessa at April 12, 2015 at 4:31 AM

Hi Lee and Hasan


I"m a member at the Deep Politics Forum and am happy to post whatever you want about Albert Doyle. I can't seem to do anything but type on this computer though due to the browser so if you have something for me to post it will have to be sent to my private email Vanessa.Loney@transact.net.au.


Having said that, I don't think anyone is going to believe for one second I am the one making the case about Albert Doyle. I don't mind being booted of there though as I've never posted.

The answer is no. You do not bring that here. If the members there want to discuss that subject there with Albert then do so. But keep it there. You do not hound members here.

Also, you do not post here the views and opinions of other ROKC members -- as their pen for hire. That is a banning issue.

Having read your posts here my analysis is that almost everything you have posted is actually on behalf of others at ROKC who appear to have an agenda here -- but can't or don't wish to be present it themselves.

I can't tell you how reprehensible I find that attitude.

I can tell you I am recommending you for banishment.

David

You'll note that comment was a couple of months ago and I did offer to post some research others had done because they were banned from DP.

I saw that as a free speech issue and offered to post it for them.

Obviously I was not expecting anyone to believe it was my research and was expecting to be banned as a result. I'm a free speech extremist and cannot abide people being locked out of forums for expressing objectionable views.

I never did post that information. The comments I've made on here are based on reading that research and coming to my own conclusions.

Obviously it's up to you if you ban me, c'est la vie.

[David Guyatt]

I found this post on ROKC:

Vanessa at April 12, 2015 at 4:31 AM

Hi Lee and Hasan


I"m a member at the Deep Politics Forum and am happy to post whatever you want about Albert Doyle. I can't seem to do anything but type on this computer though due to the browser so if you have something for me to post it will have to be sent to my private email Vanessa.Loney@transact.net.au.


Having said that, I don't think anyone is going to believe for one second I am the one making the case about Albert Doyle. I don't mind being booted of there though as I've never posted.

The answer is no. You do not bring that here. If the members there want to discuss that subject there with Albert then do so. But keep it there. You do not hound members here.

Also, you do not post here the views and opinions of other ROKC members -- as their pen for hire. That is a banning issue.

Having read your posts here my analysis is that almost everything you have posted is actually on behalf of others at ROKC who appear to have an agenda here -- but can't or don't wish to be present it themselves.

I can't tell you how reprehensible I find that attitude.

I can tell you I am recommending you for banishment.

David

You'll note that comment was a couple of months ago and I did offer to post some research others had done because they were banned from DP.

I saw that as a free speech issue and offered to post it for them.

Obviously I was not expecting anyone to believe it was my research and was expecting to be banned as a result. I'm a free speech extremist and cannot abide people being locked out of forums for expressing objectionable views.

I never did post that information. The comments I've made on here are based on reading that research and coming to my own conclusions.

Obviously it's up to you if you ban me, c'est la vie.

It's not a free speech issue. It doesn't even come close.

Offering to post on behalf of members who have been specifically banned from this forum is completely out of order.

And having read your posts here I conclude you have a very specific DPF agenda focused on certain members - rather than an underlying subject based interest - and therefore find your explanation hard to believe.

Hounding members is not acceptable practise.

As always on DPF, the founders vote on important decisions. My vote has already been cast.

Il n'y a pas de fumee sans feu.

[Vanessa Loney]

I found this post on ROKC:

Vanessa at April 12, 2015 at 4:31 AM

Hi Lee and Hasan


I"m a member at the Deep Politics Forum and am happy to post whatever you want about Albert Doyle. I can't seem to do anything but type on this computer though due to the browser so if you have something for me to post it will have to be sent to my private email Vanessa.Loney@transact.net.au.


Having said that, I don't think anyone is going to believe for one second I am the one making the case about Albert Doyle. I don't mind being booted of there though as I've never posted.

The answer is no. You do not bring that here. If the members there want to discuss that subject there with Albert then do so. But keep it there. You do not hound members here.

Also, you do not post here the views and opinions of other ROKC members -- as their pen for hire. That is a banning issue.

Having read your posts here my analysis is that almost everything you have posted is actually on behalf of others at ROKC who appear to have an agenda here -- but can't or don't wish to be present it themselves.

I can't tell you how reprehensible I find that attitude.

I can tell you I am recommending you for banishment.

David

You'll note that comment was a couple of months ago and I did offer to post some research others had done because they were banned from DP.

I saw that as a free speech issue and offered to post it for them.

Obviously I was not expecting anyone to believe it was my research and was expecting to be banned as a result. I'm a free speech extremist and cannot abide people being locked out of forums for expressing objectionable views.

I never did post that information. The comments I've made on here are based on reading that research and coming to my own conclusions.

Obviously it's up to you if you ban me, c'est la vie.

It's not a free speech issue. It doesn't even come close.

Offering to post on behalf of members who have been specifically banned from this forum is completely out of order.

And having read your posts here I conclude you have a very specific DPF agenda focused on certain members - rather than an underlying subject based interest - and therefore find your explanation hard to believe.

Hounding members is not acceptable practise.

As always on DPF, the founders vote on important decisions. My vote has already been cast.

Il n'y a pas de fumee sans feu.

David

Well, that is certainly one vote that I don't expect to win. So I thank you for your time but as this is my last post here I'll say this.

Perhaps DP should reconsider allowing entire threads that attack other forums and individuals and then don't allow them the opportunity to respond without characterising them as trolls etc because it really doesn't speak well for your attitude towards fair debate and free speech.

If anyone wants to come on to EF to discuss any of these issues with me then I would welcome that and you won't be personally attacked I assure you.

But what I actually expect you all to do is ban me and then stick the boots in.

As for my supposed agenda, I have stated a number of times what I came on here for - a debate between JA and GP and to defend the attacks made on EF, ROKC and myself.


Selamat tinggal dan terima kasih.

[David Guyatt]

I found this post on ROKC:



The answer is no. You do not bring that here. If the members there want to discuss that subject there with Albert then do so. But keep it there. You do not hound members here.

Also, you do not post here the views and opinions of other ROKC members -- as their pen for hire. That is a banning issue.

Having read your posts here my analysis is that almost everything you have posted is actually on behalf of others at ROKC who appear to have an agenda here -- but can't or don't wish to be present it themselves.

I can't tell you how reprehensible I find that attitude.

I can tell you I am recommending you for banishment.

David

You'll note that comment was a couple of months ago and I did offer to post some research others had done because they were banned from DP.

I saw that as a free speech issue and offered to post it for them.

Obviously I was not expecting anyone to believe it was my research and was expecting to be banned as a result. I'm a free speech extremist and cannot abide people being locked out of forums for expressing objectionable views.

I never did post that information. The comments I've made on here are based on reading that research and coming to my own conclusions.

Obviously it's up to you if you ban me, c'est la vie.

It's not a free speech issue. It doesn't even come close.

Offering to post on behalf of members who have been specifically banned from this forum is completely out of order.

And having read your posts here I conclude you have a very specific DPF agenda focused on certain members - rather than an underlying subject based interest - and therefore find your explanation hard to believe.

Hounding members is not acceptable practise.

As always on DPF, the founders vote on important decisions. My vote has already been cast.

Il n'y a pas de fumee sans feu.

David

Well, that is certainly one vote that I don't expect to win. So I thank you for your time but as this is my last post here I'll say this.

Perhaps DP should reconsider allowing entire threads that attack other forums and individuals and then don't allow them the opportunity to respond without characterising them as trolls etc because it really doesn't speak well for your attitude towards fair debate and free speech.

If anyone wants to come on to EF to discuss any of these issues with me then I would welcome that and you won't be personally attacked I assure you.

But what I actually expect you all to do is ban me and then stick the boots in.

As for my supposed agenda, I have stated a number of times what I came on here for - a debate between JA and GP and to defend the attacks made on EF, ROKC and myself.


Selamat tinggal dan terima kasih.

I notice that you ignored the fact in your above justification that amongst your motives here was also to persistently hound Albert Doyle.

Anyway, I, for one, won't stick the boot in. Life's too short for such nonsense.

Goodbye.

[Magda Hassan]

Oh Magda, if you want me to go away that is really not the way to go about it.
For every slur on ROKC, EF or myself on DP I'll add another week to my stay here. Fair warning.
But it would be helpful to me if you guys could consolidate the insults into the one post an Exec. Summary, if you like. That would make it a lot easier for me to respond because there's a lot of you and there's only one of me.

Really just one? ::puppet:: Feels like you represent several people. And like we owe you any favours here? Or that you have any control over your presence here? You are here at our sufferance and we are rapidly tiring of you and all your friction and no light. Fair warning? ::coffeesplutter::

For my troubles I have been accused of all sorts of unpleasant things including trolling.

Well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

I'm a free speech extremist.

DPF does not exist to be a free speech forum or advocate. The DPF exists as a venue for intelligent debate and exploration for researchers free from trolls and disinformationists and other undesirables. There are plenty of places you can express your stupidity. You already belong to them and can excercise your free speech there. We choose to excersice our freedon of association.

And now you have called on H&L supporters on DP to come on EF to help out.

You accuse Don Jeffries of this where as you feel it perfectly fine for you to bring yourself and the rest of the others here to help out on your weird little expedition?

The one thing I don't understand, and have never understood, about the research community is the personal politics.

What would you know about the research community? You don't read. You're not a researcher.

As I've mentioned before, I came on here to address the criticisms of EF, ROKC and myself and to propose a debate between JA and GP.

Neither of whom are members here so I have no idea what the DPF or its members have to do with this. Go do your mass debate on forums where JA and GP are members.

By all means, ban me if you wish but I really don't believe the basis for any such banning exists.

You really don't read at all do you?


:: ::dalek::

[Vanessa Loney]

David

You'll note that comment was a couple of months ago and I did offer to post some research others had done because they were banned from DP.

I saw that as a free speech issue and offered to post it for them.

Obviously I was not expecting anyone to believe it was my research and was expecting to be banned as a result. I'm a free speech extremist and cannot abide people being locked out of forums for expressing objectionable views.

I never did post that information. The comments I've made on here are based on reading that research and coming to my own conclusions.

Obviously it's up to you if you ban me, c'est la vie.

It's not a free speech issue. It doesn't even come close.

Offering to post on behalf of members who have been specifically banned from this forum is completely out of order.

And having read your posts here I conclude you have a very specific DPF agenda focused on certain members - rather than an underlying subject based interest - and therefore find your explanation hard to believe.

Hounding members is not acceptable practise.

As always on DPF, the founders vote on important decisions. My vote has already been cast.

Il n'y a pas de fumee sans feu.

David

Well, that is certainly one vote that I don't expect to win. So I thank you for your time but as this is my last post here I'll say this.

Perhaps DP should reconsider allowing entire threads that attack other forums and individuals and then don't allow them the opportunity to respond without characterising them as trolls etc because it really doesn't speak well for your attitude towards fair debate and free speech.

If anyone wants to come on to EF to discuss any of these issues with me then I would welcome that and you won't be personally attacked I assure you.

But what I actually expect you all to do is ban me and then stick the boots in.

As for my supposed agenda, I have stated a number of times what I came on here for - a debate between JA and GP and to defend the attacks made on EF, ROKC and myself.


Selamat tinggal dan terima kasih.

I notice that you ignored the fact in your above justification that amongst your motives here was also to persistently hound Albert Doyle.

Anyway, I, for one, won't stick the boot in. Life's too short for such nonsense.

Goodbye.

David - if Mr Doyle had addressed the issue when it was first raised (or even addressed it at all) I wouldn't have repeated my question. And I would have thought that having a member on here under a false name was against DP rules.