Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Peter Lemkin]

That ugly and knowingly false and misleading threat PM was followed the next day by this one:

Personal MessageAndy Walker Sep 17 2009, 10:39 PM
Administrator

you wrote eleswhere

'I've been informed I am perverting 'the other' Forum with my paranoid and global delusional disinformation'

You misunderstand (of course). I am actually asking you obliquely to stop perving young women on the Education Forum. I have had several documented complaints about you being a cyber sex pest from women members.
--------------------
Andy Walker

Simkin has now admitted that no documentation was EVER seen and we now have a retraction from said woman [made by Walker into WOMEN - along with his other avatar Dunn]. Additionally five persons, including Simkin - and soon to be more - have seen the original emails. They are harmless. This was a set-up by Walker, endorsed at some point by Simkin.

Then, the NEXT day I get a 'gag-order' from Walker so I won't talk about and possibly expose his invented misdeeds 'on me':

Personal MessageAndy Walker Sep 18 2009, 11:26 AM
Administrator

You really are a deeply unpleasant character aren't you. I am not prepared to comment any further on these matters and neither should you.

QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
you wrote eleswhere

'I've been informed I am perverting 'the other' Forum with my paranoid and global delusional disinformation'

You misunderstand (of course). I am actually asking you obliquely to stop perving young women on the Education Forum. I have had several documented complaints about you being a cyber sex pest from women members.

Well that is certainly untrue! IF anyone said that, it is a disinfo campaign. Period.

Wouldn't it be nice if one were so important or were saying such important things that one inspired disinformation campaigns?
I have no reason to disbelieve those who have complained about you - you are fortunate however that they have persuaded me not to make public your activities. This I will do out of respect for their wishes.

This is insane. There is only one person it could be and she started the flirtation. I was never sexual - and to whatever extent it was anything I have the emails and can PROVE she was more than half of the 'player' in this. First name starts with a C. Bullshit Andy. It ain't so....either she made it up - or you did. You want to make a fool of her, have her send you the offending emails...I'll send you the ones SHE sent!

It was all pretty innocent and also much was about art, science and history....with a small smattering of flirtation...then SHE apologized and said she wanted to stop that and she was sorry, but had just left her ex and was lonely. So again, I say bullshit.

--------------------
Andy Walker

Who has egg on their faces...or is the feces on their faces, now?!

[Peter Lemkin]

Simkin's equivalent to the secret Khrushchev speech Part I:

From: "John Simkin" <john.simkin@xxxxxxxx>
To: "'Peter Lemkin <xxxxxx@xxxxxx>,
"'Evan Burton'" <eburton@xxxxxxxx>,
<xxxxxf@xxxxxx>,
"'Gary Loughran'" <garyloughran@xxxxxxxx>,
"'Antti Hynonen'" <xxxxxxxxxx>,
<Stephen.Turner@xxxxxx>,
<donjeffries@xxxxxx>,
"'john geraghty'" <johnpetergeraghty@xxxxxx>,
"'The Education Forum'" <cbecket@xxxxxx>
Cc: <andy.walker@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Peter's removal
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:02:00 -0000

I returned home yesterday from burying xxxxxx yesterday to discover numerous resignations and continued abuse of other members on the Forum. It was a strange experience to go from a real world of supportive human behaviour to the internet world of nastiness and spite.

But as Don Jefferies says, I need to emerge from my world of grieving to deal with this crisis. I can only do it by going back to the beginning of the Forum. Andy and I started this forum as a reaction from being censored on the History Forum. That is important as it has always been my intention that this forum would allow the maximum amount possible of freedom of speech. Of course it is very easy to give freedom of speech to people with mainstream opinions. If Andy and I had held mainstream views, we would not have been censored on the History Forum. The real test is to allow people the freedom to express views you disagree with. It is true that the original forum was originally intended for teachers but from the beginning it was open to anyone who had an interest in history or education.

The forum was also for people who wanted to criticize my Spartacus Educational website. In fact, our stats show that the vast majority of new people who visit the forum come via my website. This is not surprising as my website gets around six million page impressions a month. In turn, the large number of visitors to the forum has helped to boast its ranking on Google. Therefore, the forum has become an important place for people who wish to maximise an audience for their views.

Teachers are very busy people and they do not get much time to post on forums. They are also more interested in mundane things like lesson plans than discussing the truth about events in the past. It soon became clear that if you wanted to discuss the practical aspects of teaching, then it could be argued that there were better forums available. Although I tried to encourage teachers to debate these issues by posting what I considered to be stimulating ideas, it soon became clear that I was fighting a losing battle.

At the same time, the number of people who were visiting via my website who wanted to complain/criticise its content was growing fast. This was especially true of the material on 20th century American history. This is not surprising as around 70% of my visitors come from the United States. They were also interested in the more controversial and unresolved aspects of that history. When I produced a page on the presidency of John F. Kennedy I had no idea that it would get the reaction it did. I got so many comments via email and the forum about the death of JFK that I decided to add a new section on the subject. Later I created sections on other controversial subjects such as Watergate, the death of Robert Kennedy, the Struggle for Civil Rights in the USA, etc.

As far as I am concerned, these sections have been a success. It has led to several witnesses agreeing to be interviewed on the forum. Authors of important books about these subjects have been willing to discuss their work with fellow researchers. It is clear from page impressions that this section of the forum is far more popular than the original parts of the forum. I am very disappointed that the original sections, especially the one on other areas of history that I write about, now receive very few responses. However, there is nothing I can do about that. I cannot make people post of these threads.

The problem with the “Conspiracy” section of the Forum is that it has attracted some very strange characters. Some of these people are clearly paranoid who seem to see a conspiracy in every event that does not plan out as they hoped. I am aware that some of these people have suffered for their views in the past and that has encouraged their sense of paranoia. This has meant that when certain members have problems with the technology they feel that Andy and I are involved in some sort of conspiracy against them. There have also been times when I have disagreed with certain conspiracy theories and as a result I have been accused of being a disinformation agent. I think this is very funny and it does not matter to me that I am in the pay of MI5 or the CIA. Other members who have criticised conspiracy theories, such as Len Colby, have also been accused of being secret agents.

I have to admit that since the death of xxxxxx I have not been in the mood to deal with these petty squabbles. I have indeed taken a backseat and allowed the moderators deal with these issues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those like Evan, Antii and Kathy who have dealt with most of these issues. It is a thankless task as I know from experience it only results in abusive insults.

In recent weeks Andy and Evan have also been accused by Peter Lemkin of being part of some conspiracy. This is as a result of Peter being removed as a moderator. Although it was Evan who originally suggested that Peter should be made a moderator, he has been unfairly targeted by the paranoid conspiracy theorists as the man behind this action. Andy and Evan have now had enough and have resigned as administrator and moderator. If this happens, the only people who are going to be happy are Peter and the other members of the Deep Politics Forum. As a conspiracy theorist, I would not be surprised if this was the original objective.

I would therefore ask Andy and Evan to return to the Forum. I also think that it might be worth voting again on Peter’s position as moderator. I am still voting “Yes” but only just, because I have been deeply disturbed by the comments he has been making by email and on the Deep Politics Forum. The decision will be based on a majority vote.

John Simkin

My initial reply:
I wish Jack hadn't said that, but once out of the bag... Yes, It was, I believe, in Sept of 09 by one Mr. Walker. I politely but angrily told him that was impossible or a mistake and offered to defend myself. He didn't allow me to. J. S., I believe, has the beginnings of proof that Andy has just 'been out to get me for my political views' and has either misinterpreted or invented excuses to make that happen. I never harassed any woman - physically of via internet. I worked with my mother on Women's Rights issues and take that very seriously; believing myself to be pro-feminist. There have been other charges, but I am silenced. I can not even post now! I doubt any of you are getting my attempts at posts, instead they, I would guess, are going to Mr. Walker, who is not allowing them, despite their not breaking the rules, to be heard. I had kept the matter of the false accusation of harassment between Walker, Simkin and I, but it has not been dealt with. Walker simply believes it as fact, as he does that no conspiracy ever existed. I've not heard from John about my evidence to prove my innocence [and at the same time try to protect one person on the Forum from embarrassment] - of which I have more. As for the action, I believe Walker now claims was the last 'straw' in Burnham's biography, I am amazed how prescient it proved - it was not meant to be a trap, but it turned-out IMO to be just that. I simply welcomed him, I know of his JFK work which is very good. I told him that unlike the Forum from which he was coming IMO certain 'tricksters' were tolerated. Andy posted I should retract that [I didn't see that for perhaps half or a full day later - and don't feel it was so inappropriate]. I think LCs reaction proved my point about 'tricksters' and their being tolerated.....

It is getting very messy now and I must say I sent three emails of warning to Simkin that Walker had it in for me and I saw all this coming in some form about 1.5 months ago. I believe it is all political and the other allegations are baseless and unfair. I have been accused, sentenced and executed for my beliefs alone and without trial, presentation of evidence or ability to defend myself. I don't envy you all now. I do ask any of you of good faith and heart to help me out. J.S. promised me some email that was to be sent to all of you and me, despite what has now happened. I have heard nothing from him since. I believe that was 2.5 days ago...though I'm loosing track of time.

Yes, I have strong political beliefs, but so does Evan and they have never been grounds for removal or sanction [because, it is sad to say, but I think true because they are in parallel with those of Walker]
A moderator should be able to speak their mind "moderators have opinions too" as one of your signatures says correctly. We are here {I was here} to enforce the rules and keep the anger level down and tricksters at bay. I thought I was doing that. I have asked John if this is a free speech Forum or a Walker-approved speech Forum. I have received no response. I realize I am standing up to the powers that be, but this is a family tradition and my own belief system, that one must. I did so with respect and without anger at first until I was attacked repeatedly and accused repeatedly [and falsely] by one of the administrators. The other has always been very kind to me and has even been someone I've had private exchanges of emails with on a variety of subjects [here I'm not talking about any of this mess]. I hope there is a way back - or at least my name can be cleared. Again, I regret and did not ask my friend Jack to say what he said. However, the accusation is so untrue yet real [as were the other accusations], it is best dealt with, however, off the main Forum. I think the future of the Forum and its health are at stake; it goes well beyond little 'ol me. Thanks for the support of those who have offered it. May truth and justice prevail and a little sanity with a pinch of humanity.

I was just out walking my two Malamutes. I have no family – they are family since my real love and former family Crazybear died. While on the walk I realized John’s huge logical inconsistency/fallacy in his letter. He posits that [I suppose he meant I and those like me] are too inclined to see everything as a ‘conspiracy’ [The my conspiracies are correct; your conspiracies are a bit too odd or too far afield school of thought.] Yet a few lines down he posits that perhaps ‘that was the real intention’ [to cause Andy and Evan’s resignation]. John, that puts you in exactly the same ‘tent’ as I – only the color of the tent is different – not the ‘fabric’; as you were hinting that I was overly conspiratorial in thinking aloud if Andy supported Evan who supported Len and xxxxx et al. and there was a bias to the Forum. You can’t have it both ways and be consistent! Thus, your speculation on a Lemkin + unnamed other conspirators is canceled out by and with any speculation on any other ‘conspiracy’ you don’t like – be it about the Forum or 9-11 [which seems to rub you the wrong way, while you like my JFK posts] Each to his own, eh! Lastly, it is an experiment that can’t be done without a time machine, but as a thought experiment I posit that the vote, whatever it is would be different in the next days than it would have been the day of or just after the mess occurred. I’m certainly not blaming you for being at xxxxxxxx's funeral – last thing I’d ever do. My sympathies were made clear! However, by happenstance the time things were left to ‘fester’ my upset and paranoia grew; the anger of many built; allegiances and positive/negative feelings of one towards others changed sides, etc. Not having a time machine [oh, how I could use one for many reasons – the least of which being this Forum!], I’d only ask each voter or person who can effect a voter to take this into account. I can’t ask you to vote as you would have then, now…oh, I can….but things are not the same, as Einstein proved. We’ve moved in spacetime and I and others did things we wouldn’t have done or THOUGHT to have done had the spacetime not moved so far. Lastly, the ugly ‘rumors’ v. ugly ‘facts’. I don’t know how to deal with them. I’m of two minds. I know I am innocent of all the big ugly rumors and feel I am also innocent of the smaller ones. It is the big one that is most problematical. I’ll leave it at that, cryptically. I stand ready to PROVE, not just offer circumstantial evidence, that the rumors are untrue. I hope I need not have to. As I said, J.S. has some evidence. I hold other.
Perhaps it was yet the machinations of conspiratorial thinking. I don’t know where it began. I know where it wound up – in a series of PMs to me of the ugliest kind. Peace and bow-wow. Peter

I should have read through it for clarity. It is both very early morning here and had little sleep - the whole matter is SO upsetting, I don't even like re-reading it - though I should have. The warning emails I gave [about 3 of them] starting about1.5 months ago were sent to JS. I saw this coming and said to JS I felt I was being 'set-up'.

Peter Lemkin

[Peter Lemkin]

While Simkin was away at a funeral. Walker put me on permanent moderation. the EF exploded or imploded and Walker in what I consider an admission of wrongdoing and guilt resigned. When Simkin returned a vote ONLY ON if I should be moderator - keep THAT in mind! [and that vote NEVER should have taken place as no even had been done by me to warrant such - quite the opposite it was Walker who needed 'evaluation'] took place on the 9th and either later that day or the next day [but within a few hours and without me doing anything further] I had had my membership annulled and my IP blocked! More soon....from the deep-sixed thread.

[Gary Loughran]

Peter, be fair and honest (even in RC-Ds post, copied previously, you were unable to post it unedited in your favour).

You were not accused during any moderators debate of being a 'sex pest' or anything remotely similar. No one knew the personalities involved or were discussing any accusations of 'sex pest' during internal moderator debates.

You will recall these specifics of the disussion were centered on you allegedly harrassing members about avatars. You are also aware there were several complaints along similar lines and not all from what would be considered the usual suspects.

We even had people posting an 'in honour of Peter Lemkin' style thread - why? This was in advance of any moderator debate. It was all a contrived nonsense...you know precisely how I felt about all your 'tedious', 'barely tangential' postings (I am trying to recall what it is you left out of RC-D's post you quote, apologies if it is not exact though I have tried to be as contextually accurate as I can) prior to any internal Peter Lemkin debate because I sent a mail saying so!

YOU brought all the sexual nature accusations and supporting information to the table, and subsequently publicly, in the private debates. Even now the worst you can do is make public 6 month old private conversations between yourself and Andy.

There was no moderator debate about you being a 'sex pest' and this was not the reason for your removal nor the reason I voted no to you remaining a moderator.

It was also YOU in a mail who asked Jack White to come to your defence publicly, copying in the EF moderating team, and including more detail than anyone knew regarding any 'sex pest' complaints. You have admitted, subsequently, this was a mistake by you and consequently Jack.

So, and lets be honest, you nailed your defence to that allegation. You took every opportunity to wilfully misrepresent what took place in the moderators debate and it was you who advertised this misrepresentation, in doing so, publicly framing yourself for a crime you, allegedly, didn't commit. A psyop even Hunt would admire.

Well done Peter. Unfounded allegations were most definitely not the reason you were removed from the EF moderating team.

Please take some responsibility for the actions you have taken. Take responsibility for nominating yourself as the only the victim in all this; and finally take responsibility for telling the real truth and not this sub-Warren Commission Report version of it.

Everything that befalls us is not the result of conspiracy. Mistakes have been made, certainly, in the deletion of your record, to which end everyone is trying to right. There is no easy solution to that problem however the will is there to right that.

[David Guyatt]

Again, I regret and did not ask my friend Jack to say what he said. However, the accusation is so untrue yet real [as were other accusations], it is best dealt with however off the main Forum.

(my italics)

Pete, am I right I believing that what you're saying is that Cigdem made accusations against someone else at the EF about being a sex pest, although this was not you. Is this correct?

If that is the case has that other person or persons been censored or named?

[Peter Lemkin]

Again, I regret and did not ask my friend Jack to say what he said. However, the accusation is so untrue yet real [as were other accusations], it is best dealt with however off the main Forum.

(my italics)

Pete, am I right I believing that what you're saying is that Cigdem made accusations against someone else at the EF about being a sex pest, although this was not you. Is this correct?

If that is the case has that other person or persons been censored or named?

While it is true she did make (or Walker put in her mouth) such other accusations - and she did tell me privately there were several men on the EF who had sent her very nasty emails. Funny, the one who did not was done in and those who likely did are still out there, honored members. However, no there were multiple accusations of my wrongdoing as a moderator - and Gary L's email is all garbage - the charges were never presented nor made clear. I never heard them nor was I allowed to defend against them. Gary or Don or anyone tell me 1] why a vote? 2] Based on what allegations? 3] Why I was not presented with them and allowed to explain them or defend against them and 4] why after only a vote on my being moderator did I find myself with my IP blocked and not a member AND all my posts sent into hyperspace? [I have other questions too!] There was never to be a vote. Status quo anti was 'another chance' [even that based on baseless Walker invented 'crimes' with some help from a troll named Lee. The vote was invented AFTER I was illegally and wrongfully put on permanent moderation by Walker. Gary, YOU in fact sent around an email that underlined the innuendo about the matter with CG - If that was not one of the 'matters' at hand, why did you do it and with such glee - after poohing on my defense thread with a show of boredom and a url to a totally unrelated comicstrip? Lots of other innuendo and vague [none stated plainly as far as I know!] misdeeds floating around in the whispering campaign orchestrated by Walker and a few of his plumbers. Complex it was - as are all conspiracies. I wonder if you are posting now to correct the facts as you see it, or get me in hot water with the PTB here. I'd guess the later. You voted against me and still seem to be voting against me. I'm not going to be responding to your further taunts, I trust you won't understand, but I will.

[Charles Drago]

All,

I may have something of value to offer in re the blocked IP business.

Andy "Nine-Iron" Walker orchestrated the effort to drive me from the EF. And throughout, I was his willing accomplice. I set the trap, and the little nitwit walked right into it.

It began when he blocked my IP. Then, in response to a revelatory post I made via a friend's computer, he stated publicly that I had not been banned, that if there was an access problem it must be attributable to a failure of my computer, and that in any event I was lying.

So again I used that same friend's computer, accessed the site, and posted on a topic that now escapes me.

Here's how Nine-Iron gave away his game: The following week I once again tried to access the EF from the same friend's computer, and lo and behold ... its IP address also was blocked.

After a few months and without notice, I once again could access the EF. And no, I had not repaired my computer, which otherwise had worked perfectly throughout this charade.

Nine-Iron made the terrible mistake of attempting to engage me in a battle of wits. Against all rules of gentlemanly conduct, I chose to fire on an unarmed man. He was humiliated, and he quickly disappeared my posts.

He next challenged me to a debate (on God knows what!), understanding full well my position on debating long-settled issues. All the while, Burton and the multiple identities posing as "Colby" egged him on. "Drago is a coward!" they proclaimed.

Yawn.

Nine-Iron is, in my Constitutionally protected and well-informed opinion, a liar, an agent provocateur, and a sissy.

Okay, I'll withdraw the last characterization.

There isn't a sissy under God's stars who couldn't whip his pocked posterior.

Okay, I'll withdraw that comment, too.

Nine-Iron would enjoy the whipping.

As for John Simkin, a man for whom I once harbored respect and affection, all I can offer is this expression of disappointment in the distance he has fallen and all that he has become.

And for all who don't get the "Nine-Iron" bit: It's the club that golf enthusiast Walker has shoved up his arse.

Charles Drago
March 20, 2010

[Peter Lemkin]

All,

I may have something of value to offer in re the blocked IP business.

Andy "Nine-Iron" Walker orchestrated the effort to drive me from the EF. And throughout, I was his willing accomplice. I set the trap, and the little nitwit walked right into it.

It began when he blocked my IP. At the same time he stated publicly that I had not been banned, that if there was an access problem it must be attributable to a failure of my computer, and that in any event I was lying.

So I used a friend's computer, accessed the site, and posted on a topic that now escapes me.

Here's how Nine-Iron gave away his game: The following week I once again tried to access the EF from the same friend's computer, and lo and behold ... its IP address also was blocked.

After a few months and without notice, I once again could access the EF. And no, I had not repaired my computer, which otherwise had worked perfectly throughout this charade.

Nine-Iron made the terrible mistake of attempting to engage me in a battle of wits. Against all rules of gentlemanly conduct, I chose to fire on an unarmed man. He was humiliated, and he quickly disappeared my posts.

He next challenged me to a debate (on God knows what!), understanding full well my position on debating long-settled issues. All the while, Burton and the multiple identities posing as "Colby" egged him on. "Drago is a coward!" they proclaimed.

Yawn.

Nine-Iron is, in my Constitutionally protected and well-informed opinion, a liar, an agent provocateur, and a sissy.

Okay, I'll withdraw the last characterization.

There isn't a sissy under God's stars who couldn't whip his pocked posterior.

Okay, I'll withdraw that comment, too.

Nine-Iron would enjoy the whipping.

As for John Simkin, a man for whom I once harbored respect and affection, all I can offer is this expression of disappointment in the distance he has fallen and all that he has become.

And for all who don't get the "Nine-Iron" bit: It's the club that golf enthusiast Walker has shoved up his arse.

Charles Drago
March 20, 2010

The two scenarios [yours and mine] are out of the same hymn book or dirty trick book. To wit:

Posted by: Dean Hagerman Mar 11 2010, 09:19 PM [On EF - now 'disappeared']
Andy told me that Peter has not been banned and his IP has not been blocked
However I have recieved an Email from Peter telling me that he has been blocked!
When the PM first came through I only got it in my Email Inbox, and my PM inbox on the forum has no trace of the PM that Peter sent to me
Why has this been done to him?
Why was I told his IP was not blocked?
Is this a misunderstanding?
Or is it worse?
Im going to stand up for Peter because this is wrong if it is true
Can someone tell us what is going on?
We already know that the accusations against Peter were not true, for those of you that missed the threads that were taken down

In fact I was reading with incredulity in real time Walker's denial to Dean that I had had my IP blocked, when I know it was [and NOTHING was wrong with my computer]. He'd now block any IP coming from the Czech Rep., but I've just signed up for a proxy server that gives another location, I'll not disclose.

Another similarity, see his first PM to me challenging me to a duel in which he thinks he can provoke me into a moderation offense, or worse....permanent moderation or banishment. Also note my polite and long logical explanation why I do not care to 'engage' him and his foaming-at-the-mouth response.

I'll find his [AWs] post of why he though I never should have been moderator material....in it he states NO reasons, just that 'I've always felt....' While I can't read that man's mind, I can see how he thinks. He was thinking IMO of 1] I hate his politics and positions on important conspiracies that don't conform to the political PTB and mythology of the ruling elites in his or my land.
2] He, I'm sure, though I have only [maybe] hearsay evidence - NO proof whatsoever - that although CG was sent many nasty and/or obscene emails from many different men, a man with such a different political view as mine MUST have been one of the guilty ones.
3] I have control of the 'board' and can cut off IPs, while denying it. I can even invent other avatars to speak for me [as he did with Dunn] and no one will be the wiser.
4] JS, though not of my political ilk needs me to control the technical aspects of the EF and I therefore have an advantage I can press.
5] In the end, JS will always side with me when push comes to shove, even when I'm wrong and/or have done wrong.
6] I will use the sexual perv charge upon which to build a strawman stack of false evidence and make it a case for removal, as with Drago and those others. Just give me enough time and a moment when JS is away and voila'.
7] I could continue...but I will stop here, for now......:wavey:

[Peter Lemkin]

The wishes of one Mod and the Powers that be.....sorry...maybe you can control things there with draconian bans on my words being heard and any words by members of their own construction on my behalf...but you'll not silence me until Truth has prevailed and the full story told!

Stephen Turner
Mar 17 2010, 01:04 PM Post #71 [EF - on the only one last thread about me they are now trying to THROTTLE]
Any chance we could let this die a quiet death now Ladies and Gents?
I have just deleted yet another sock puppet post.

By 'sock puppet' he means someone posting my responses or speaking for me in their own voice and words...that's a no-no! :bebored:

[Jan Klimkowski]

Loughran's post #184, bizarrely, appears to claim that Peter Lemkin's only sin was "allegedly harrassing members about avatars".

Given that EF moderator Turner's avatar looks like a Monty Python pig, this cannot be a reason for removing someone's moderator status, and subsequently banning them, deleting all their posts and allowing uncorroborated allegations of "cyber sex pestdom" to circulate.

I'm sick and tired of seeing EF's slime and nonsense on DPF.

To the EF: restore Peter Lemkin's posts or send them to him on a DVD.

To Peter Lemkin: once you have your posts, vow never to go anywhere near the EF again.

Now, clear this crock up so that DPF can continue its core function of investigating and evaluating deep political actions.