Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum

[Terry Mauro]

The 'molestation' that was targeted at me was for real, whereas the faux accounts of me having done something untoward to more than one unidentified persons were shown to be false. What did they know [or invent]; and when did they know it [or invent it]!? I have proofs that makes their dissembling lies look very bad, indeed. Emails have come in offering to be living witnesses along with the documentation. Thanks, now can anyone figure out how to extract my posts from the wayback machine or some such?! I'm devastated by the loss!!!

*************************************

Peter, did you ever find out who the female making this "supposed" complaint really was? Because, I would personally like to have the honor of publicly confronting her and verbally ripping her to shreds.

Any female who would underhandedly go running behind someone's back, like an hysterical schoolgirl, crying foul, without having confronted her supposed molester first, deserves to be called out and ridiculed for her miserable folly. She goes crying wolf, instead. She's something we in the U.S. refer to as a "cock-teaser."

And, just because she's a woman doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable for her phony sexual harassment accusations, which can damage a man's reputation, as well as his credibility in the academic arena.

She also needs to heed the fact that unless she's prepared to step in and play with the big guys, but then decides she's gotten in a little too over her head, then she should keep her damned mouth shut and go back to her "domestic goddess" classes.

No man in his right mind is going to persist in making advances to a bitch like that, unless she's luring him on, and hasn't put the brakes on by warning him of her lack of interest in his pursuit, or telling him he's got the wrong idea about her. Which doesn't seem to have been the case here.

Recently, at the office I work for, an incident occurred where this newly hired female employee acted out in a way like most of us raunchy females are wont to do, at lunch hour, boasting of our prowess, [or lack of] due to the aging process in us older gals, and sometimes a couple of the male techs are present, and we all kid around because we've been working together for more than a decade, and know each other really well.

Well, the new hiree was acting out like the rest of us basically, getting the laughs and guffaws we are likely to,
and as we've done for years. Us "oldsters" usually end up mentoring the younger girls with our unabashed literal
descriptions of our previous escapades. All done in fun and as a way of easing the tension on the job. And, sometimes as a way of settling scores, or any dissension among the ranks. We've all become a family of sorts over the years.

Then, one lunch time one of our male techs swatted the new hiree on the butt, to which she turned around and bashed him over the head with her rather large handbag. The male tech began apologizing profusely, saying he didn't know what came over him and made him do such a thing. All the while this chick is castigating him, saying she's a married woman, yadda, yadda, yadda...

After which, I and one of the schedulers, who is one of the older mentors, exclaimed to him, "What do you think we're here for? You don't go swatting the newbie on the butt like that. You don't even know her that well."

I could see it as plain as day. Now, all our fun would be locked down, and there would be no more risque, ribald conversations allowed at the round table in the lounge, no more teasing the youngsters about how inexperienced they were. Which had a way of teaching them, I guess by way of example. Such as, how to avoid screwing your life up by not repeating some of the idiotic, inappropriate things we had done, in the past, having had firsthand knowledge of the consequences.

Anyway, the newbie decides to rat out the male tech by threatening to sue the job. Next thing we know, we all have to go to a seminar for sexual harassment. And, this is what happened.

The woman they had counseling us happened to be part of the organization's consulting group, and whom I had recognized as being the one who had supervised the restructuring of the company, last year, by having all the employees laid off, and re-hired back in the same day. Which naturally I voiced, "I remember you. You're the one who fired and hired us back, all in the same day, last year." Which kind of caught her off guard, and set the stage for a confrontational meeting, to say the least.

Well, to make a long story short, she gave us an example of a woman who was hired by a trucking company, and when asked if she thought she would be able to feel comfortable working in an all male shop around a bunch of guys, she immediately piped up that she wanted to be treated like one of the guys, not to worry about carrying on, and swearing or cussing around her, because she cussed like a sailor, herself.

But, after six months of hanging out with the guys, and carrying on with the camaraderie, she decided she had changed her mind and wanted to be treated like a lady.

Now, that would be all well and good, except for one thing. She put in a sexual harassment complaint to the owner, implicating all of her former "buddies."

I immediately voiced my opinion stating, "FOUL!" You don't go into an all male department, carry on like one of the guys, and then 6 months later decide it's no longer fun, and you want to stop this behavior. At that point she should have resigned and looked for a job elsewhere, NOT sue the company for sexual harassment citing all the guys she supposedly and previously stated she wanted to emulate, when she hired on."

Well, the complainant had solicited some high powered attorneys to take her case, and the consequences of her actions caused this small trucking company to file for bankruptcy after paying her off. Also, one of the truckers cited in the action ended up going into his garage one night and blowing his brains out.

Which is where my question comes in, time and time again. Where does a female get the right to destroy someone's reputation, career, home, and job security just because she decides it's no longer any fun, or that she's bored or tired of the game?

No one was beat up, raped, or unwillingly coerced into performing any lewd or lascivious acts, here. Needless to say, I stuck to my guns about women who think they can swim with the sharks, but then turn themselves into "damsels in distress" expecting to make a windfall out of suing the shirts off unsuspecting males, in the interim.

The moral of the story is, "Ladies, if you think you're going to get in over your head, do not willfully participate." And, "Men, steer clear of women who would lead you to believe they are as sports-minded, or fair-minded as you, because society allows them to be able to change their minds as frequently as they change their drawers.

Why? Because, women can always fall back on the excuse that they are the fairer sex, and weaker than the male of the species. Yeah, they're weak all right, but not in the head, and not when it comes to knowing how to sue your sorry ass off. That's when they're most likely to turn into the barracudas they really are.

Sorry if I offended any of the ladies out there, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

So, who is she, Peter?

Your friend,
Ter

[Peter Lemkin]

Even if she didn't act in a fully rational, ethical nor properly-timed way, I'm too much of a gentleman to publicly give her name. It turns out that one moderator, at least, had told some other members about this long ago and a whispering campaign had long gone on. I also know that when this person complained, they pointed the finger at several men!!, however, only I was to the loathing of the PTB, due to my political views, IMO. I know and can prove that it was not true in my case. I privately offered to prove it wrong and clear my name about 6 months before things 'blew-up'; but that was an offer not taken. The fix was in - I was set-up and taken-down. Walker's standard M.O. is MIHOP; and the other Administrator apparently usually goes along with LIHOP. Contact me privately if you must get the details. :listen: It is rather ironic, indeed, that a man who claims to not believe in conspiracy quite regularly engages in same - this can only be understood by concepts of the Shadow and psychological denial, IMO...oh and a liberal dollop [about a ton] of pure malice and evil. Not even Gratz had all of his posts expunged. I really sink into deeper and deeper depression that 10,000 hours of work, thought, history only known by me - expressed as truly and as heartfelt as I could was made to disappear. Enormous effort over six years gone. The magic trick - or dirty trick done in spite, or....more sinister reasons? :hmmmm2:

[Magda Hassan]

Hi Terry! The woman is Xxxxxx Xxxx. It wasn't rocket science to work it out. We all know it is not any of the women from JFK or Political Conspiracies. We all know Peter, some for many years, and we all know what he does and doesn't do. We know he is not a sexual harasser. I have gone on the record at the EF to say Peter has never been known to act as such and I have certainly never been at the receiving end of it from him. Frustratingly, Peter has never uttered her name to me, despite my demands, as he is too much of the gentleman to do so but I have had it conformed from Xxxxxx herself that it is her. I have been in communication with her and encouraged her to go public. Either to stand by her original claims of sexual harassment or to say there was no basis in them to clear Peter. Peter has all the emails from her and the photos of herself she sent him. He sent her a photo of himself and his dog, as he would. The same one which he uses on the Ed Forum before all his posts and details were deleted.
At this stage it seems she has not the strength of character to go public and either stand by her original charges or to stand by Peter and say they were unfounded. She seems to be reacting defensively and abandoning any responsibility for the situation claiming that it wasn't her that asked Walker to ban him etc. But it seems to me her inaction is akin to some one walking away from a train wreck and saying "Well, I wasn't the driver and it wasn't my fault" and then feeling no moral obligation or basic human decency to help the maimed and injured in this totally unnecessary train wreck or even to bother to call an ambulance. Which I find really sad. Perhaps she doesn't realise the gravity of a ruined reputation in the age of Google. All of this will seriously impact on Peter's future employment and dating prospects.

In any case she said that there was nothing to what Peter said. It was a misunderstanding which is what Peter always said. As she said to me she has no ill-will towards him. But others do and I think that xxxxxx's unfounded original complaint has been used like a club by others to hit him hard and where it hurts most. Then his defense is denied him. All posts disappeared and Peter accused of 'paranoia' of all things, his mental heath questioned on the forum, as if there wasn't some set up to get rid of him when we all saw it played out before our eyes. And not an apology public or private.

[Magda Hassan]

Even if she didn't act in a fully rational, ethical nor properly-timed way, I'm too much of a gentleman to publicly give her name. It turns out that one moderator, at least, had told some other members about this long ago and a whispering campaign had long gone on. I also know that when this person complained, they pointed the finger at several men!!, however, only I was to the loathing of the PTB, due to my political views, IMO. I know and can prove that it was not true in my case. I privately offered to prove it wrong and clear my name about 6 months before things 'blew-up'; but that was an offer not taken.

Yes. Len posted something about knowing about it

If it weren't for Peter and Jack only John, Andy, Peter, the woman and I would have known about this and even I wasn't sure it was Peter.

[David Guyatt]

What gets me is the absolute malice involved in starting the thread to play this out in public. If there were any real belief that it was a genuine complaint then it should've been handled privately amongst the admins and moderators.

But to make it a public excoriating exercise to flay Peter in public 6 months after the apparent "misunderstanding" was made is simply beyond evil.

It could have been nothing but a "get Peter" campaign and when I look at those who went along with it, and those who publicly defended Peter, but have since shut up their gobs when told to do so, I am left baffled by what manner of people they really are.

[Peter Lemkin]

Even if she didn't act in a fully rational, ethical nor properly-timed way, I'm too much of a gentleman to publicly give her name. It turns out that one moderator, at least, had told some other members about this long ago and a whispering campaign had long gone on. I also know that when this person complained, they pointed the finger at several men!!, however, only I was to the loathing of the PTB, due to my political views, IMO. I know and can prove that it was not true in my case. I privately offered to prove it wrong and clear my name about 6 months before things 'blew-up'; but that was an offer not taken.

Yes. Len posted something about knowing about it

If it weren't for Peter and Jack only John, Andy, Peter, the woman and I would have known about this and even I wasn't sure it was Peter.

I guess I missed that by the last it you mentioned - surprise, surprise HE knew!...I know others who did too....well, well before Jack mentioned anything. It was a 'get anyone (in this case, me) left of, or calling for stronger action than those in the range from Liberal to Attila the Hun off of their turf'. One mod made that clear in his last post. Mr. W in every one of his. I'm not sure it was fair Magda to name her [and would even request you delete that]. She'll never believe, as you and I know, that I didn't tell you...and so will never do more to save my posts; as it is far too late to save me from the deadly trainwreck [rail to sleeper pins pulled, methinks], and damage to reputation et al.! Why destroy hers? While I may not be happy [understatement] with how she (re)acted, the real villains in this staged piece were all men [in the purely genetic sense, only].

[Magda Hassan]

No, Peter, there were other women who knew too. It's not rocket science. And we are women after all. 'They' are never going to believe you anyway what ever the situation. You can do no right. Already they are saying it was me who mentioned the allegations over there. It wasn't me. I merely put it on record that you had never behaved inappropriately to me or to others that I know and that kept disappearing even before the show trial and great purge and airbrushing out of all your posts. I put that on the record because the allegations against you were on the record. I had hoped that Xxxxxx would also put things on the record. Others also cleared you of any such behavior as it related to them. Of course all gone. With everything else even more precious. Personally, I don't know how people could not know it is her. There is plenty of hot and sweaty testosterone all over her posts by some of the 'men' there. She's a good looking young woman according to her avatar. No doubt some of them have emailed her and wanted to know her in the biblical sense.

[Peter Lemkin]

No, Peter, there were other women who knew too. It's not rocket science. And we are women after all. 'They' are never going to believe you anyway what ever the situation. You can do no right. Already they are saying it was me who mentioned the allegations over there. It wasn't me. I merely put it on record that you had never behaved inappropriately to me or to others that I know and that kept disappearing even before the show trial and great purge and airbrushing out of all your posts. I put that on the record because the allegations against you were on the record. I had hoped that Cigdem would also put things on the record. Others also cleared you of any such behavior as it related to them. Of course all gone. With everything else even more precious. Personally, I don't know how people could not know it is her. There is plenty of hot and sweaty testosterone all over her posts by some of the 'men' there. She's a good looking young woman according to her avatar. No doubt some of them have emailed her.

Well I'm still uncomfortable about it. Not only were the non-real allegations made public and used to hang me - the man on the fast horse pulling-up to the gallows just moments too late to save me, when I believe they knew before and certain could have settled it months earlier - now those who hate me will get her to yet reverse her statement once more.....lets end the drama. My only request is that they replace the posts and know they have hung themselves by their own petards!

[David Guyatt]

Pete, one cannot make an allegation, then withdraw it and then repeat it again. The flip-flopping would destroy any credibility they have. So I wouldn't fear on that front.

The ladies had it dead to rights -- and who better to know and understand. :damnmate:

Your ire has to focus entirely on the willy who started the whole mess rolling and his brother-willy-in-arms who came along, like a Mandelson creature, to make his proclamation of a Friday - not before - so that there was the whole weekend to defuse the protests (a period when many members do not visit their forums).

Fyi, it is traditional in the UK, for bad political news to be published on a Friday because all the MP's have travelled back to their home constituencies for the weekend and are not present to take action. For those who remember, the same "week-end' thing happened with the flaming row that led to the founding of this forum.

This is why I cannot help but conclude that this whole affair wasn't an accident, but was rather the result of a decision to get rid of you -- and to achieve that a ploy had to be set in motion. A false sexual harassment allegation was the ideal vehicle to draw sympathy from other moderators for the planned public hanging, drawing, quartering and removal of privy parts.

That, I believe, was the controlling mindset that guided this drama.

And so the usual drooling dogs were loosed from their kennels.

[Peter Lemkin]

I had missed the Friday factor. Thanks for pointing that out. Par for the 'course' (par infinite if you don't play their 'game'). Without belaboring the fine points there was much more foul going on in the background I know of than was apparent on the surface. Had the excuse of the minor mistake, withdrawn not worked, they would have found another and in fact, did. There was a vote on my being mod [with no explanation of why a vote - no mention of having done wrong and why then without ability to be faced with charges and defend against them]. Immediately after the vote without doing anything but objecting in non-foul language I was expunged [not just removed as mod]. Somewhere in there only for the blink of an eye some mention buried in a long thread, about to meet the fate of all unfixed computer code, was that the 'allegations' were a mistake - but this didn't reverse the 'operation' in place. Like Hitler whispering 'sorry' en soto voci with a smile, as the tanks and bombing rolled on and rained down during the blitzkrig. Ah, felt great. So just. I was 'educated' for sure! :top: Is corporal punishment still part of the UK education system?