SEARCH

edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: A warning to all here...


< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LC Security and Related Issues | FACTNET.ORG FORUM

05-21-2011 08:52 PM

theadmin

A warning to all here...

There are at least a half dozen on this thread, most who are senior members that should know how to conduct themselves properly but fail to do so. I won't name them, you know who you are. Another thing, If someone brings me proof that a member is using different IPs and aliases, They will be gone.

Now I get complaints about most of you but there is one culprit that constantly comes across my desk from many different members. I believe they are the main instigator that brings out the worst in all of you.

I was going to ban Ace for a year but see no sense in it because I highly doubt they will change. So I am banning him/her permanently. I hope things will change here for the better. If not I will eliminate the whole LaRouche forum.

Thank you all... Capt Frank Furillo

05-21-2011 09:01 PM

theadmin

One more thing. I am sure that "Ace" will get another IP and start again under a different moniker. So please keep an eye out for brand new members on this forum and let me know if you detect anything "hinkey".

05-22-2011 12:43 AM

howie

I don't know what you did, but the page that comes up for "Last Page" -- 343 -- leads to a dead link. The last post comes back all the way to page 293 -- which ends with my farewell to chator -- and to click anything after 293 gets a dead link.

..............

Okay. I fixed the problem by simply posting a new post. Still -- did the pages really drop from 343 to 293?

05-22-2011 01:28 PM

turtle

Originally Posted by theadmin
One more thing. I am sure that "Ace" will get another IP and start again under a different moniker. So please keep an eye out for brand new members on this forum and let me know if you detect anything "hinkey".

Frank I think that ace has three friends. I seen a horn.
God love encompasses us. Jesus Saves!!
EmpiricallyEMPIR'ICALLY, adv. By experiment; according to experience; without science; in the manner of quacks.

05-22-2011 02:11 PM

Eliane

Dear Captain,

I am dismayed that on the LaRouche board Ace and Ace alone among all posters has been banned, when he was nearly the singular voice against the foul lie that the young student Jermiah Duggan was murdered while attending a conference in Germany. Objective eyewitnesses have said without exception that Duggan ran into traffic alone, making his death a well observed suicide. While I agree that Ace’s etiquette is not perfect, it is not nearly so gross as the screaming and raving of the highly abusive Peter Tennenbaum. Ace at least does not lie, whereas others do chronically, especially Dennis King.

I realize that as a private board, Factnet is free to ignore standards of fairness, but does it really want to?

The people still posting are not suffering from abuse in cults and could not care less about them. Most have either never been near LaRouche or at least have not seen him for decades. They are out to suppress certain political theories and libel people who do not agree with their own.

Peace, Eliane

05-22-2011 06:01 PM

dking

Originally Posted by Eliane
Dear Captain,
Ace at least does not lie, whereas others do chronically, especially Dennis King.

Eliane you have every right to disagree with me. But I find it curious that often when followers of LaRouche challenge things I've written--usually while calling me a liar or a pothead or worse--and I reply by presenting some of the evidence that supports what I've written, the LaRouchians make no attempt to seriously refute this evidence. They just keep on calling me names, or they change the subject. They do this to other LaRouche critics also.

Now you can disagree with my analysis of particular evidence, or you can find a fact that I got wrong, and say I was mistaken about that fact, but to accuse me of being a chronic liar, or even just a liar, is verbal abuse. And the same goes for what you posted about me a few weeks ago:

Talking in code is unnecessary. For instance if someone is overhead using the term "worm" to apply to a creature in human guise, it could be interpreted as code for Dennis King. Let's not bother. Dennis King is a worm, with no offense intended to the latter, which don't understand the anthropomorphic significance anyway. If saying so makes me an antismite, someone, please, write me a name tag.

Do you really want a name tag as an "antismite"? Cut out this silly rhetoric and behave like an adult.

05-22-2011 10:02 PM

kheris

Originally Posted by Eliane
Ace at least does not lie, whereas others do chronically, especially Dennis King.

I realize that as a private board, Factnet is free to ignore standards of fairness, but does it really want to?
I am going to assume that you simply haven't read everything that he posted. If you had, you would know he got a warning before he got banned, and it had to do with his behavior, specifically his posts involving individuals he named who have nothing to do with this site. One of the posts include an offensive personal slur. In my view the posts, at the very least, bordered on defamatory. That was acceptable to him, it may be acceptable to you, it wasn't to me, and evidently not to Capt. Frank. Thus the warning.

05-22-2011 11:55 PM

Eliane

Originally Posted by kheris
I am going to assume that you simply haven't read everything that he posted. If you had, you would know he got a warning before he got banned, and it had to do with his behavior, specifically his posts involving individuals he named who have nothing to do with this site. One of the posts include an offensive personal slur. In my view the posts, at the very least, bordered on defamatory. That was acceptable to him, it may be acceptable to you, it wasn't to me, and evidently not to Capt. Frank. Thus the warning.

People on a campaign to make a suicide into a murder and pin it on innocent people have no standing to determine what is defamatory. And no, I have not read all the posts of Ace or others -- especially those that are long and repetitive.

05-23-2011 12:29 AM

kheris

Originally Posted by Eliane
People on a campaign to make a suicide into a murder and pin it on innocent people have no standing to determine what is defamatory.

People who are dragged into a forum discussion and subjected to a personal attack by a 3rd party have standing. The administrators who are not posters here also have standing.

And no, I have not read all the posts of Ace or others -- especially those that are long and repetitive.

Then you probably saved yourself much boredom, but I believe you also missed the point behind the warning, and the banning.

05-23-2011 12:36 PM

chator

Why "Ace" was Banned

Originally Posted by Eliane
Dear Captain,
I am dismayed that on the LaRouche board Ace and Ace alone among all posters has been banned, when he was nearly the singular voice against the foul lie that the young student Jermiah Duggan was murdered while attending a conference in Germany. Objective eyewitnesses have said without exception that Duggan ran into traffic alone, making his death a well observed suicide. While I agree that Ace’s etiquette is not perfect, it is not nearly so gross as the screaming and raving of the highly abusive Peter Tennenbaum. Ace at least does not lie, whereas others do chronically, especially Dennis King.
I realize that as a private board, Factnet is free to ignore standards of fairness, but does it really want to?
The people still posting are not suffering from abuse in cults and could not care less about them. Most have either never been near LaRouche or at least have not seen him for decades. They are out to suppress certain political theories and libel people who do not agree with their own.
Peace, Eliane

"Ace" was banned because FactNet is a message board dedicated to getting information out about cults and giving former members of cults a place to discuss and be heard. "Ace" came to the LaRouche thread denying that the LaRouche organization is a cult, and calling anyone who made that claim a liar. He insensitively attacked the few persons who have most been victimized by the LaRouche organization, the Duggan family, Molly Kronberg, and Peter Tennenbaum, not once, but repeatedly. He did not come to this message board with an open mind, but with an axe to grind. The issue here is not about facts, or lies, or etiquette, it is about behavior that goes against the spirit of the forum. You seem to be mimicking "ace" in denying that anyone who posts here has been a victim of a cult. I would guess you have a vested interest in defending LaRouche. This claim about political suppression is a common accusation used repeatedly by LaRouche and his organizers.

"Anybody who is not making forecasts, useful forecasts, about volcanoes and earthquakes, should be thrown out of public office." Lyndon LaRouche, April 19th 2011 webcast

05-26-2011 08:26 PM

howie

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/sky-writing-or-when-man-first-met-troll/239420/

Editor's note: Stevan Harnad wrote the following essay in 1987 while at Princeton just as the Internet we know coalesced into being. [...]

But then something quite unexpected happened. With hindsight I can now see that there had already been some hints that not all was as it should be. First, veteran e-mailers and skywriters had warned me that I ought to restrict my contributions to the "moderated" groups. (Most of the subjects discussed on the Net -- including physics, mathematics, philosophy, language, artificial intelligence, and so on -- have, respectively, both a moderated and an unmoderated group.) I ignored these warnings because postings to the moderated groups are first filtered through a moderator, who reads all the candidate articles and then posts only those he judges to be of value. I reasoned that I could make that judgment for myself -- one keystroke will jettison any piece of skywriting that does not interest you -- and that "moderation" certainly isn't worth the huge backward step toward the old technology that the delays and bottle-necking would entail. And indeed the moderated groups carry much less material and their exchanges are a good deal more sluggish than the unmoderated ones, which seem to be as "live" and spontaneous as direct e-mail (but with the added virtue of appearing in the sky for all to see and contribute to).

Apart from the warnings of the veterans, other harbingers of cloudier horizons had been the low quality of many of the responses to my postings, and the undeniable fact that some of them were distinctly unscholarly, in fact, downright rude. No matter. I'm thick-skinned, I reasoned, and perfectly able and willing to exercise my own selectivity solo, in exchange for the vast potential of unmoderated skywriting.

Then it happened. In response to a rather minor posting of mine, joining what was apparently a long-standing exchange (on whether or not linguistic gender plays a causal role in social discrimination), there suddenly appeared such an astonishing string of coprolalic abuse (the lion's share not directed at me, but at some other poor unfortunate who had contributed to earlier phases of the exchange) that I was convinced some disturbed or malicious individual had gained illicit access to someone else's computer account. I posted a stately response about how steps must be taken to prevent such abuses of the Net and, much to my surprise, the reaction was a torrent of echo-coprolalia from all directions, posted (it's hard to judge in this medium whether it was with a straight face) under the guise of defending free speech. For several weeks the Net looked like a global graffiti board, with my name in the center.

The veteran fliers told me they'd told me so; that the Net was in reality a haven for student pranksters and borderline personalities, motherboard-bred, for whom the completely unconstrained nature of the unmoderated groups represents an irresistible medium for acting out.

...............................

See also:
http://cmp.hku.hk/2011/05/09/12125/

06-07-2011 03:24 PM

Hylozoic Hedgehog

Captain Frank Help!

Dear Captain Frank

Hylozoic Hedgehog here. Please remove me from Factnet as I've been on the site for some time and it's now time to leave. None of this has anything to do with the recent turmoil here. I just feel that I have said all I have to say on all things LaRouche. I hope that when I am removed, however, my posts will stay in tact.

As a paying member of FN, I really appreciate it as a tremendous resource and I've very much enjoyed my time here even though it's now time to move on.

Thanks,

HH

 
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on September 18, 2012, at 01:47 PM