- This topic has 64 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am now leaving this site
7.05pm, 20 Jan 2021
This is just to let people know that I am leaving this site because of today’s decision by moderators (or perhaps by just one moderator, I don’t know) to delete two of my comments in the thread entitled “23 elderly patients in Norway drop dead shortly after getting the Pfizer vaccine”.
One of the two comments covered the report in the Guardian that thousands of people in Israel have become ill after taking the Pfizer vaccine.
Readers can form their own opinions about the only “explanation” that the mods have given for their decision (which they did not have the courtesy to email to me). You can in particular decide whether you believe it smacks of immaturity, petty bourgeois arrogance, or blinkeredness. You can read it in full at that link. The mods (or mod) quote from one of the texts that they deleted, and I assume that what they quote is what they objected most strongly to. Unless of course it was something else that they don’t quote. But if that’s the case, they don’t say.
This is how they respond to what they do quote:
“These are clear examples of conspiracy theory, false claims and incitement to reject public health advice. Any more propaganda in that vein and you will excluded from the forum permanently.” (Emphasis in the original.)
– without actually saying WHAT “false claims” they believe (or it appears they believe) that I made. What I said about the deaths in Norway was cited to the Guardian. What I said about thousands falling ill in Israel was cited to an article in the Briti$h Medical Journal. What I wrote about the immune system is easy to verify. So what claim did I make that is “false”? Someone’s typing fingers seem to be running far ahead of their intellect. They need to be advised to be much more careful when they use words such as “examples”, “claims”, “clear”, and “false”.
As I said in one of the deleted texts, there is massive propaganda across the MSM in Britain right now in favour of the Pfizer vaccine and, more than that, promoting second and even third doses thereof. (Is it a “conspiracy theory” to say so?)
Yet this mod accuses me of posting “propaganda”!
I suspect the problem may well not lie with ALL of the moderators but perhaps only with one single person who doesn’t have the maturity to fulfil a moderation role. Do they feel they are sorting this place out, I wonder? Of course there may be another explanation too. Anyone who knows me knows I am not going to stay here after being spoken to like that. Did they know? I have no idea. But if a) the two texts are reinstated in full and b) I receive an apology by email, I may consider returning. For the time being I won’t see anything unless it’s emailed.
In the meantime, good vibes to Craig (I dearly hope you win your court case) and good vibes to all bona fide commenters here (and indeed to any bona fide moderators too).
You never discussed anything anyway. All you did was lay down spiteful, condescending (and more often than not flat out wrong) posts. We can probably struggle on without them.
Adios, fake Marxist.
For your information N_, in recent days the moderators have deleted some rather robust complaints about your monologues, in case they might lower the tone of debate. Although your contributions were proving problematic in several ways and despite the fact you did not answer questions or engage in dialogue, we nevertheless protected your ability to state your case – within limits.
The moderators are unanimous about the decision to delete those replies for promoting misleading antivaxx propaganda. Notably, no ban or pre-moderation was imposed. However, if you’re unwilling to consent to reasonable moderation, then you’re welcome to find a more receptive (or unmoderated) platform for your views elsewhere.
Having had a quick look at your references, N, I’m jolly glad you are leaving. Your summaries are inaccurate to the point of being outright deceptive.
No, 22 people did not just drop dead after receiving the vaccine.
And no, the vaccine did not make thousands of people ill in Israel, you trickster, some of them them simply found themselves still susceptible to the virus after receiving only the first shot.
Is this why you never discuss your assertions? Because you know full well it’s disingenuous bunk?
I’d rather you’d stay N, as your posts are very informative, with some humour, albeit with some angry put downs, but better than the relentless black is white posts we are subjected too by the feudalists!
– “…immaturity, petty bourgeois arrogance, or blinkeredness. […] Anyone who knows me knows I am not going to stay here after being spoken to like that.”
Seriously?
With all N_’s hate speech towards almost every conceivable sort of public sector worker, I thought it could be a parody account, but the apparently fatally wounded ego suggests otherwise :/ Could this be what happens if one fails to realise that the Agenda 21 depopulation conspiracy theory is actually fringe right-wing FUD against the UN, and therefore fundamentally unreconcilable with Marxism?
Dong Work for Yuda – Frank Zappa, YouTube, 5 min 3 sec.
– This is the story ’bout Bald-Headed John,
– He talks a lot ‘n’ it’s usually wrong,
– Sorry John sorry better try it again…Informative? Feudalists? And isn’t Marxism a form of Dave’s most hated thing, communism? This would all be very confusing if it wasn’t for the recurrent themes that unify these jokers; conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism.
One of the two comments covered the report in the Guardian that thousands of people in Israel have become ill after taking the Pfizer vaccine.
On reading that N_ the take away is that the Pfizer vaccine caused many people to become ill, ie. a reaction to the vaccine. What the Guardian piece actually states is that many people in Israel became infected with Sars-Cov-2 virus despite having had the first dose of vaccine, not that they were ill because of the vaccine. The former is a false representation of the report whilst the latter is a real concern given the UK’s policy change to delay the second dose which falls outside established trial data protocols. Why would you wish to conflate the two?
What I said about thousands falling ill in Israel was cited to an article in the Briti$h Medical Journal.
The BMJ article linked makes no mention of Israel, only Norway and the 23 deaths there post vaccine is mentioned.
I see my post was removed. Whaa! Mods! Not fair, not fair! I’m leaving! Craig – help! Oh… sorry, I thought I was a whiny-assed conspiracy theorist there for a moment!
Seriously, though – I think if Mystic N_eg really cleaned up his ways, started being honest for a change, engaged in some proper discussion of his (ehem) fascinating ideas, he might be allowed back to post here.
IF he also sends a grovelling apology to all concerned right here in public. Apologising to the Mods, apologising to Craig Murray for abusing the privilege of posting here, and most particularly apologising to the readers for insulting our intelligence with his
liesdeliberate misleading, half-truths and condescending nonsense. Can’t say fairer than that.Glad that N_ will be booted. This is a rather serious blog which should not serve as a publicity platform for people bent on promoting pseudo-science and jeopardising public health. Sure, the many vices of the pharmaceutical sector need to be stamped out, but these problems rarely have anything to do with the safety and efficacy of actual medications.
Actually rather a lot of patronising, sarcastic, rude and authoritarian posts from some of the mods and other posters such as glenn_uk and Kashmiri who don’t condescend to justify their own assertions.
If the criteria for posting on this forum is to post only matters that follow the shining path of truth as posited by the mooderators and their fans it’s not worth a damn. I certainly didn’t agree with everything _N had to say anymore than I agree with everything anyone posts but the reaction from some of you is akin to Twitter’s policy of censorship. You’ll decide what comments can and can’t be made about the vaccines even where _N has explained his source or basis of belief. Unworthy.
Maybe there are unstated factors contributing to your sense of irritation, Ingwe.
Ingwe
2020/08/04 at 7:03 pm
[ … ] – do you like sex and travel?
—
[ Mod: Do you like posting here? Then kindly abide by the community rules … ]I think you’ll agree you provided a fine example of a “rude” comment (albeit delicately expressed). Perhaps resentment at being so moderated may account for the other attributes you project. As for “sarcastic” comments, your use of a phrase like “the shining path of truth as posited by the mooderators” provides another reference point. No matter.
The substantial issue is whether there should be limits to free speech on open platforms on the internet. Of course, this question has been a subject of intense debate over the last year or so in response to what has been widely perceived as the unregulated circulation of misinformation aimed at influencing public opinion. The emerging consensus is that some form of remedial action is appropriate: hence the revision of policies by Twitter, Facebook and other social media providers. Every blog with an open comments section faces the same challenge and each is free to respond according to their own ethical position. The good news for libertarian free speech advocates is that this means there is a plurality of responses without uniformity across the board. The bad news is that some people find they can’t write whatever they want on every platform. Indeed, they’re likely to perceive content moderation as an unwarranted restriction, and expressions of annoyance are likely to follow (see above).
We will have more to say about the ethical framework being applied here in a separate notification.
Warm regards,
Mods.N_ has self imposed his absence Ingwe. I didn’t see his two comments that were deleted so can’t comment but I did make a note about the Guardian piece above which N_ refers to. The piece relates to people in Israel becoming infected with Sars-Cov-2 after or despite having had the first dose of vaccination not to them becoming ill because of adverse reactions to the vaccine. Israel being taken as a good example because they have vaccinated the most per capita of any country.
I note, by your reproduction of my intemperate message of 4 August 2020, that you presume to discern my possible motivation for my post of last night, as a reaction to your ‘wrist slap’. It was not, and your impugning of my motivation, is an express breach of Mr Murray’s rules:
“Do not impugn the motives of others, including me.”
As you don’t provide the context of my August 2020 post, and the site doesn’t permit me to search for my posts in order for me to set out the context, I’ll provide a truncated version from memory. I don’t recall the actual topic concerned but a short comment on the topic had resulted in a series of posts all essentially ad hominem attacks on the poster. The failure of moderators to address this led to my engagement with one of the attackers. I accept that my response was rude and I took no issue with the moderation. Indeed, I am happy to apologise for it.
My post in reaction to _N’s situation was motivated by the response to several posters whose posts on N_’s comment included the following:
“You never discussed anything anyway. All you did was lay down spiteful, condescending (and more often than not flat out wrong) posts. We can probably struggle on without them.
Adios, fake Marxist.”“I’m jolly glad you are leaving. Your summaries are inaccurate to the point of being outright deceptive.”
“you trickster”
“With all N_’s hate speech”
“the apparently fatally wounded ego”
“This would all be very confusing if it wasn’t for the recurrent themes that unify these jokers; conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism.”
So the responders to N_’s post conclude that N_
Never discussed anything (manifestly untrue if you trouble to read N_’ posts
He was spiteful condescending
He was a “fake Marxist” whatever that is
That he was deceptive and a trickster
That his ego had been fatally wounded
That he engaged in hate speak
That he espoused conspiracy theories thereby making him a conspiracy theorist
That the themes that unify some people, clearly including N_, is conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism.All these comments without any discussion, evidence or argument, by posters who remain unmoderated. Contrast those posts with that of ET timed at 01:23. He disagrees with N_ but he has the decency to argue his case and not rely on invective.
Incidentally, my literary allusion to “the shining path of truth” is taken from Jorges Semprun’s ‘What a Beautiful Sunday’ a novel dealing, inter alia, with his expulsion from the Spanish Communist Party for not blindly following Stalin’s policy. He later ended up in Buchenwald. I commend the book to you.
N_ doesn’t need me or anybody else to defend him; he’s intelligent and articulate enough to speak for himself. What is bemusing however is how the examples given above appear not to have attracted moderation despite the moderator posting:
“For your information N_, in recent days the moderators have deleted some rather robust complaints about your monologues, in case they might lower the tone of debate.”
The moderator clearly didn’t find any of the comments, as set out above, to be lowering the tone of the debate or as personal attacks.
I have no desire to fall out with the moderators, posters or anyone else. Neither do I wish to spend any further of my limited time in arguing the toss. I know how difficult it is to be a forum moderator. I have moderated a forum and know both that this is a voluntary, unpaid, time consuming and emotionally draining exercise. However, like policing, it must be done with consent. For that consent to be forthcoming, the policed and moderated must see, not just read about, policies being fair, equally applied, no guilt by association and nothing that creates the impression of a self-interested clique.
I imagine that, with Mr Murray’s trial commencing this coming week, he’s not and rightly so the least bit interested in these blog issues. I will remain a subscriber to the blog, I will continue to donate to any further appeal for funds and, it goes without saying, that I wish Mr Murray good luck.
In the meantime, I shall continue to read his posts, but not trouble to comment and look forward, with interest, to reading about the ethical framework to be applied on this site. A welcome development.
Warm regards
Ingwe.
Ingwe – “If the criteria for posting on this forum is to post only matters that follow the shining path of truth as posited by the mooderators and their fans it’s not worth a damn”
I know, let’s have forums where it’s acceptable to convince children to drink poison.
We’re well rid of N_’s deception, and you’re defending a hateful liar.
Clark, I understand that you used to be a moderator.
Your post makes my point and explains why you’re no longer s moderator.Ingwe, these are the discussion forums, not the “personal propaganda” forums. People are entitled to their opinions, but they should respect facts; avoiding or misrepresenting facts is dishonest. Let me remind you; it’s:
Truth, Justice, Peace.
That’s a dependency chain; peace is impossible without justice, and justice is impossible without truth.
N_ consistently misrepresented facts, spreading false claims to the public that will increase suffering and death. N_ also consistently evaded accountability by refusing to discuss those false claims.
The right of self expression is important, but even more so are the rights to health and life.
Moderators have a duty to the public that is more important than their responsibility to individual commenters. Relativism may be very fashionable these days, and it has a superficial appeal, but it is wrong; there are such things as facts, honesty, fallacy, good and bad.
N_ left of N_’s own accord. If you also disrespect truth, and therefore also justice and peace, I’d be glad to see you clear off too. But that’s just my opinion, OK?
Oh sorry, I forgot:
“Warm regards”.
@ Ingwe – January 24, 2021 at 21:47
Clark, I understand that you used to be a moderator.
Correct. Clark used to be moderator, but he resigned over four years ago.
Your post makes my point and explains why you’re no longer s moderator.
The comment does support the issue you raised to some extent, but you’re wrong to infer that it explains why Clark is no longer a moderator. It was his choice to resign, just as it was N_’s choice to leave.
Ingwe, you evidently appreciate some of the key dilemmas of moderating a discussion forum, and I hope we can continue this conversation in due course. In the meantime, Clark’s reply @11:03 accurately represents the position of the moderation team.
Clark – you sound more like ‘The Guardian’ with every post. Who’s truth am I disrespecting? Your ‘truth’ Your ‘sacred facts’? The Guardian states “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”. So your statement
“People are entitled to their opinions, but they should respect facts; avoiding or misrepresenting facts is dishonest.”
suggests that there are facts which must always be respected and if a different interpretation of those facts is posited that amounts to dishonesty.So if N_ (or anyone else) represents facts in a manner to which you don’t concur, or puts forward alternative facts, that isn’t their opinion or commentary it is a violation of some sacred fact. As historian Howard Zinn put it in the Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy, Seven Stories Press, 1997:
“Behind any presented fact…..is a judgement-the judgement that this fact is important to put forward (and, by implication, other facts may be ignored). And any such judgement reflects the belief, the values of the historian [or journalist], however he or she pretends to ‘objectivity’.
As the commentary to this passage in Propaganda Blitz-How the Corporate Media Distort Reality reads:
“In other words, facts are not more ‘sacred’ than comment, because facts are a form of comment. The historian or journalist selects and highlights this fact rather than that fact.
The suggestion that media employees (journalists) are ‘neutral’ suppliers of ‘sacred’ facts, allows media corporations owned and sponsored by billionaires to claim that they are merely highlighting the objectively most important facts.
Clark’s dismissal of this argument as being merely a fashionable relativism, attractive but superficial, is trite in the extreme. Of course there are fallacies both good and bad, honesty. Facts are verifiable and in the context of the pandemic, there are various ‘facts’ set out by scientists of different disciplines reaching different conclusions. These findings are not absolute but may vary over time and what is presented as a fact may be changed over time.
Let me illustrate this further with an apposite example. In Mr Murray’s case, starting on Wednesday. The prosecution will, somewhere in the pleadings, have to sign a statement or statements that in their belief, the facts stated in the Crown’s case are true. In English law, both statements of case and witness statements, have to contain statements of truth. The precise statement currently in use in England for verifying witness statements (I accept the Scots Law statement may be different) is as follows:
“I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”
Mr Murray should, by Clark’s argument, just accept that these are ‘the facts’ and therefore true. Why? because the statement maker asserts his belief that they’re true. But Mr Murray has his facts that he also believes are true. The judge will be in Clark’s position; the sole arbiter of what ‘facts’ are true. Let’s hope Mr Murray’s team can cast sufficient doubts on the prosecution’s ‘sacred’ facts and put forward their truths.
I really couldn’t give a toss about whether Clark (or indeed the moderating team) will be glad if I push off. Neither do I care whether N- pushes off or not. What I will always resist are virtue signallers, happy only if their opinions and assertion of their facts are allowed to justify censorship on the specious basis that they hold the monopoly of what’s good for society as a whole.
All the best for Wednesday Mr Murray. In these dark times, even small triumphs over the powers in charge, give a glimmer of hope to the rest of us.
Ingwe
What you seem to imply is that there are ‘facts’ and there are ‘alternative facts’, an expression that has been used by Trump or one of his team before. Of course in this current debate it has become fashionable for those who know nothing about science, to have an opinion and then to present it as ‘fact’ when it is nothing of the sort. To just give an example, some posters claim that the PCR test for SARS cov2 is worthless because of a high false positive rate. Neither of these assertions are ‘facts’ in fact they are completely wrong, The PCR combines a high sensitivity and specificity. So to give equal credence to someone that somebody without any knowledge making a statement is a debatable fact is a fallacy. Other examples abound in this controversy.
N_ did try to misinterpret and misrepresent some reports in the Guardian as has been pointed out before, so it was not even that he was presenting ‘alternative facts’ but was (deliberately) misinterpreting the report he spoke of. N- has been predicting famine and food shortages since the middle of last year consistently, and none has happened.
I do understand your misgivings about deplatforming, something that has now effectively been used to silence any criticism of a certain ME country, but I think limiting the spread of misinformation is different.
A comment from someone using the pseudonym ‘Giles’, posting via an anonymous VPN, was just deleted.
It was a typical tease about the status of Covid ‘facts’, with reference to Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s critique of PCR tests.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick has already been cited as an authority many times on this site, in support of suspect propaganda. Authority arguments require the author to be representative of the expert consensus in the particular field of research; but that is clearly not the case with Dr Malcolm Kendrick, who is an extremely controversial figure regarded by the majority of experts as an outright crank: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Malcolm_Kendrick
It’s time to call time on these time-wasting distractions.
Well, this is just getting silly. ‘Giles’ just tried to post a follow-up comment, threatening to take this blog to court for defaming Dr Kendrick. He included an email that he apparently sent to Dr Kendrick. An excerpt:
If Craig is sued for defamation after he is jailed this week then I hope you are all very proud of yourselves
Dear Malcolm
Thought you might like to know, you are being maligned on the Craig Murray blog site – Discussions Section –
[ link to comment above ]
A commenter (SA) said that another commenter was wrong on opinion re accuracy of the Covid PCR test
A further commenter (Giles) challenged SA and asked who was right SA or Dr M K quoting
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/28/false-positive-tests/</p>
The Mods deleted Giles’ post and left a very uncomplimentary, some might say Libellous, reply.
The Mod’s comment … [ see above ]
Right, stop that! It’s getting too silly!!
If the comments were published in full, I’m sure avid readers would rumble who ‘Giles’ is. Needless to say, his ban is now permanent.
[ Mod note: Subsequent investigation proved that ‘Duck’ was in fact another sockpuppet deployed by ‘Node’, who had already been suspended for sockpuppetry. ]
—Just spotted this discussion. Here’s my experience for what it’s worth.
I was sent to Craig Murray’s blog by a friend who said it had a good discussion forum about covid-19. She later confirmed she was having a joke at my expense. She laughed out loud when I told her what I’d experienced. Then she apologized.
I’ve never seen such a level of abuse on a moderated forum. Entire comments with no point other than to heap sarcastic vitriol on any who dare to even mildly challenge the mainstream Covid-19 narrative. And the most alarming feature is the seeming inability of the main protagonists (like others, I do not include ET) to believe that honest disagreement is possible. They claim everybody who espouses a contrary view is deliberately lying to hide their true agenda which is to kill people!!!! (Can they really be so blinkered as to believe that, or is it a tactic to demonize their opponents?)
Ignoring the abuse is not an option. Meaningful discussion is impossible when your every comment triggers half a dozen abusive ones misrepresenting your position, which if not corrected are then repeated as though they were your position.
The abuse is very one-sided, there is little retaliation from the narrative-skeptics. Yet in my short experience, I’ve seen 2 skeptics (3 including myself) driven from the thread and another driven off the entire blog.
From what I’ve seen of the rest of the site, it is well moderated and smooth running, no doubt at the expense of many hours of unsung unpaid work. The covid-19 threads are the exception. It must be very challenging to moderate these contentious threads, but allowing mob rule isn’t the answer.
Ingwe, that’s a huge amount of waffle by you at 14:33; the situation has already been summarised very succinctly by ET on January 24 at 00:39 –
– “The piece relates to people in Israel becoming infected with Sars-Cov-2 after or despite having had the first dose of vaccination not to them becoming ill because of adverse reactions to the vaccine.”
N_ misrepresented his source, thus producing an anti-vaccine argument that is groundless, ie. N_ acted dishonestly.
N_ had been on and on for weeks claiming that covid-19 vaccines are actually a covert tool for culling the population. This is very obviously conspiracy theory – not an allegation of conspiracy between a finite number of people with evidence to support it, such as Craig has done several times. Rather, groundless FUD that entire swathes of society the world over are actively engaged in trying to kill off the unwary reader. N_ then took to deliberately misrepresenting sources to fake evidence for this FUD.
Ingwe, f you have any concern for Craig, you should be happy to see such behaviour curtailed, for it dilutes Craig’s work and contaminates it, laying him open to false accusations of “running a conspiracy theory website”, when in fact he exposes actual conspiracies.
