|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 18, 2010 9:16:27 GMT 10
There were a few complaints on the forum soon after the thread was deleted and I was banned. While still able to have read-only access to the forum, I saw how, to one complaint, a team member sought to retrospectively justify their actions by claiming I had since threatened them!? When another member questioned them privately they claimed they were not referring to me but to yet another member banned around the same time: However, the thread to that point was explicitly concerning me and my ban!? Despite this “excuse” they neither deleted the accusation nor clarified to whom it was directed. When I complained by email they did not reply but instead invoked a forum log-on requirement for a time, meaning, being banned, I was no longer able to follow developments.
If they had indeed meant that I had threatened them, perhaps they had inferred a “threat” of legal action in my email reply to their ban (see above): However, a “threat” of pursuing legitimate redress would not constitute a legal tort. Indeed, I suggest that an unqualified reference to a “threat” carries with it a connotation well beyond that of an inferred, albeit unintended, possibility of legal action.
All this was a pretty shocking wake-up call for me at the time, cautioning me about being too trusting on-line, even with Brethren. However, it is all history now.
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Dec 18, 2010 14:10:52 GMT 10
If you threatened legal action it would be like warning a robber you would tell the cops.
From what you say there was no Brotherly Love, Relief or Truth in your banning.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 18, 2010 15:04:53 GMT 10
My family was appalled at the time and my wife indeed urged me to sue for libel and defamation, to restore my good name. However, it would have been a complicated case, crossing National jurisdictions and involving both profane and masonic jurisprudence. Once the anti-Semitic accusation was deleted I could see little point in taking the case any further.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 19, 2010 4:09:03 GMT 10
You had the moral high ground, at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 19, 2010 18:34:10 GMT 10
And, at least T3P gave a "reason" (however misguided) for banning me, which was more than I received from MFoL.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyboucher on Dec 20, 2010 2:24:41 GMT 10
And, at least T3P gave a "reason" (however misguided) for banning me, which was more than I received from MFoL. LMAO. Most civilized people type a rebuttal when they disagree. Not Leo. Much easier to just ban people he disagrees with.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 20, 2010 3:31:04 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by bobbyboucher on Dec 20, 2010 5:41:21 GMT 10
Haha. That's rich. He banned me beofre I could even post. He took issue with my username. Told me I was free to re-register with a different name.
He told me that magusmasonica was reserved for someone else and therefore I couldn't use it. Leo said "I know for a fact you are not Brad" I asked Leo "um, I didn't realize there was a copyright on the name"
Jeesh. Some people have such a thin skin.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 20, 2010 5:56:58 GMT 10
As registration is required to logon and as one has to logon there to view the forum content, I haven't been able to see what's there, and I'm not about to put my name to a site I cann't even preview. I am very disappointed with Leo. In some ways he was a better Mason BEFORE he joined.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 20, 2010 5:59:09 GMT 10
Likewise, Steve Foley pre-banned me from the Chequered Emptiness, as soon as he started it. It has become a 1613 mouthpiece, especially now that Foley has resigned (Yes, he's quit again!) from LDH (They were too "Theosophical." Strandely, UGLE was not "esoteric" enough)
|
|