Post by Tamrin on Oct 1, 2011 19:31:35 GMT 10
On a forum best not to name lest it be given undue oxygen, a libellous post was published and the thread locked before I could defend myself. I P.M.’d requesting my right of reply but this was not given. Hence:
Background:
The libellous post:
Open response to Lorraine B. (LorrB aka Maat):
The Andrew Bolt case was one of expressing opinions, without due regard for the facts. By sharing those opinions on a publicly accessible forum you are publishing them.
As for the specific allegations you allege of me:
Evil: Please show an example/s of my usage of this term. As I recall it was either used in the context of what enlightenment philosophy considers “social evils” (e.g. ignorance, superstition and tyranny) or in the specific example cited of Alice and Foster Baileys' extreme anti-Semitic filth.
Arrogant: I do not recall my usage of this term on your forum. However, had I done so, it would have been appropriate in the same context where I have properly used the term “vanity” in relation to some extraordinary special knowledge claims.
Ignorant: I make no apology for my usage of the term. With a few exceptions, the forum is willfully ignorant, choosing to ignore evidence (even to delete links) which thoroughly debunk many of the fantasies asserted there as fact (not just as opinion). Moreover, you have admitted as much (“I don't think I am intelligent enough or experienced enough to do either of those things”, in the context of being asked to, “Speculate by all means: Then corroborate or debunk.“).
Tyrannous: I only mentioned the term in passing as it was included in the duty of a Knight Kadosh of things to oppose, together with the social evils I had in mind of ignorance and superstition (“The duty of a Knight Kadosh is to dispel ignorance, punish crime, and to make war against ignorance, superstition, and tyranny”). I do not believe I applied the term to you or to others on this forum. However, now the matter is raised, your deleting of posts, locking of threads, denial of the right of reply, banning of an innocent word (“woo”), intimidation, and fraudulent altering of posts, show a tendency in that direction (yet you accuse ME of bullying for steadfastly sticking to facts and logic!?).
Fraudulent: This term was aptly used where you altered some of my posts to have them read in a sense suggesting I had written something other than what I had.
Filth: This was only used, and justifiably so, in the case of the Bailey’s extreme anti-Semitic filth.
Think evil: See evil (above).
I reiterate my concern at the forum willfully ignoring (even deleting) facts which debunk much of the nonsense fantasized about there by Freemasons (giants, aliens, unicorns, and more), under the name of Freemasonry. I further note I have not received a straight reply to the question of whether or not the forum is being conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the LDH lodge whose name it bears.
Ms B. is a member of this forum (registered twice) and while she has yet to post here I look forward in this instance to her reply to this post and / or to the deletion of her libellous post on the other forum.
Background:
Stewart, What you so admire about my hard fight "for equality and fairness in freemasonry (re womens rights)" (ongoing), really, REALLY angers some people, who feel I am insisting on "my way or the highway." Here we have the same approach with a different project, the only difference being that you support the one project but not the other. Go figure.
Tamrin, being a woman, I thank you for your support in this area, truly. However you might like to extend your hard fight for equality and fairness to allowing women (and men) to think their own thoughts.
Otherwise what you will end up with is a lodge full of people who are happy to follow you.
Otherwise what you will end up with is a lodge full of people who are happy to follow you.
As repeatedly stated, freedom of thought is not at issue here: No one could, even if they wished, stop another thinking whatever they choose to think (notions here of stealing or implanting thoughts not withstanding).
The issue here is one of freedom of expression, which both sides here agree, carries with it responsibilities (indeed, the censors have been at work undermining one side of the debate, in what they see as breaches of that responsibility).
There is a responsibility to investigate and to be sure of one’s facts before publishing (forums are not exempt and, yes, posting here constitutes publishing). While I am not suggesting the matter here be tested at law, perhaps we might consider the principles underlying yesterday’s ruling in the Andrew Bolt case. We might also consider that many people have an interest in the reputation of Freemasonry and that its undue association with what is generally thought of as pseudosciences (or worse) might reasonably be said to damage that reputation.
If you have solid evidence, go with it. If not, give regard to the facts of the matter and to the reputation of the fraternity.
The issue here is one of freedom of expression, which both sides here agree, carries with it responsibilities (indeed, the censors have been at work undermining one side of the debate, in what they see as breaches of that responsibility).
There is a responsibility to investigate and to be sure of one’s facts before publishing (forums are not exempt and, yes, posting here constitutes publishing). While I am not suggesting the matter here be tested at law, perhaps we might consider the principles underlying yesterday’s ruling in the Andrew Bolt case. We might also consider that many people have an interest in the reputation of Freemasonry and that its undue association with what is generally thought of as pseudosciences (or worse) might reasonably be said to damage that reputation.
If you have solid evidence, go with it. If not, give regard to the facts of the matter and to the reputation of the fraternity.
The libellous post:
Yet again, Tamrin - I will point out to you that we only SHARE our OPINIONS on subjects and share our interests.
Re the Andrew Bolt case... you might be feeling a little nervous now that you have publicly stated (published) that we are evil, arrogant, ignorant, tyrannous, fraudulent, post filth and think evil etc etc etc
I am locking this thread out of respect for "Lodge Energy" and Stewart Edwards, who started what could have been a wonderful experience for our readers.
Re the Andrew Bolt case... you might be feeling a little nervous now that you have publicly stated (published) that we are evil, arrogant, ignorant, tyrannous, fraudulent, post filth and think evil etc etc etc
I am locking this thread out of respect for "Lodge Energy" and Stewart Edwards, who started what could have been a wonderful experience for our readers.
Open response to Lorraine B. (LorrB aka Maat):
The Andrew Bolt case was one of expressing opinions, without due regard for the facts. By sharing those opinions on a publicly accessible forum you are publishing them.
As for the specific allegations you allege of me:
Evil: Please show an example/s of my usage of this term. As I recall it was either used in the context of what enlightenment philosophy considers “social evils” (e.g. ignorance, superstition and tyranny) or in the specific example cited of Alice and Foster Baileys' extreme anti-Semitic filth.
Arrogant: I do not recall my usage of this term on your forum. However, had I done so, it would have been appropriate in the same context where I have properly used the term “vanity” in relation to some extraordinary special knowledge claims.
Ignorant: I make no apology for my usage of the term. With a few exceptions, the forum is willfully ignorant, choosing to ignore evidence (even to delete links) which thoroughly debunk many of the fantasies asserted there as fact (not just as opinion). Moreover, you have admitted as much (“I don't think I am intelligent enough or experienced enough to do either of those things”, in the context of being asked to, “Speculate by all means: Then corroborate or debunk.“).
Tyrannous: I only mentioned the term in passing as it was included in the duty of a Knight Kadosh of things to oppose, together with the social evils I had in mind of ignorance and superstition (“The duty of a Knight Kadosh is to dispel ignorance, punish crime, and to make war against ignorance, superstition, and tyranny”). I do not believe I applied the term to you or to others on this forum. However, now the matter is raised, your deleting of posts, locking of threads, denial of the right of reply, banning of an innocent word (“woo”), intimidation, and fraudulent altering of posts, show a tendency in that direction (yet you accuse ME of bullying for steadfastly sticking to facts and logic!?).
Fraudulent: This term was aptly used where you altered some of my posts to have them read in a sense suggesting I had written something other than what I had.
Filth: This was only used, and justifiably so, in the case of the Bailey’s extreme anti-Semitic filth.
Think evil: See evil (above).
I reiterate my concern at the forum willfully ignoring (even deleting) facts which debunk much of the nonsense fantasized about there by Freemasons (giants, aliens, unicorns, and more), under the name of Freemasonry. I further note I have not received a straight reply to the question of whether or not the forum is being conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the LDH lodge whose name it bears.
Ms B. is a member of this forum (registered twice) and while she has yet to post here I look forward in this instance to her reply to this post and / or to the deletion of her libellous post on the other forum.