Welcome OMF Members

[The Watchers]

Congratulations on meeting the 98 percent accuracy rating predicted for the downfall of this localized test group. Childish behavior, sophomoric retaliations, cross board attacks, thought police, traitors, bullies, defenders of truth and justice, and on and on we go around this merry-go-round. Could add more but think you all get the point. This group equates to a freshman class at your local secondary school. Aren't you proud.

Will not go into depth with information, but this group missed many significant details. Round 2 of Source A. And much to our surprise, one of your sources has been a pain in our ass with some-what accurate details. We have forced this source to go dormant for the immediate future. The IRS and warrants can work miracles. ;D

Reality television at it's worse. No? How about a soap opera? As the reality world turns. It has it all: The main characters, bit players, Tubby the wanna-be writer, Jimmy the drunk who likes women younger then his scotch, the senile old fart who believes he is a
general; poor, friendless Billy who talks to imaginary creatures. Hard to stop when on a roll.

Please continue with the entertainment.

Oh, thank you for your input, Mr. Greene, your analysis has proven correct.

[Cyrellys]

Jan 13, 2012 9:32:40 GMT -7 Cyrellys said:

Jan 12, 2012 19:35:46 GMT -7 @q said:

Yes Cy has dodged answering this question directly. Though oathkeepers has absolutley nothing to do with OMF, oathkeepers is used in this hypothetical question because Cy supports the oathkeepers. She finds the oathkeepers to be just as important as any member of OMF found ufology to be important. So the parallel is reasonable.

I would like to see this answered by Cy. If I'm not mistaken, she should surely answer no. If she found that false fraudulent info was being dissemintated to the oathkeepers, she could not/would not keep such info to herself.

Why she will not give a definitive clear answer is most intriguing.

No the parallel is NOT reasonable. I think some of you don't seem to quite understand here. The free-roaming public despite their efforts at organization in different forms are out of the loop in all respects. You have been QUARANTINED. This is because of behavior practices. Not because you are owed any explanation by either policy, law, or ethics.

The people who originally constructed the National Security State are almost entirely dead now. It's been many decades that the current system has been in place and has resulted in the Rift. Because of it the seeds of creating two separate versions of humanity has been planted. The current QUARANTINE remains in place not because it is not possible to Disclose, but because it is not possible to begin by COMMUNICATING with you. You can't even allow background activity, let alone foreground activity. All the senario playing were tests which all of you continually failed miserably. And then you went and destroyed the vehicle that could have changed that. That was being used to test the waters...to offer OPPORTUNITIES. The majority didn't even understand what you were looking at. Some did however...and to those who did, Salute!

Lies are a distraction to give you something to chew on like an intractable goat who is fed straw instead of hay because it isn't ready for investment of the better fodder because it is too destructive to the farm environment and spends all of its time destroying every instance it is not tied to a post. To spend all your time fretting over lies is to be diverted from courses that could correct your problems. OathKeepers leadership is not ignorant about the System like the display all of you akin to Mur do here. Their leadership once resided in the System. I don't have to speak for them. They are fully capable of speaking for themselves, and they do when and where it's appropriate. There are issues for them which are far higher priority than Contact or UFOs (and yes there is a difference). They focus on those priorities. To ask such questions as the one about OathKeepers here is a diversion and non-starter.

This is my last comment on the matter. ROFL.

Cy
an oath keeper and a supporter of OathKeepers work, not a member of OathKeepers

FYI.








---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cyrellys <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: New Obama 'hope' poster
To: Jeff Adams <[e-mail]>


Yes. I know. I seen the December sales report. I can only assume this is what they want as they make no effort to prevent it. They don't reverse their mistakes, but instead continue the destruction. Cy



On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:

I understand. It's good to see people finally starting to recognize the games that are being played by the vermin media and DC. Heads are going to roll soon.




On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alot of people are excited about RP's momentum. If it weren't for
> dirty pool on the part of the establishment's bought media, he'd be
> ahead of the Globals candidate.
>
> On 1/12/12, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm operating within the confines of local government. Many in GA are
>> suspicious of the Fedcoats. Per our state Constitution, the county
>> sheriff's are the highest controlling legal authority and have jurisdiction
>> throughout the entire state. Their authority also supersedes the authority
>> of the Federal government. I have a contact to my county sheriff as well as
>> my local police capt.
>>
>> I just made contact with some fellow Patriots in a nearby local city govt as
>> well. Ron Paul supporters mostly. I'm very excited about Paul's momentum.
>> I have decided after the vote on NDAA I cannot and will not support anybody
>> else because they are all the same to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting about the camp...considering such things were born from Intel
>>> games, then it stands to reason you may have found an IC operation. I
>>> wonder what they're up to? I know there's been insinuations from system
>>> lords that the POTUS needs a new false flag...especially one that could
>>> provide the impetus to get going on Iran...I've been hearing they've about
>>> finished setting up for that militarily over in Iran's neighborhood....
>>>
>>> Are you listen boyz in uniform? Being used is always by choice. Cy
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I tried getting on that forum the other day but couldn't find it. Can u
>>> shoot me the link? Thx. Located a jihadist training camp not too far
>>> from where I live. I and a handful of others are going to check it out
>>> and alert the local authorities if necessary. It's in Commerce GA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lol. On another note did you hear about what happened to Open MInds
>>>> Forum? It imploded. If you'd like to follow some of the members working
>>>> it out you can find it in the Compass Morainn Members Forum.
>>>>
>>>> Cy
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> <photo.PNG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the government fears the people, you have liberty.
>>>> When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
>>>> - -Thomas Jefferson
>>>>
>>>> A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood
>>>> in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
>>>> - - John F. Kennedy
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>> From: Jeff Adams <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:45 AM
>>>> Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <photo.PNG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Three followers of wisdom: imagination, purpose, and endeavor. -- Irish
>>>> Triad
>>>>
>>>> FiOs ~ "Vision, Memory, Dream" Berla Feini (old Irish), "Knowledge"
>>>> Modern Irish.
>>>>
>>>> In singing, in exploring our connection to our Spirit and the Creative
>>>> Source, then turning to examine our Reality, what we thought was only
>>>> Imagination or only a Dream is revealed to be the most powerful Truth of
>>>> all...
>>>
>>>
>>>

[fore]

Jan 13, 2012 5:40:15 GMT -7 @dove said:

I mean Dove couldn't even get him to unhide the encounters section. She was banned (Bren wasn't fond of her) and then reinstated after she pulled one too many activist stunts.

Jan 13, 2012 5:40:15 GMT -7 @dove said:

Again, what's that supposed to mean? Pulling activist stunts? How do you figure? I was banned. How do you think I had anything to do with being reinstated? He did that because there were people there who supported me.

This is a supporting statement to my previous statement about you "being on the edge" [of being banned].

Slow down some and start learning to look at the content that is being written about you.

You already tried to get Bren to unhide the encounters section. No more could be asked of you since you were already on the chopping block. That is what it means to be "on the edge".

[fore]

Jan 13, 2012 5:40:15 GMT -7 @dove said:

And yes, I tried my best to get the encounters subforum un-hidden again. He wasn't responding at all and wouldn't even try to explain why he hid it. I knew why, of course. But after being able to log in again, I wasn't going to blow it by pushing the issue.

Exactly. I am talking about you already doing your best [in that activist role].

I am not going to push you to do more or put more on your plate. (And I didn;t for that reason.)

Already more than one person (active mods, former mods and members [you included]) have stated for the record that Bren was largely unresponsive.

If a member writes on the forum that I "abused them spiritually", do you think he would respond even if asked? I don't think so.

"Leaving it be" to allow people to gobble up the turds being released by some members is one path that should not be tolerated.

People can thumb their nose at those statements but the Active Mods didn't have much power to change anything. Bren was unresponsive for most inquiry and no one seemed to be intent on putting the breaks on anyone. (Except Jake)

Jan 13, 2012 5:40:15 GMT -7 @dove said:

I just wanted to copy/paste my posts and keep out of the fray. Not possible all the time, of course, but that was the plan when I came back. I was going to PM Jake and have him ask Bren to open the subforum again, since I thought Jake was the only one there that he trusted. But before I could do that, you and the boys from the other place succeeded in shutting down OM.

If you want to turn a blind eye to half of what is going on at OMF at the time then go ahead.

Everyone likes a story that is half baked it seems.

Jan 13, 2012 5:40:15 GMT -7 @dove said:

No, it wasn't. That ditty with Zorgon had nothing to do with the closure. Leave him out of it. Ed was the nail in the coffin; he's admitted that much himself.

That is nothing short of BS.

Zorgon kept troubling Ed Fouche with his claims of him being "a fake". I don't recall Brens stance on this, but I don't recall it being too positive either in Ed Fourches board.

The day before Ed Fouche made the final report, he wrote that he had already filed 9 complaints and didn't care about one more if it closed down the site.


What happened the next day Dove?

Look carefully at what is written next....

Avenger (Zorgon) came online EXTREMELY UPSET that OM was closed down (as well as his posts and his boards many threads) and threatened to do legal action against ED Fouche and dog+ world!

His posts [Zorgon/Avenger] were deleted almost immediately after I reported two of his posts. Action was taken. This is what contributed to the real story.

[mdonnall2002]

Jan 13, 2012 9:31:48 GMT -7 @toon said:

Jan 13, 2012 9:16:37 GMT -7 Jake Reason said:

final edit

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

* Chuckles *

Lookin' spiffy old man!

Yes, he is pretty funny, but I prefer John Candy to Toon's Ralphie May - despite restraining a grin from time to time...

Language is supposed to progress not regress and I'm doing my best to evolve! Don't worry its not a slight just a preference of mine.

Now if only we can get Mur to retire all of his intellectual trophies in his signature section? Normalcy is not such a bad endeavor and that had to be one expensive cheeseburger!

[mur]

Jan 13, 2012 9:46:46 GMT -7 @The Watchers said:

Congratulations on meeting the 98 percent accuracy rating predicted for the downfall of this localized test group. Childish behavior, sophomoric retaliations, cross board attacks, thought police, traitors, bullies, defenders of truth and justice, and on and on we go around this merry-go-round. Could add more but think you all get the point. This group equates to a freshman class at your local secondary school. Aren't you proud.

Will not go into depth with information, but this group missed many significant details. Round 2 of Source A. And much to our surprise, one of your sources has been a pain in our ass with some-what accurate details. We have forced this source to go dormant for the immediate future. The IRS and warrants can work miracles. ;D

Reality television at it's worse. No? How about a soap opera? As the reality world turns. It has it all: The main characters, bit players, Tubby the wanna-be writer, Jimmy the drunk who likes women younger then his scotch, the senile old fart who believes he is a
general; poor, friendless Billy who talks to imaginary creatures. Hard to stop when on a roll.

Please continue with the entertainment.

Oh, thank you for your input, Mr. Greene, your analysis has proven correct.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Cyrellys]

Jan 13, 2012 9:56:50 GMT -7 Cyrellys said:

Jan 13, 2012 9:32:40 GMT -7 Cyrellys said:

No the parallel is NOT reasonable. I think some of you don't seem to quite understand here. The free-roaming public despite their efforts at organization in different forms are out of the loop in all respects. You have been QUARANTINED. This is because of behavior practices. Not because you are owed any explanation by either policy, law, or ethics.

The people who originally constructed the National Security State are almost entirely dead now. It's been many decades that the current system has been in place and has resulted in the Rift. Because of it the seeds of creating two separate versions of humanity has been planted. The current QUARANTINE remains in place not because it is not possible to Disclose, but because it is not possible to begin by COMMUNICATING with you. You can't even allow background activity, let alone foreground activity. All the senario playing were tests which all of you continually failed miserably. And then you went and destroyed the vehicle that could have changed that. That was being used to test the waters...to offer OPPORTUNITIES. The majority didn't even understand what you were looking at. Some did however...and to those who did, Salute!

Lies are a distraction to give you something to chew on like an intractable goat who is fed straw instead of hay because it isn't ready for investment of the better fodder because it is too destructive to the farm environment and spends all of its time destroying every instance it is not tied to a post. To spend all your time fretting over lies is to be diverted from courses that could correct your problems. OathKeepers leadership is not ignorant about the System like the display all of you akin to Mur do here. Their leadership once resided in the System. I don't have to speak for them. They are fully capable of speaking for themselves, and they do when and where it's appropriate. There are issues for them which are far higher priority than Contact or UFOs (and yes there is a difference). They focus on those priorities. To ask such questions as the one about OathKeepers here is a diversion and non-starter.

This is my last comment on the matter. ROFL.

Cy
an oath keeper and a supporter of OathKeepers work, not a member of OathKeepers

FYI.








---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cyrellys <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: New Obama 'hope' poster
To: Jeff Adams <[e-mail]>


Yes. I know. I seen the December sales report. I can only assume this is what they want as they make no effort to prevent it. They don't reverse their mistakes, but instead continue the destruction. Cy



On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:

I understand. It's good to see people finally starting to recognize the games that are being played by the vermin media and DC. Heads are going to roll soon.




On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alot of people are excited about RP's momentum. If it weren't for
> dirty pool on the part of the establishment's bought media, he'd be
> ahead of the Globals candidate.
>
> On 1/12/12, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm operating within the confines of local government. Many in GA are
>> suspicious of the Fedcoats. Per our state Constitution, the county
>> sheriff's are the highest controlling legal authority and have jurisdiction
>> throughout the entire state. Their authority also supersedes the authority
>> of the Federal government. I have a contact to my county sheriff as well as
>> my local police capt.
>>
>> I just made contact with some fellow Patriots in a nearby local city govt as
>> well. Ron Paul supporters mostly. I'm very excited about Paul's momentum.
>> I have decided after the vote on NDAA I cannot and will not support anybody
>> else because they are all the same to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting about the camp...considering such things were born from Intel
>>> games, then it stands to reason you may have found an IC operation. I
>>> wonder what they're up to? I know there's been insinuations from system
>>> lords that the POTUS needs a new false flag...especially one that could
>>> provide the impetus to get going on Iran...I've been hearing they've about
>>> finished setting up for that militarily over in Iran's neighborhood....
>>>
>>> Are you listen boyz in uniform? Being used is always by choice. Cy
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I tried getting on that forum the other day but couldn't find it. Can u
>>> shoot me the link? Thx. Located a jihadist training camp not too far
>>> from where I live. I and a handful of others are going to check it out
>>> and alert the local authorities if necessary. It's in Commerce GA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Cyrellys <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lol. On another note did you hear about what happened to Open MInds
>>>> Forum? It imploded. If you'd like to follow some of the members working
>>>> it out you can find it in the Compass Morainn Members Forum.
>>>>
>>>> Cy
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Jeff Adams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> <photo.PNG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the government fears the people, you have liberty.
>>>> When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
>>>> - -Thomas Jefferson
>>>>
>>>> A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood
>>>> in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
>>>> - - John F. Kennedy
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>> From: Jeff Adams <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:45 AM
>>>> Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <photo.PNG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Three followers of wisdom: imagination, purpose, and endeavor. -- Irish
>>>> Triad
>>>>
>>>> FiOs ~ "Vision, Memory, Dream" Berla Feini (old Irish), "Knowledge"
>>>> Modern Irish.
>>>>
>>>> In singing, in exploring our connection to our Spirit and the Creative
>>>> Source, then turning to examine our Reality, what we thought was only
>>>> Imagination or only a Dream is revealed to be the most powerful Truth of
>>>> all...
>>>
>>>
>>>

You want disclosure? Now you've got it. Ignorance Chokes.

[mdonnall2002]

Jan 13, 2012 9:46:46 GMT -7 @The Watchers said:

Congratulations on meeting the 98 percent accuracy rating predicted for the downfall of this localized test group.

It's not for a lack of trying, obviously.

[q]

I have reworded the question, removing any aspects or reference to oathkeepers.

The basic question is now worded so as to ascertain what you would do in a situation described below.

Source 'X' can be any anonymous source.

'Y' can be any group you desire from Boy Scouts of America to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The organization is not important. How you would deal with the given scenario is all that is asked. Why can't you answer it honestly and objectively?

So if there was a source X....disclosing secret info to Y...who claim to be active military....and was passing you info in a public forum anonymously....and you discovered he was a fraud...you would just keep that to yourself?

You would go ahead and let others believe the lies?

Answer the question for once instead of dodging it.

So can you answer it now? If not, why? I believe you know exactly how you would handle the above scenario but are afraid that your answer will trap you in a corner of contradiction. Do not be afraid. You may learn something about yourself and others may learn something new about you as well.

[Greatwaller]

Jan 11, 2012 21:14:14 GMT -7 Cyrellys said:

I think Fore has done a very good job of facing what happened and has made reasonable allowance for mistakes made. He didn't flee the scene but rather stayed to face the music...this raises him in my estimation. Thank you Fore.

A good example, he's set. I think its one that we all can learn from, no matter our opinions on details. Bren is still to be heard from in this way. There are always multiple sides to any story. And I trust that when he is ready, that all of you will give him fair grace to speak as we have done here with Fore.

Cy

In the end it becomes less about who was right or who was wrong and more about how we give of ourselves toward an improved relationship that ultimately makes the difference we hope, seek, and strive for.

Hi Cys & Fore;
I agree without hesitation your respective comments.
And they are like a fresh breeze blowing into a region of darkness, fear and sheer ignorance.
So wake up, pals.
GW

____________________________________________________

While here, may I add that I echo the concern of Cys on U.S. and its coalition of willing in another war in the Middle East.
If this happens, people at the grassroots will suffer.
I had written a piece in my forum: free120forum.proboards.com
I dwell at length on the looming war and the what would be the end result...and ScaRZ also kindly replied from his religious perspective.
Pray for peace, pals.
GW ;D

[MurMur]

Why was I banned?

[Cyrellys]

Jan 13, 2012 11:14:01 GMT -7 @MurMur said:

Why was I banned?

Re: Moderation Issues
« Reply #2 Today at 11:10am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Member has been banned for conduct incompatible with participatory guest member standards. Admin reserves the right to review and revoke membership as it deems appropriate.

Mur

[Cyrellys]

Jan 13, 2012 11:29:53 GMT -7 Cyrellys said:

Jan 13, 2012 11:14:01 GMT -7 @MurMur said:

Why was I banned?

Re: Moderation Issues
« Reply #2 Today at 11:10am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Member has been banned for conduct incompatible with participatory guest member standards. Admin reserves the right to review and revoke membership as it deems appropriate.

Mur

Go ahead and continue posting as a sock Mur. You will have to recreate one each time you cross the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Horse-training seems to be the only method that gets the message through that thick skull of yours.

Cy

[dove]

*Sigh*

Fore, don't tell me to "relax a bit", eh. Half the time you talk out of the side of your mouth, so why would you expect that I wouldn't know if you are tearing me down or supporting me those times? You've done that to me and others so many times that it's sometimes hard to tell what your true meaning is.

Besides that, the clarity of your sentences leaves a little to be desired sometimes. Like the one below. By rearranging the order of the words a bit, your true meaning would have been seen. As it is, it sounds like you're saying that my reinstatement was done b/c of my "activist stunts" rather than my ban being caused by them. Which makes no sense at all, of course, and which is why I asked for clarification.

Jan 13, 2012 10:03:51 GMT -7 @fore said:

I mean Dove couldn't even get him to unhide the encounters section. She was banned (Bren wasn't fond of her) and then reinstated after she pulled one too many activist stunts.

Today at 5:40am, dove wrote:
I just wanted to copy/paste my posts and keep out of the fray. Not possible all the time, of course, but that was the plan when I came back. I was going to PM Jake and have him ask Bren to open the subforum again, since I thought Jake was the only one there that he trusted. But before I could do that, you and the boys from the other place succeeded in shutting down OM.

If you want to turn a blind eye to half of what is going on at OMF at the time then go ahead.

Everyone likes a story that is half baked it seems.

The prior year's activity wasn't the reason OM got suspended, and everyone knows that. It made the forum a crappy place to be on some days, for sure, but it wasn't the demise of OM.

Quit doing that. You're deflecting again. The biggest reason for the suspension was the co-admin reports to PB, your thread at PB (and reports?), and Ed's reports.

It doesn't even matter now; what's done is done. I'm just telling you what I think the real reasons are (and apparently I'm not the only one who sees this). It doesn't take a scientist to figure it out. It started with the co-admin reports (assuming that you actually were only reporting a99 and not pointing fingers at Bren) and ended with Ed's. There may have been a lot of backroom arguing going on before that, but that's not the reason PB stepped in and closed it. That was all internal. Unless, of course, there's something you're not telling us.

Again, whatever. It's over now. I'm going to move on. I can't remain upset about all of this. Unless there is something in this conversation which would help lift the OM suspension, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Today at 5:40am, dove wrote:
No, it wasn't. That ditty with Zorgon had nothing to do with the closure. Leave him out of it. Ed was the nail in the coffin; he's admitted that much himself.

That is nothing short of BS.

Zorgon kept troubling Ed Fouche with his claims of him being "a fake". I don't recall Brens stance on this, but I don't recall it being too positive either in Ed Fourches board.

No duh? Again, those things happened in previous months. They had *nothing* to do with the downfall of OM at the end. It caused a rift between the two of them, but it wasn't the reason OM was taken offline.

The day before Ed Fouche made the final report, he wrote that he had already filed 9 complaints and didn't care about one more if it closed down the site.


What happened the next day Dove?

Look carefully at what is written next....

Avenger (Zorgon) came online EXTREMELY UPSET that OM was closed down (as well as his posts and his boards many threads) and threatened to do legal action against ED Fouche and dog+ world!

His posts [Zorgon/Avenger] were deleted almost immediately after I reported two of his posts. Action was taken. This is what contributed to the real story.

The "real story" on that is Ed was lying about Zorgon in that post he made where he admitted to bringing down OM. It was halfway down in the original text. He lied and said that Zorgon worked for Lear, and *that's* why Zorgon posted what he did in response.

That was the reason Ed's post was deleted. They didn't want any flak from the forum hosting site. They deleted Zorgon's post because it went hand in hand with Ed's post (which was now gone); it was a response to Ed. Why would they leave Zorgon's post when Ed's post had been taken offline? They stated that the offending posts had been removed. Do you really think they wanted Zorgon's post left there at that point?

Zorgon had *nothing* to do with the final days of OM and its closure. Get that out of your head, Fore. There was plenty of friction on that forum between many people over the years; that doesn't mean that it was the reason OM was suspended. Next you'll try to say that the crap that went on with Traynor and several other people was the reason.

The only thing that happened with Zorgon in the last couple days was that he was threatened by GW, and then Dood and I were threatened for supporting Zorgon. GW got his panties in a bunch and took Zorgon's question wrong; thus making a huge mountain out of a molehill. He has no sense of humor, obviously, because it was said with humor and not any malicious intent. Then anything Zorgon said after that was construed as him trying to "start trouble".


Enough. The only thing I have left to say to you is that if you really didn't back up your blog (hard to believe!), then email me and I'll send you the file. I think I can send it, that is, if it's not too big for the email service.

[q]

Jan 13, 2012 10:45:22 GMT -7 @q said:

I have reworded the question, removing any aspects or reference to oathkeepers.

The basic question is now worded so as to ascertain what you would do in a situation described below.

Source 'X' can be any anonymous source.

'Y' can be any group you desire from Boy Scouts of America to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The organization is not important. How you would deal with the given scenario is all that is asked. Why can't you answer it honestly and objectively?

So if there was a source X....disclosing secret info to Y...who claim to be active military....and was passing you info in a public forum anonymously....and you discovered he was a fraud...you would just keep that to yourself?

You would go ahead and let others believe the lies?

Answer the question for once instead of dodging it.

So can you answer it now? If not, why? I believe you know exactly how you would handle the above scenario but are afraid that your answer will trap you in a corner of contradiction. Do not be afraid. You may learn something about yourself and others may learn something new about you as well.

Can you answer the question or do you just flat out refuse to answer because of the contradiction it would place you in?

[glow=red,2,300]So if there was a source X....disclosing secret info to Y...who claim to be active military....and was passing you info in a public forum anonymously....and you discovered he was a fraud...you would just keep that to yourself?[/glow]