The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Not this shit again.Prole said:
I think that the above counts as spam. So here's an official first warning.
JHE
.
I notice that old loony 'Keith Mothersson' is one of your lot, Prole.
God, I remember him and Monica Sjoo from about a quarter of a century ago.
She's died, apparently.
He used to be Keith Paton (or Keith Forrester-Paton). 'Mothersson' is a psuedo-matronym he adopted long ago, as part of his pro-feminist lifestyle.
He was an emotionally manipulative pro-rad-fem anarcho-pacifist nut job. In one meeting in Bristol, when he didn't get his own way, he sat weeping. Most people had the sense to ignore his little display.
Since then, I gather, he has turned to religion, but changed his religion a few times.
'Mothersson' is a keen supporter of Mohammed Naseem's bullshit about last year's atrocities in London.
http://www.centralmosque.org.uk/?page=news/combined&news_id=mosque_2005-08-16_0002
Naseem is a leading member of Respec', but even the Social Workers find him an embarrassment. One Social Worker on U75 wished the old git dead.
More on Naseem:
http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/adamyosef.htm
God, I remember him and Monica Sjoo from about a quarter of a century ago.
She's died, apparently.
He used to be Keith Paton (or Keith Forrester-Paton). 'Mothersson' is a psuedo-matronym he adopted long ago, as part of his pro-feminist lifestyle.
He was an emotionally manipulative pro-rad-fem anarcho-pacifist nut job. In one meeting in Bristol, when he didn't get his own way, he sat weeping. Most people had the sense to ignore his little display.
Since then, I gather, he has turned to religion, but changed his religion a few times.
'Mothersson' is a keen supporter of Mohammed Naseem's bullshit about last year's atrocities in London.
http://www.centralmosque.org.uk/?page=news/combined&news_id=mosque_2005-08-16_0002
Naseem is a leading member of Respec', but even the Social Workers find him an embarrassment. One Social Worker on U75 wished the old git dead.
More on Naseem:
http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/adamyosef.htm
You banned Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed! A respected Muslim academic who has written extensively on 9/11 and 7/7.
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/censored-urban75-forum-bans-british.html
You really must be desperate to prevent any kind of open-minded discussion, or perhaps the attack dogs strategy wouldn't have worked against him, eh?
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/censored-urban75-forum-bans-british.html
You really must be desperate to prevent any kind of open-minded discussion, or perhaps the attack dogs strategy wouldn't have worked against him, eh?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
read this, irrelevant thread miner, I can't be arsed typing it all out again
http://fridgemagnet.livejournal.com/966529.html
http://fridgemagnet.livejournal.com/966529.html
editor
hiraethified
And here's the facts: Nafeez came on to urban with an almighty swathe of FAQ-crushing cut and paste, complete with links to his own website.Prole said:
Not only that, but the material he posted up could have caused serious legal problems for urban75, but ol' Nafeez didn't seem to give a shit - he just wanted to use urban75 to further his own aims.FAQ said:
So the material was deleted off the site and the thread binned.
And then he came straight back on again to spam urban with more plugs to his own website address.
So there's more than enough justification for the ban: he came on here solely to promote his own website, took the piss and got banned, just like any other poster acting in the same way would be banned.
But is seems that Nafeez believes that the posting rules don't apply to him, and so he bleated away on his own blog, posting up a highly selective version of events complaining about urban75 'censoring' him? (Quite why he felt the need to add "British Muslim" in the title is anyone's guess, mind, becauseit has absolutely nothing to do with his banning).
And here's where we come to the glorious, laughable hypocrisy of the man: instead of leading by example, Nafeez processed to completely censor any adverse comment from his blog!
Anyone wishing to express an opinion on his article that didn't agree with his version of events was censored while flattering comments ("Keep up the great work man."..."I just want to thank you for your integrity and solidarity...") were gleefully paraded.
His feeble excuse about the comments being 'anonymous' doesn't wash either - he was quite happy to post up anonymous comments slagging off urban75 but credited comments from the likes of MrsM and FridgeMagnet got the Soviet-style airbrushing out of history.
Oh, and far from adopting the 'attack dogs strategy,' you'll note that I haven't bothered bringing up the subject here, even though I'm unhappy with his antics.
But you've done that now, so I guess the self styled "British Muslim Terror Analyst" might have some more censoring to do because I wouldn't be surprised if a few other posters have an opinion on the matter.
Hmmm. Maybe this might be one for Private Eye?
Badger Kitten
oof
I came late into this. Nafeez book is intelligent and thoughtful, but I think he failed to understand the site rules before posting, which is a shame and has led to bad feeling and accusations of censorship which are not fair. If he had engaged with other posters and introduced his research as part of a dialogue about 7/7 on the boards, I expect people would probably have been interested in checking his work out further. Unfortunately his 2 posts were in breach of site rules and etiquette, but that does not mean that they were censored, more that they were simply in breach of the rules.
The link to the NY times was interesting as well, but again, posting up something potentially in breach of the UK contempt laws without asking permission wasn't fair - perhaps a discussion about how the NY Times article was not allowed to be reproduced over in the UK, and a discussion about the UK contempt laws, complete with a broken link directing readers to the blog in the context of a discussion about it might have worked better?
It did come over as spamming, which I am sure wasn't the intention, but nonetheless, a clearer understanding of the rules would have avioded all this.
For the record, I don't think comments about the religious, demographic or racial profile of U75 posters are relevant, or for that matter, helpful.
The link to the NY times was interesting as well, but again, posting up something potentially in breach of the UK contempt laws without asking permission wasn't fair - perhaps a discussion about how the NY Times article was not allowed to be reproduced over in the UK, and a discussion about the UK contempt laws, complete with a broken link directing readers to the blog in the context of a discussion about it might have worked better?
It did come over as spamming, which I am sure wasn't the intention, but nonetheless, a clearer understanding of the rules would have avioded all this.
For the record, I don't think comments about the religious, demographic or racial profile of U75 posters are relevant, or for that matter, helpful.
Editor hasn't fridgemagnet just done exactly the same thing that you've accused Nafeez of doing?FridgeMagnet said:
Nafeez has much to contribute to any discussion and I would have thought you would have been pleased to have someone of his status and calibre bothering to come to your boards.
Obviously not.
How ironic, censorship of an article about censorship. Whatever happened to freedom of speech and subversion and challenging the PTB? We now have FAQ's and 'legal actions', oh dear, what will we be allowed to say or not say next.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Um, I have no particular stake in this but what's this about 'status'?
From his blog bio, he seems to be a PhD candidate who teaches a bit.
Plenty of people on this board have finished their PhD's.
From his blog bio, he seems to be a PhD candidate who teaches a bit.
Plenty of people on this board have finished their PhD's.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
.
editor
hiraethified
Are you being willfully stupid here?Prole said:
Nafeez wasn't banned for who he was or even what he was saying.
He was banned for breaking the FAQ by posting up a massive swathe of cut-'n'paste, putting the site at risk by posting up legally contentious content and for promoting his own site with every post.
The fact that he went off to author a whining article about a "British Muslim" being 'censored' and then proceeded to censor anyone who didn't agree with him speaks volumes to me.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
If he'd come on and said "hello, I am X, does anyone want to discuss issue Y?" clearly that would have been fine. If he'd sent an email after the ban saying "hold on, why was I banned?" then we would have explained. In fact the first we knew about it was when he made that post accusing us of censorship - and even *then* myself and others tried to comment on it to set the record straight, and emails were sent explaining things.Badger Kitten said:
But he seems utterly determined to make out that it's censorship, to the extent of refusing to allow any comments disagreeing with him to go through (and implying that he's only received anonymous ones, which is not the case). That pissed me off a bit I have to say. It may indeed be a terrific book but he's not exactly coming across as reasonable here.
Incidentally, it was most definitely procedural, we don't have time to look through every link, and if somebody has one thread binned and then puts up another one with the same link without even asking after the first time then they're very likely to be banned.
The fact that all these so-called 'terror plots' that are being 'uncovered' involve 'British Muslims' might have something to do with why being a British Muslim writer is significant. I have no doubt that his views are important as is his ethnicity. We read much in opinion columns by British non-Muslims on these subjects and hear very few Muslim voices.BK said:
After the Reichstag fire, when the Nazi's were busy persecuting any opposition before starting on the Jewish population, (much of this done 'legally') perhaps the fact that an article was being written by a German jew might have had a similar significance.
Fridgemagnet posted a link to his journal which you didn't ban him for.editor said:
Nafeez was attempting to initiate an important discussion and thought that U75 was a forum for this. He is obviously wrong.
Being Muslim is absolutely crucial to what he wrote as I pointed out in my previous post. Muslim's are being targetted, blamed and persecuted and their voices are not heard in the MSM to any degree.
As for FAQ's Ed, I can be repeatedly called a cunt and threatened with having my head kicked in and that is OK with you, but not to show 'posting etiquette' is a heineous crime. What a joke.
Why did you really ban him instead of just pointing out that he was breaking the FAQ's? Your banning policy is very arbitrary it seems to me, zArk and Big Fish, yet not Jazzz or me. Does it depend on what sort of mood you're in?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Oh jeez not this shit again.
editor
hiraethified
I'm afraid that makes no sense at all. What are you on about?Prole said:
Contributors to urban75 are welcome to mention their own sites where relevant and appropriate. People coming on solely to ignore the FAQ and plug their own site with every post are not. That's called 'advertising' or maybe even 'spamming.'
He was clearly wrong if he thought he could lumber us with contentious, legally problematic, copyright-busting swathes of page-filling cut and paste, yes.Prole said:
But then if he'd troubled himself to read the posting rules first, he wouldn't have any problems.
It wasn't me that banned him actually.Prole said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Nope but then again there's no way to see if someone's put up something worth while or more crap that's been answered time and time and time again.Prole said:
If i don't like it i'll do the only thing i can do: Point out where you've been a fucking idiot untill you leave in shame. (BTW Nice of you to use the ed's name on that blog would it be childish of me to remind everyone that your name is B****t D***e?)
Do you think that banning him is just a crude form of censorship and could have been avoided (as he was a new poster) by just letting him re-post with the link to his blog which then would have had no legal implications for U75.
After all, it is the content and not the form that is important, and Nafeez has much to contribute to any discussion on terrorism as he is a British Muslim who has researched and written on this issue. Probably the most important issue we face in our life-time.
Why not apologise and welcome him back? Nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.
After all, it is the content and not the form that is important, and Nafeez has much to contribute to any discussion on terrorism as he is a British Muslim who has researched and written on this issue. Probably the most important issue we face in our life-time.
Why not apologise and welcome him back? Nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You don't read posts at all do you BD?
Similar threads
- Locked
