Re: [Hampshire] Allegations made by "LinuxLearner" (Was: Re:…

Andy Smith wrote:

> and I would urge anyone reading this to not take allegations made by
> "LinuxLearner" at face value. Subscribing to Surrey LUG and then
> perusing their (sadly closed) archives will be enlightening.

It's taken me some considerable time to reflect on how, if at all, to
respond to this. I feel I must, for the same reasons Andy felt
compelled to inform as to his business' DPA notification; the most
valuable commodity known to man are involved - reputations. So if you
want enlightenment; this email will certainly not disappoint.

I can only enlighten by posting the start of a private email (for the
first and hopefully last time in my life), below, which I have decided
to do, as I feel I have no choice, though I will *not* be entering into
any further discussion or debate about this, at all (here or on SLUG).
Nasty underhand tactics win, unless met with the same, I've discovered
(over the course of now 2-3 years on SLUG).

I'd rather hoped ethics would predicate the moderators of SLUG
themselves would have explained matters for me, but, having given them
the time to do so, unfortunately, not. They have been quite happy to
allow offensive statements to go without recourse, or correction, for
literally almost 2 or 3 years now, that is, until this week, perhaps,
where finally the issue is being taken seriously, and at last, one or
more of the main culprits, of which Andy may be one, will also be put on
moderation if they continue their outrageous, childish, conduct, which
from the above, is a campaign which Andy is now spreading, to my horror,
to the Hants list, doing no one any favours, least of all him

>----sidebar
I was going to promote his business into law firms world-wide, free, as
some Hants members know, but not now I've realised he just can't let go
of whatever this bee he has in his bonnet is. *Huge* loss to you Andy.
/

Here follows the start of off-list correspondence (not marked
confidential) from one of the moderators of SLUG. It explains much about
not only why I've been occasionally losing it on SLUG, but also much as
to the unfair way in which SLUG is moderated, by the moderators own (but
only private) admission, in much contrast to HANTS, which I have found
extremely well run, in every respect. I only wish I lived in Hants! <g>

"Hi [name deleted to preserve privacy {more on that below}],

I'm sorry, it's unfair that your speech is stifled while
others like Jon are unfettered. If I were in your shoes
I would be quite outraged. ... {continues}"

What has been happening on SLUG is that my nym/reputation is denigrated
publicly, most usually with the 'Tin Foil Hat' label or some such, after
posting something related to online privacy, Linux privacy software,
etc, I'm then asked (sometimes indeed, even by one of the moderators
themselves, publicly), to provide a source to a controversial bit of
information, or explain, and then - get this - that response is then not
allowed through moderation (!!) making me look ridiculous, like I'm
making it up, or that I'm just plain rude and ignoring peoples
request(s) for clarification, links, etc, to back up the statements
made. 'Quite outraged', indeed, most *especially* when it is one of the
moderators that made the public post requesting me to source the
info/provide a link, etc., and then didn't let the requested response
past moderation. Go figure. It's *plain nasty*, and I'm at a loss to
understand it, having met in person and had in my house one of the
moderators concerned. Even giving them some free legal advice, for 30
minutes or more, once (which kindness in fairness was returned with a
similar length lesson on networks, but of course, WITHOUT any risk of
liability, unlike I had), bringing him some thousand pounds (or three
times that) personal benefit. Great repayment? I think not. Frankly,
I increasingly wonder how he can look at himself in a mirror.

Though rather a larger number of people than I suspect the Surrey
moderators realise, have realised what's going on (Linux users in the
main are not stupid, and can read email headers, right ;)) and have
offered offlist support on this issue to me, and expressed their disgust
that any LUG could be run this way; that's the plain truth of it.

Unfortunately a number of people have informed me they were to leave the
SLUG list, in disgust at my treatment there - you see, all my posts
mentioning I was on moderation were also moderated out. Nice tactics,
huh. Only in the last week or so, have I even been allowed to mention
in passing I'm moderated; and frankly, I think that was just a slip up
in the mind-control mechanism.

Apologies to all Hants list members that this nonsense has been spread
by Andy onto your list, now, too. Much to my disgust. Seems he (and
one or two others) aren't going to be happy until I'm not welcome on any
Southern England LUG list, or perhaps any LUG list, worldwide.

I'm not trying to create trouble (though admit like all list members in
the main, occasionally, that has been the result of an injudicious
comment here or there, sometimes more than highly injudicious); I've
been given it, with the SLUG moderators connivance, and thus knowing
consent to those undertaking the campaign of ridicule, and general
harassment, baiting, etc (I'm only human, of course, sometimes I do rise
to it - more fool me - like recently here).

As Andy has encouraged you to investigate the list archives of SLUG, if
you do, please read all posts in the light of the information herein.
i.e. that you're only reading the one side of the story, that your
perception is being manipulated, in a very, *very* big way.

I would also like to apologise (like I always do when I realise or it's
brought to my attention that I've done wrong) to the Hants members I
offended by my use of emotive words when recently discussing the way my
data has been treated by some big businesses, who do not have my consent
to process it. I did not realise LUG's have children on them, and
certainly should have given more thought to how women would react to the
use of one particular word I used. In my defence, I can only state that
this is a subject very, very dear to my heart; my life (but not that of
another lawyer, who has already been shot and killed), has been on the
line in relation to trying to keep my identity and location secret from
some people for a period exceeding well over five years now; the people
the Beeb like to say are 'Not 9 to 5', involved. For obvious reasons, I
am unable to give details. This has been immensely stressful, both for
me and my family, who may also have been at risk due to my professional
activities (I was a head of a set of barristers' chambers, at the time);
and that shows sometimes, most often when what I now know really are
highly ignorant people repeatedly attempt to convince the masses that
I'm in the 'Tin Foil Hat Brigade' or similar, and I'm not given an
opportunity to fairly respond to that allegation: ibid, as by the
moderators of SLUG's own admission. You don't have to take it from me.

Finally, Andy wrote "and I would urge anyone reading this to not take
allegations made by "LinuxLearner" at face value." I'd simply like to
respond - likewise. He's got his own agenda here (I think he's been
unable to forgive me for a stupid comment I made 2-3 years ago, though I
forgave him, all those years ago, for his equally stupid response);
that's my best guess, anyhow, but really I'm at a loss to understand the
guys need to permanently be on my case, and his relentless campaign to
spread distrust of me, and what I have to contribute to the FLOSS
community, which is an awfully great deal, if given the chance.

List members, of course, can, and will, judge for themselves, which is
*great* isn't it, once you're *allowed* to have info, like here (on
Hants). Maybe this post will lead to my moderation here, I've already
stated to one of the moderators that that's fine. Just to note this may
be the last non-moderated post I'm allowed to make here, if this post
makes it through (i.e. I'm not on moderation already).

If you have made it this far through such a long email, thank you for
taking some of your highly valuable time to hear *both* sides; and more
generally, thank you to the moderators on this list for allowing some
free speech here, with all of the problems that entails (like long
boring emails from people like me, and people flaming every once in a
while! <g>). It's all very much in contrast to SLUG, where no doubt the
vast majority of the list members will remain in the dark, as the
moderators there do not allow (all) list members to discuss moderation
policy, but only the favoured few, like, at a guess, their hosting
provider, and the aforementioned 'Jon'. If you want to know which Jon,
I too invite you to consult the SLUG archive; you'll see just how
off-the-wall nasty to new members that guy can be. No joke.

In the unlikely event the word of an English Counsel who was running a
£3,000,000+ turnover charity at 21, and his own legal professional
services org/barristers' chambers (specialising in e-commerce advisory
work) at 27/8 or so means anything to you ...

/explanation (for ever) ... And (finally!!); to bed! :)

Sincerely,

LL
PS I know cross-posting is bad netiquette; first and last time; it's
not going to get through moderation there anyway, or will, but only
thanks to the joint membership of both lists.