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

Dude,

I realise it is regarding stuff that happened on the list so arguably is more on
topic than when people talk about their pet hamsters on here. But please, can we
talk about Linux again?

It genuinely makes me sad to read this kind of exchange on this list.

Mat :(

PS. I think this is the longest single message I have ever seen to any Lug
mailing list. You get the high score.

LinuxLearner wrote:
> 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.
>