Anyone a target of a Team McAdams smear campaign is not allowed to complain of censure abuses on aaj

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John McAdams <aajfk@panix.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: McAdams still just doesn't get it...
To: Pamela Brown <pamelajfk1@gmail.com>
Cc: Moderators -- Moderators Backup <jmcadams@datasync.com>, pfokes@rogers.com


All you are doing here is complaining about moderation.

.John



On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Pamela Brown wrote:

On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

This post could be titled "Pamela plays the victim."

On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
wrote:

For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
you, my posts would be and have been rejected.

Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
flagged for moderation.

Really?  That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse.  My
statement stands.

Poor victim Pamela!

She is attached to playing the victim.

Translation:  McAdams is a mod; Barb is an ex-mod.  They can post
anything they choose.  The rest of us are censured.  We are not
supposed to discern this.

She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
moderator privileges.

My posts are censured.  Yours are not.  Barbs are not.

Barb earned her status, Pamela.

Barb can say whatever she chooses.  The rest of us cannot.

You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
to think.  That is not effective.  Provide the information without
commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.

No, Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.(1)

False.  Everyone should decide for themselves what to think.

That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.(2)

False attribution.  I don't care what anyone thinks about Judyth.

... and it has been the downfall of several, including
you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
blind eyes to everything else as you did.

False.  I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do.  I am using
a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
others as well.

But it hasn't worked with Judyth.  You've been suckered by her.(3)

False.  I got to know her.  She demonstrated who she is to me.

And you can't admit that.(4)

False.  My experience was valuable. The process I developed works with
Judyth and it works with others.

False.  I kept an open mind and learned to understand her.  It was a
valuable experience.  It must bug you because you just can't seem to
let me be.

Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)

False. Asking to agree-to-disagree and focus on issues is a reply, not
an 'attack post'.

You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.

False.  Anything like that would be censored.  You can post whatever
you choose.  Not the rest of us.

Poor, victimized Pamela!

Anyone whose posts are censured can become a victim in aaj to those
who can post freely.

It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
stuff we should have rejected.(6)

False. Nothing got through.  My posts were rejected.  Only the mods
and ex-mod can speak freely.

What value can the repetition of false statements possibly have? Is
that some sort of tactic?

Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com