I wonder what any of this has to do with Pike and Lucifer. You started a new thread apparently to discuss this topic. Will there be more to that particular discussion?
In article <1104938105.372337.119...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jeff
Peace wrote: > Bro. Bennie,
> Please understand that I have the greatest admiration and respect for > you, but you have quite simply re-pointed the argument in another > direction. Regardless of whether members of the MRoM lied,
WHOA!
If I based my information on the lies by yourself of others....
<shaking head>
Sounds like the argument of another poster here actually. It's ok for him to call names, denigrate Masons, and act like a total boor but not for a Mason to do so....
Got it!
> this discussion is about whether or not Ed King ever lies or > purposefully deceives people on his web site MasonicInfo.com.
Please cite an example!
> It is a fact that Ed King does lie and misinform both Masons and > non-Masons on his web site and elsewhere, and that these lies can be > easily refuted when the facts are presented.
I remember several attempts at your website using unsigned pages claiming that you had turned the financial records over to.... who was it again?
> I would very much prefer to not continue on with this, but so long as > Ed sees fit to purposefully continue to spread lies and misinformation > about me and the RRCG then I feel I have no other recourse than to > coontinually re-state the facts.
Please feel free.
> If it is the true desire of the brothers who frequent alt.freemasonry > to re-establish "peace and harmony" then perhaps they should begin with > a close look at themselves and what they are doing.
<chuckle>
I notice, though, that when a certain Grand Hierophant of your organization was here threatening lawsuits you remained quite mute. Change of heart now?
> If peace and harmony is the true goal, and brotherly love is the aim > of our great fraternity, then why should the brothers on this list > continue to allow the purposeful slandering of another Master Mason, > in good standing, on this news group, or on another Master Mason's > web site?
Yes, Jeff: why ARE you slandering me on your website?
Why did you do so towards a Georgia Past Grand Master?
Why did you then delete those pages from the Internet Archive website?
> If you truly want to see all of this end then I think it must begin > by you doing what you say. Simply paying lip-service to the great > tenants of Freemasonry does little to restore the integrity it has > lost due to the actions of Masons such as Ed King.
But forcing three Grand Jurisdictions to BAN YOUR organization is somehow supportive of Freemasonry, is it?
In article <1104933044.203208.264...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Jeff
Peace wrote: > Hello All :-)
> Since this involves me directly I guess I should clarify things.
> Yes, Ed King lied to everyone.
False to fact.
> Did he simply misunderstand what the MRoM and RRCG were doing? No.
Or, did you and several sock puppets deliberately obfuscate?
> He was contacted by me and several other brothers, including brothers > from Maine who told him repeatedly that his "facts" were incorrect.
No Mason from Maine EVER contacted me to indicate that I was wrong about these organizations.
> Some of these brothers were not even a part of the MRoM or RRCG.
Please identify the individuals you cite so that they may be asked to come here to present THEIR remembrance of events.
> Fact: When the MRoM was still being formed various pricing structures > were considered. It was finally decided that the total amount to join > would be $125.
When Bryan asked you for the price to join, you wrote in a usenet message that such information was on the website. It was not.
> Fact: When the MRoM was being formed several forms of regalia were > considered. The final decision was to go with only one standard > regalia which would have cost about $500, similar in cost to Knights > Templar regalia.
Fine. Irrelevant.
> Fact: The MRoM did collect joining fees from the initial group, but > these fees were returned when the project was abandoned. No one bought > any regalia.
So?
> Fact: The RRCG charged $350-$375 to join, depending on what regalia > you chose. $325 of this amount went towards purchasing your regalia. > The Rite spent about $20 per candidate on ritual supplies, and if it > were lucky made about $5 per candidate. In addition the regalia was > purchased at a negotiated discount which allowed the members to save > about 40% over what other Masons would have paid for similar regalia.
Perhaps, if you had not removed material from the Internet Archive, we could have reviewed some of this in more detail, eh?
> Fact: Neither the MRoM nor the RRCG made any non-Masons a Mason. > Anyone claiming to have been made a Mason did so only to provoke Ed > King for all of the lies and misinformation he had spread about the > Rite.
Oh. So those Masons - members of your organizations - DELIBERATELY LIED.
How would I have known that, Jeff?
> Fact: Ed King lied about this and many other things regarding the MRoM > and the RRCG.
Well, you've listed several things above but none attributing anything to me as a lie.
> Ed KIng knew he was lying because he had been told his information was > incorrect yet he continued to publish it regardless of the facts.
Please provide proof of your claim.
> Fact: Ed King is not only capable of publishing inaccurate and false > information, but there is existing evidence of the same.
False to fact.
Let's examine one little facet of your organizations: did any one of them claim that the Order of DeMolay was their sole charity? Were ANY funds EVER given to DeMolay? Was DeMolay ever informed of these proposed donations? If not, why not?
You can cry "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" until you are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that you've yet to prove that one whit.
But let's look at this from another angle:
Did you, Jeff, ever phone a Grand Master - NOT identifying yourself as a Mason but rather in your business capacity - and claim that I was interrupting your business' computers? Why wouldn't you have identified yourself as a Mason, Jeff?
Or how about your claim that I pointed to your company's private network address? Why on earth would you use that very same address when you registered your Memphis, RCCG, CF and other websites? If it was SO secret, in fact, why on earth would you have had a public website for that address and you post HERE with that address?
>As previously explained, perhaps I typed too fast for you, I have not >seen anything about McFarland. The other two earned their remarks and >I found nothing untrue in any part of Ed's site about any of them. >Perhaps some of the remarks were not in the best of taste but they >were not untrue. I'm still waiting for you to produce one cite of an >untrue statement. I'm presuming that you will attempt to evade it just >as you evaded questions about your supposed "first edition" of Pike's >soporific masterpiece.
And we have seen them give you a few pages of examples, only to watch you repeat the same tired word games and pretend that concrete facts don't exist.
The fact remains, and you cannot deny it, is Master Masons in good standing were mocked, berated, insulted, and defamed on masonicinfo.com. Whether you think they had it coming is immaterial. Whether you disagreed with them is immaterial. They were your Brothers, and you swore to protect them.
You are not Masons. You are a mob of narcissistic villains. You are trash.
In article <1104973861.882715.28...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Wallace Hadrian wrote: > >As previously explained, perhaps I typed too fast for you, I have not > >seen anything about McFarland. The other two earned their remarks and > >I found nothing untrue in any part of Ed's site about any of them. > >Perhaps some of the remarks were not in the best of taste but they > >were not untrue. I'm still waiting for you to produce one cite of an > >untrue statement. I'm presuming that you will attempt to evade it just > >as you evaded questions about your supposed "first edition" of Pike's > >soporific masterpiece.
> And we have seen them give you a few pages of examples, only to watch > you repeat the same tired word games and pretend that concrete facts > don't exist.
Isn't it amazing: another voice, previously unknown here, chimes in. Again, without identification of bona fides perhaps because - dare we suggest - that it might be one of those infamous 'sock puppets'.
But regardless, let's address your claim, shall we?
Perhaps - your claims of folks pretending that "concrete facts don't exist" - you could show just exactly what I've written about "Past Master McFarland", eh?
Or, as previously requested, an example of my lying.
You can bluster all you want but facts seem strangely absent from the keyboards of my accusers....
> The fact remains, and you cannot deny it, is Master Masons in good > standing were mocked, berated, insulted, and defamed on > masonicinfo.com.
Let's ask a hypothetical here:
Do you believe that when a Mason commits an improper act, it should be ignored?
Covered up by his Brothers?
Not mentioned by any Mason ever?
Do you believe, for example, that we should simply pretend that folks like the Toronto serial rapist Bernardo _wasn't_ a Mason? Or that we should just pretend he wasn't a very bad guy?
Is that what you're suggesting?
> Whether you think they had it coming is immaterial.
Really? So then you DO support cover-ups, correct?
Sorry: I don't.
> Whether you disagreed with them is immaterial. They were your > Brothers, and you swore to protect them.
And they swore to behave as Masons. When they ceased doing so, they became ineligible for any claim to privilege - in my book at least.
You see - at least to my way of thinking - you can't go out and lie, cheat and steal or behave egregiously and then expect that you're going to get a 'free pass' from other Masons. From time to time I receive in my e-mail stories of how some have used Freemasonry as a 'cover' for their wrong-doings. Just today, in fact, a PM in Texas wrote about his having joined in Hawaii where the person who was the 'prime' person in the lodge created several 'side degrees' (similar to the one they had in the New York Lodge where William James was killed) in order to 'tie' members more closely to not reveal his illegal behavior.
Based on what you write, it would appear that you would support this and you'd encourage that member to NOT speak out against such un-Masonic behavior.
Do I understand you correctly?
> You are not Masons. You are a mob of narcissistic villains. You are > trash.
Ed, of course I'm sure you must be right, after all you are Ed King, and who am I to question someone of such probity?
There really isn't much more to say in this venue. We'll discuss it in more detail in the near future. I think the truth will eventually find its way to the surface through means that are beyond your control.
In article <1104975852.599192.146...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jeff
Peace wrote: > Ed, of course I'm sure you must be right, after all you are Ed King, > and who am I to question someone of such probity?
Your insult notwithstanding, you've made several charges Jeff: I'd like to give you the opportunity to prove them once and for all. If we can do so as adults, I'll be more than happy to apologize and do whatever is appropriate, dancing on a table with a lampshade on my head only if I did something HORRIBLY wrong.... <g>
Oh, I thought you were saying too that Masons shouldn't insult Masons? Did I misunderstand?
Here's what we can do: you can cite the specifics of what I've supposedly lied about involving you or your groups and I can ask questions to clarify things. It can all be out in the open and others can see just exactly what the issues are/were, how I came to the conclusions I did, and it can all get resolved.
You just ADMITTED that members of your group were lying yet you claim that *I* lied - and based on my reading, you seem to condone that. (I'd appreciate your clarification right here right now if I've misunderstood this.) If I relied on THEIR statements, not knowing them to be lies, how do you think that _I_ am the party guilty of lying?
> There really isn't much more to say in this venue.
You brought it up. If you didn't want to discuss it here, why did you?
> We'll discuss it in more detail in the near future.
That's fine. Please feel free to do so with me in e-mail if you so desire. However, your accusations of my lying are simply false to fact.
Tell you what, though: on the next update to my website (within about 10 days), I'll take down the page I've got to which you take such umbrage if you'll agree to discuss the issues I've raised about those groups here. Others can insert their questions etc. Crafty and others can feel free to poke at me and those who have questions or concerns about your groups and the history involved can query you. This way, everything comes out and we'll all know what's up.
How about it Jeff?
> I think the truth will eventually find its way to the surface > through means that are beyond your control.
Truth usually does, Jeff, and I certainly want the truth to be told. That's why I'm making this offer. I'd love to know the answer to some things and I'm sure you'd like to get the facts out before everyone, untainted by MY presentations.
I welcome further discussion on these matters and am more than willing to do so.
And as just a follow-up, Jeff: I'll take the page you object to down early-on this weekend. I can make the updates to the rest of the site later. Can we discuss the points you raise here then?
Ed King wrote: > And as just a follow-up, Jeff: I'll take the page you object to down > early-on this weekend.
Ahha and so finally the benevolent mason shows his true colors at last - he is to dismantle his hate site one page at a time. Bravo that man! But the people may require a quicker end to your hatesite . . . the great unwashed just don't understand do they Ed?
I'm sorry you have to lose your site this way, in dribs and drabs, but your hateful and shallow comments show the extent of the serious consideration you give to your Earthly Brethren - none. I think you probably have a serious problem with the Brotherhood concept at the best of times.
Your hate-prose would be a gift for the likes of Gorbels. Sieg Heil Ed and Shalom.
In article <41dcbefa$0$74267$ed261...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Norwood
Holden wrote: > Ed King wrote:
> > And as just a follow-up, Jeff: I'll take the page you object to down > > early-on this weekend.
> Ahha and so finally the benevolent mason shows his true colors at last - > he is to dismantle his hate site one page at a time. Bravo that man! But > the people may require a quicker end to your hatesite . . . the great > unwashed just don't understand do they Ed?
So Chris: I see you've been posting lots about politics lately. Have you done anything more than just rant to your computer screen about awful things?
> I'm sorry you have to lose your site this way, in dribs and drabs, but > your hateful and shallow comments show the > extent of the serious consideration you give to your Earthly Brethren - > none. I think you probably have a serious problem with the Brotherhood > concept at the best of times.
I think you - as one of the biggest internet trolls - have a serious problem with reality.
> Your hate-prose would be a gift for the likes of Gorbels. Sieg Heil Ed and > Shalom.
Ahha and so finally the benevolent mason shows his true colors - truly, underneath it all, he is the compassionate brother who is to dismantle his hate site one page at a time. Bravo that man! But the people may require a quicker end to your hate . . . the great unwashed don't understand do they Ed?
I'm sorry you have to lose your site this way, in dribs and drabs, but your hateful and shallow comments show the extent of the serious consideration you give to your Earthly Brethren - none. I think you probably have a serious problem with the Brotherhood concept at the best of times? Would you agree? No excuses now!
Your hate-prose would be a gift for the likes of Gorbels. Sieg Heil Ed and Shalom.
Ed King wrote: > Or, as previously requested, an example of my lying.
I can give you an entire list of your lies Mr. King.
1) "It's pretty simple, Bro. Bob: Mr. Perry's internet [sic] 'corporation' is a SHAM. Nothing more and nothing less."
Main Entry: sham Pronunciation: 'sham Function: noun Etymology: perhaps from English dialect sham shame, alteration of English shame 1 : a trick that deludes : HOAX 2 : cheap falseness : HYPOCRISY 3 : an ornamental covering for a pillow 4 : an imitation or counterfeit purporting to be genuine 5 : a person who shams
My company was a fully legal, tax-paying incorporated entity, in good standing with the State of Florida. You called it a sham on multiple occasions, and you then refused to issue any sort of apology or retraction even after being served with sworn statements as to the legal status of Perry Research, Inc.
2) "Somewhat like your 'business scam' of 'Perry Research', right?"
Main Entry: scam Pronunciation: 'skam Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown : a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation <an insurance scam>
You referred to my corporation as fraudulent or deceptive, and you refused to issue any sort of apology or retraction even after being served with sworn statements as to the legal status of Perry Research, Inc.
3) "For those of you interested, a trip to [Edward King's website address] might be in order and there you can learn about the scams and shams of Mr. Perry."
Another unsubstantiated personal attack, attributing "scams and shams" with me personally.
4) "...no background in HIPAA whatsoever and it seemed like more 'scam' to be holding one's self out as an expert in such a highly specialized arena when, in fact, he'd never worked a whit within it previously."
I served you with sworn testimony as to my extensive background and experience with HIPAA-related privacy and security consulting. No retraction or apology by you.
5) "We've left out the "Inc." since it's a criminal act to include that term when, in fact, [Gregory Perry's company] is NOT incorporated."
You were served with sworn testimony as to the legal status of my corporation. No retraction or apology from you, even after insinuating that I committed a felony in the State of Florida by operating an unincorporated business.
You've also posted on your web page that I praised the anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" forgery (for using the word "elder" in a posting), and you openly labeled me an anti-Semite.
You also insinuated that I was a Christian Identity member, which is defined as:
"This virulent racist and anti-Semitic theology, which is practiced by over 50,000 people in the United States alone, is prevalent among many right wing extremist groups and has been called the 'glue' of the racist right. The largest Christian Identity movement has traditionally been the Ku Klux Klan which was reorganized in 1915 by William Simmons, a Christian pastor."
So there you have it. For exercising the fundamental right to free speech, I became an anti-Semitic KKK member, that illegally operates a company in Florida, while performing many "scams and shams".
You wield your MASONICINFO.COM web page like a weapon against those who would question "your version" of freemasonry, and you will even go so far as to disparage other MASTER MASONS in good standing with their respective Grand Lodges.
These behaviorisms are not ocassional aberrations in judgement, they are intentional and conscious acts on your part to destroy anyone and everyone that expresses a different viewpoint - the very earmark and fingerprint of fascism.
Just another day of "taking good men and making them better", right? Kind regards,
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:21:43 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote:
>Tell you what, though: on the next update to my website (within >about 10 days), I'll take down the page I've got to which you take >such umbrage if you'll agree to discuss the issues I've raised >about those groups here. Others can insert their questions etc. >Crafty and others can feel free to poke at me and those who have >questions or concerns about your groups and the history involved >can query you. This way, everything comes out and we'll all know >what's up.
I would rather not poke at you. What I am seeing you write here is admirable, and if you take that course, I will not oppose you. You say you are revising your page...this is your opportunity to show us how a Freemason conducts himself. I would respectfully request that you consider removing the names of Brother Masons, most especially Worshipful Brother McFarland's. I would also ask that you consider removing the pages for people Like Sam Moser, Daryl Carstensen, even the prolific Chris Stevens, and stop giving these individuals someone and something to focus their aggression on, for the benefit of the Fraternity. If an individual, sane or not, is of the opinion Freemasonry is a bad thing, he should have the right to voice that opinion without reprisal. We can correct their mistakes here without resorting to destroying them publicly as individuals.
On the other hand, people that make a living attacking the Fraternity for profit, however, are in my opinion fair game. The Ed Kunks and Ron Carlsons of the world should get both barrels, and I will wholeheartedly support your actions in this regard.
In the meantime, I would ask you not to fall prey to taunts from the trolls, who will by their nature oppose this peace process, and encourage those that follow you to do the same. For my part, I will also withdraw from the field, and we'll see where we are when you you put the revised pages up.
Mr. Perry indicates, not inappropriately, that Mr. King has not apologized for incorrect statements.
However, I would note that on November 23, 2004, in response to my attempt to settle the matter with Mr. King making a public apology, Mr. Perry advised me by e-mail,
"6) I am not interested in a public apology from Mr. King."
Nevertheless, Mr. King does apologize for any errors of fact regarding Mr. Perry.
>>As previously explained, perhaps I typed too fast for you, I have not >>seen anything about McFarland. The other two earned their remarks and >>I found nothing untrue in any part of Ed's site about any of them. >>Perhaps some of the remarks were not in the best of taste but they >>were not untrue. I'm still waiting for you to produce one cite of an >>untrue statement. I'm presuming that you will attempt to evade it just >>as you evaded questions about your supposed "first edition" of Pike's >>soporific masterpiece.
>And we have seen them give you a few pages of examples, only to watch >you >repeat the same tired word games and pretend that concrete facts don't >exist.
>The fact remains, and you cannot deny it, is Master Masons in good >standing >were mocked, berated, insulted, and defamed on masonicinfo.com. Whether >you think they had it coming is immaterial. Whether you disagreed with >them is immaterial. They were your Brothers, and you swore to protect >them.
>You are not Masons. You are a mob of narcissistic villains. You are >trash.
>Wallace
I promised to support my Brethren in all their LAWFUL (emphasis mine) endeavours. I did not promise not to show them up if they are liars, idiots, cheats, immoral persons or criminals. When someone does something with which I disagree I promised to whisper good counsel in their ear. How can you do that when they are posting under an alias and/or with a misdirected or anonymous e-mail address? If some Freemason wants to make a fool of himself by posting false claims, obscene language or outright lies then there is little I can do other than try to point out that this is not typical behaviour for a Mason. I can also try to point out the lies and correct misquotes and erroneous facts.
I asked for a simple cite. A URL of some obvious incorrect fact. This has not been forthcoming and I have been abused for wanting such detail and told to do my own research. I have been asked to spend valuable internet time (Yes, I have to pay by the minute) searching through generalised areas but no explicit information has been given. The areas given cover hundreds of sentences but not one sentence has been flagged as false and no evidence has been given that such a sentence is demonstrably false. Generalisations are not proof.
Until such evidence is given I must assume that all, or at least most, of the information given in those pages is correct.
I have also been obliquely threatened, via an intermediary, with being sued by Jeff Peace for asking hard questions which he was not prepared to answer. A threat has been made threatening Ed King with another frivolous (in my opinion) lawsuit, obviously attempting to bankrupt him so that he can no longer afford to keep his web site online.
Ed has already offered to withdraw the page about Jeff. Quite frankly I consider that, because of these threats, Ed should instead add to the page showing just how unmasonic, and immature, is this behaviour by this person.
All opinions in my postings are mine, based on inferences and substance contained in previously posted articles or referenced web pages. Data claimed as factual is so in my belief.
-- Regards David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply) (Unattached MM) Bad manners should not be a capital crime ... for a first offence. Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein,
>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:21:43 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> >wrote:
>>Tell you what, though: on the next update to my website (within >>about 10 days), I'll take down the page I've got to which you take >>such umbrage if you'll agree to discuss the issues I've raised >>about those groups here. Others can insert their questions etc. >>Crafty and others can feel free to poke at me and those who have >>questions or concerns about your groups and the history involved >>can query you. This way, everything comes out and we'll all know >>what's up.
>I would rather not poke at you. What I am seeing you write here is >admirable, and if you take that course, I will not oppose you. You >say you are revising your page...this is your opportunity to show us >how a Freemason conducts himself. I would respectfully request that >you consider removing the names of Brother Masons, most especially >Worshipful Brother McFarland's. I would also ask that you consider >removing the pages for people Like Sam Moser, Daryl Carstensen, even >the prolific Chris Stevens, and stop giving these individuals someone >and something to focus their aggression on, for the benefit of the >Fraternity. If an individual, sane or not, is of the opinion >Freemasonry is a bad thing, he should have the right to voice that >opinion without reprisal. We can correct their mistakes here without >resorting to destroying them publicly as individuals.
So you are of the opinion that Freemasons should have no right of reply. Are we not entitled to that same right to free speech? Are we not entitled to voice our concerns about the lies touted by those you mentioned?
-- Regards David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply) (Unattached MM) Bad manners should not be a capital crime ... for a first offence. Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein,
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:21:43 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> > wrote:
> >Tell you what, though: on the next update to my website (within > >about 10 days), I'll take down the page I've got to which you take > >such umbrage if you'll agree to discuss the issues I've raised > >about those groups here. Others can insert their questions etc. > >Crafty and others can feel free to poke at me and those who have > >questions or concerns about your groups and the history involved > >can query you. This way, everything comes out and we'll all know > >what's up.
> I would rather not poke at you. What I am seeing you write here is > admirable, and if you take that course, I will not oppose you. You > say you are revising your page...this is your opportunity to show us > how a Freemason conducts himself.
My belief, always (despite what you or others may believe), is that actions speak louder than words. Accordingly, I would have otherwise let my changes to the site show what I have done. However, since you have specifically 'pinged' me, I'll respond to this.
> I would respectfully request that you consider removing the names > of Brother Masons, most especially Worshipful Brother McFarland's.
Two points here:
The first I made in this thread AND have made all along: when a Mason acts improperly - whether it be behavior such as the serial rapist Bernardo or you calling people names (or, in your opinion, me writing 'bad' things) - others look at this and say, "I know {so-and-so} is a Mason and he's done awful stuff. How come you tell us about George Washington and not him? You're HIDING things." That is, I believe, a legitimate charge. We have not sworn to protect Masons who violate civil law nor do we have obligations to 'protect' those behaving improperly.
Since I started my website, I've tried to NOT hide anything. Those Masons who have made the news for their bad behavior were noted on my site just as soon as I could. (The fellow whom the Boston Herald called the biggest crook since Ponzi was placed there IMMEDIATELY upon the Herald's publication, for example.) People ask about these things when they write to me and if we stick our heads in the sand pretending this stuff doesn't exist, we make ourselves hypocrites in the worst sense - in MY opinion. Yours may differ - and there's nothing wrong (again, in MY opinion) with a difference of opinion on this.
As I had mentioned here in the past, I had received a 'solicitation' from the person you regularly refer to as "Worshipful" or "Past Master" (without acknowledging, strangely, the MANY of us here hold that honorific and more) McFarland. His reply to my questions was, to say the least, less than Masonic. When I have a free weekend, I'm going to check his book out though my library's e-book service and have a read. We'll see after that.
> I would also ask that you consider removing the pages for people Like > Sam Moser, Daryl Carstensen, even the prolific Chris Stevens, and > stop giving these individuals someone and something to focus their > aggression on, for the benefit of the Fraternity.
I'm not meaning to have an argument here but I simply do not understand how my noting the egregious behavior of Chris, for example, does ANYTHING one way or another. Chris - under his two dozen pseudonyms - can leave the casual observer thinking that there are all these people posting against Freemasonry so SURELY there must be something afoot. However, when replying to any of his ludicrous posts, a simple pointer is made to a web page, it all becomes clear to that observer. Since you claim to have been here for years before you started posting, SURELY you know that Sam was an absolute.... Well, surely you know. It was HE who made such a bid deal out of his medical history. It was HE who wrote pages upon pages about how the Masons had been filling him with drugs etc. What is so horribly wrong with pointing out those FACTS so that others can understand and appreciate the 'whole picture'?
Beyond that, when I become the lightning rod for outbursts like that of Chris and I maintain the 'high ground', it shows in sharp contrast who wears the white hat! That's my take on it anyway.
I mean no disrespect in saying this but whether you present it quietly and maturely or whether you call me names about it, I still see what you're suggesting as somewhat akin to how the Japanese described World War II for SO many years in their school lessons. (I hope you're familiar with that because there IS a strong comparison here, IMO.)
As for Daryl, he was here before I was and gone when I arrived. However, the idea of a porn film producer running around with a Masonic ring makes me physically sick. Why on earth should I ignore that? Somewhere, sometime, SOMEONE will write saying, "I knew this guy who was a porn film maker who was a Mason...." and darn it, it's not so. If *I* don't record that somewhere, who the heck will? Think they'll put it on the website for the Grand Lodge of California? I don't frankly....
> If an individual, sane or not, is of the opinion > Freemasonry is a bad thing, he should have the right to voice that > opinion without reprisal. We can correct their mistakes here without > resorting to destroying them publicly as individuals.
Destruction is NEVER my intent. These folks have ALREADY done whatever it is that they've done though. How can someone who lies about their own lives (pretending to be wheelchair bound, for example) have any legitimacy in what they say about Freemasonry? Why do they get to be 'taken at face value' whenever they walk into the room? (Again, and again, and again....)
I'm not arguing; I'm simply trying to understand the logic here.
> On the other hand, people that make a living attacking the Fraternity > for profit, however, are in my opinion fair game. The Ed Kunks and > Ron Carlsons of the world should get both barrels, and I will > wholeheartedly support your actions in this regard.
(LARRY Kunk). Again, I don't see the difference between the two. Because SO many people 'live' on the internet these days, folks like those you mention don't get half as many 'eyeballs' as someone like "Watchy", for example. I'm oriented toward the internet stuff: Bros. Morris and deHoyos have very amply addressed Carlson, for example.
> In the meantime, I would ask you not to fall prey to taunts from the > trolls, who will by their nature oppose this peace process, and > encourage those that follow you to do the same. For my part, I will > also withdraw from the field, and we'll see where we are when you you > put the revised pages up.
No need to leave on my account. There are several who wish to provide spelling lessons, review rare book matters, and/or plumb the depths of Al Pike's publisher. And, as I've ALWAYS said, I'm open to contributions at any time.
> Bravo, sir. I hope you mean what you say.
Oh, I do. And I certainly hope that Jeff will give us all the opportunity to clarify the many questions that were raised when his several organizations were being touted here. I think that could clear up SO much.... While I personally wasn't interested, there seemed to be a very strong groundswell for the type of group that (perhaps) was envisioned. The obfuscation and threats (which, based on David's post, seem to be continuing, sadly) caused MUCH concern though. Rather than threaten and insult me, I hope for an open discussion involving not only myself but others who can help mediate. Will you encourage Jeff in this?
I want to clarify the issues which seem to be bothering Jeff: doing it here with others seeing who's saying could certainly bring some closure to this and allow everyone to move on in life. If I accepted the (only NOW Jeff-confessed) LIES of other supposed Masons (seen then and never seen here again, strangely) and made statements about his group(s) based on those lies, I really don't understand why *I* should be roasted but nevertheless I will happily apologize for being gullible in thinking that those Masons were telling the truth.... <sigh>
> Current denizens of the ImpFilter(tm): JB, JLRuble, JDolan > "Ignoring idiots for a better tomorrow."
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:16:29 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote:
>The first I made in this thread AND have made all along: when a Mason >acts improperly - whether it be behavior such as the serial rapist >Bernardo or you calling people names (or, in your opinion, me writing >'bad' things) - others look at this and say, "I know {so-and-so} is a >Mason and he's done awful stuff. How come you tell us about George >Washington and not him? You're HIDING things." That is, I believe, a >legitimate charge. We have not sworn to protect Masons who violate >civil law nor do we have obligations to 'protect' those behaving >improperly.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first (criminals) but the "behaving improperly"? That it often subjective, and I should think oversteps the main purpose of the website. As we have seen the the Perry case, it is most likely better to err on the side of caution.
>As I had mentioned here in the past, I had received a 'solicitation' >from the person you regularly refer to as "Worshipful" or "Past Master" >(without acknowledging, strangely, the MANY of us here hold that >honorific and more) McFarland. His reply to my questions was, to say >the least, less than Masonic. When I have a free weekend, I'm going to >check his book out though my library's e-book service and have a read. >We'll see after that.
Fair enough. I appreciate you reviewing your position.
>> I would also ask that you consider removing the pages for people Like >> Sam Moser, Daryl Carstensen, even the prolific Chris Stevens, and >> stop giving these individuals someone and something to focus their >> aggression on, for the benefit of the Fraternity.
>I'm not meaning to have an argument here but I simply do not understand >how my noting the egregious behavior of Chris, for example, does >ANYTHING one way or another. Chris - under his two dozen pseudonyms - >can leave the casual observer thinking that there are all these people >posting against Freemasonry so SURELY there must be something afoot. >However, when replying to any of his ludicrous posts, a simple pointer >is made to a web page, it all becomes clear to that observer. Since you >claim to have been here for years before you started posting, SURELY >you know that Sam was an absolute.... Well, surely you know. It was HE >who made such a bid deal out of his medical history. It was HE who >wrote pages upon pages about how the Masons had been filling him with >drugs etc. What is so horribly wrong with pointing out those FACTS so >that others can understand and appreciate the 'whole picture'?
Well, I see two problems at least. One, it makes us look mean-spirited. These are obviously people with mental and emotional problems. Second, if I see a homeless person talking to a building, I don't walk up to them and start an argument, let alone do it for years at a time. A crazy person loves the attention. As long as someone responds, Chris will never stop. But I'll bet any casual observer here can identify him for what he is without a scorecard. I can usually pick up on it within the first two sentences of whatever name he is using at the time.
Of course, we have "good guys" who are as bad or worse. David Simpson comes to mind lately. JB is another good example. The k00ks may tend the bonfire, but we keep supplying the wood.
>Beyond that, when I become the lightning rod for outbursts like that of >Chris and I maintain the 'high ground', it shows in sharp contrast who >wears the white hat! That's my take on it anyway.
Better to put the sixguns away, so the indians get bored and quit circling our wagons. ;)
>As for Daryl, he was here before I was and gone when I arrived. >However, the idea of a porn film producer running around with a Masonic >ring makes me physically sick. Why on earth should I ignore that? >Somewhere, sometime, SOMEONE will write saying, "I knew this guy who >was a porn film maker who was a Mason...." and darn it, it's not so. If >*I* don't record that somewhere, who the heck will? Think they'll put >it on the website for the Grand Lodge of California? I don't >frankly....
I think the only reasons he wears it is because it honks us off. He gets a response from us. I think 99% of the bad behavior here is simply attention-seeking children.
>> If an individual, sane or not, is of the opinion >> Freemasonry is a bad thing, he should have the right to voice that >> opinion without reprisal. We can correct their mistakes here without >> resorting to destroying them publicly as individuals.
>Destruction is NEVER my intent. These folks have ALREADY done whatever >it is that they've done though. How can someone who lies about their >own lives (pretending to be wheelchair bound, for example) have any >legitimacy in what they say about Freemasonry? Why do they get to be >'taken at face value' whenever they walk into the room? (Again, and >again, and again....)
>I'm not arguing; I'm simply trying to understand the logic here.
Well, by challenging them and attacking them, we just look mean. And every now and then, you are going to get the wrong guy. None of us are all-seeing.
>No need to leave on my account. There are several who wish to provide >spelling lessons, review rare book matters, and/or plumb the depths of >Al Pike's publisher. And, as I've ALWAYS said, I'm open to >contributions at any time.
All interesting topics. But this nym would always be a lighting rod as well. Better to shift and get back in the pool, and hope things improve. Nothing will change if we keep going on the way we are...and I would like to see this newsgroup as something other than a masonic war zone. Bro. Russ, Bro. Bennie, Bro. Renzland....so many good men calling for change. It would be a shame to disappoint them, since our misguilded brothers seem to still believe there is some good left in us. ;)
>> Bravo, sir. I hope you mean what you say.
>Oh, I do. And I certainly hope that Jeff will give us all the >opportunity to clarify the many questions that were raised when his >several organizations were being touted here. I think that could clear >up SO much.... While I personally wasn't interested, there seemed to be >a very strong groundswell for the type of group that (perhaps) was >envisioned. The obfuscation and threats (which, based on David's post, >seem to be continuing, sadly) caused MUCH concern though. Rather than >threaten and insult me, I hope for an open discussion involving not >only myself but others who can help mediate. Will you encourage Jeff in >this?
Jeff seems to be a very nice guy, very intelligent. I would have liked to see what he and his friends were trying to accomplish before it got away from them. Perhaps someday, under calmer conditions, that desire can bear fruit.
>> Current denizens of the ImpFilter(tm): JB, JLRuble, JDolan >> "Ignoring idiots for a better tomorrow."
Ed King wrote: >I'm not meaning to have an argument here but I simply do not understand >how my noting the egregious behavior of Chris, for example, does >ANYTHING one way or another. Chris - under his two dozen pseudonyms - >can leave the casual observer thinking that there are all these people >posting against Freemasonry so SURELY there must be something afoot. >However, when replying to any of his ludicrous posts, a simple pointer >is made to a web page, it all becomes clear to that observer. Since you >claim to have been here for years before you started posting, SURELY >you know that Sam was an absolute.... Well, surely you know. It was HE >who made such a bid deal out of his medical history. It was HE who >wrote pages upon pages about how the Masons had been filling him with >drugs etc. What is so horribly wrong with pointing out those FACTS so >that others can understand and appreciate the 'whole picture'?
>Beyond that, when I become the lightning rod for outbursts like that of >Chris and I maintain the 'high ground', it shows in sharp contrast who >wears the white hat! That's my take on it anyway.
Because he's a human being Ed, a carbon-based lifeform somewhat similar to you in nature, and you've hardly maintained the "high ground" with your entries regarding Chris, or Sam Moser, on MASONICINFO.
Regardless of Chris' purported "trans-gendered lifestyle" per your website, it is incumbent upon you to behave in an adult-like fashion as opposed to the actions of your detractors. You are, after all, the fellow professing to "make good men better", and you operate and maintain the preeminent virtual resource of information pertaining to freemasonry.
Anyway, who cares Ed, it's subpoena week and you're now the main attraction - let's see just how deep your rabbit hole really goes. With kind regards
In article <qkprt0lug6ge7p848cfb6t4vbkffa7q...@4ax.com>, Craftworker wrote: > On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:16:29 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> > wrote:
> >The first I made in this thread AND have made all along: when a Mason > >acts improperly - whether it be behavior such as the serial rapist > >Bernardo or you calling people names (or, in your opinion, me writing > >'bad' things) - others look at this and say, "I know {so-and-so} is a > >Mason and he's done awful stuff. How come you tell us about George > >Washington and not him? You're HIDING things." That is, I believe, a > >legitimate charge. We have not sworn to protect Masons who violate > >civil law nor do we have obligations to 'protect' those behaving > >improperly.
> I agree wholeheartedly with the first (criminals) but the "behaving > improperly"? That it often subjective, and I should think oversteps > the main purpose of the website. As we have seen the the Perry case, > it is most likely better to err on the side of caution.
Without beating this to death, I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to at least explain where I've been coming from. Certainly it's ALWAYS helpful to have input because my goal all along has been to present anti-Masonry and acts against Masonry in a way that explains rather than judges.
As those in the U.K. have seen, keeping totally silent isn't a productive response in the long run. I've tried to be objective ('he said this' or 'see this message') but certainly from the individual's perspective, pointing the light at things best left unremembered is often embarrassing.
> >As I had mentioned here in the past, I had received a 'solicitation' > >from the person you regularly refer to as "Worshipful" or "Past Master" > >(without acknowledging, strangely, the MANY of us here hold that > >honorific and more) McFarland. His reply to my questions was, to say > >the least, less than Masonic. When I have a free weekend, I'm going to > >check his book out though my library's e-book service and have a read. > >We'll see after that.
> Fair enough. I appreciate you reviewing your position.
I don't want to spend money on the book, particularly in light of my correspondence with him. Having e-book access is a great way to read without him profiting for providing those who would defame Freemasonry with ammunition - in my opinion.
> >> I would also ask that you consider removing the pages for people Like > >> Sam Moser, Daryl Carstensen, even the prolific Chris Stevens, and > >> stop giving these individuals someone and something to focus their > >> aggression on, for the benefit of the Fraternity.
> >I'm not meaning to have an argument here but I simply do not understand > >how my noting the egregious behavior of Chris, for example, does > >ANYTHING one way or another. Chris - under his two dozen pseudonyms - > >can leave the casual observer thinking that there are all these people > >posting against Freemasonry so SURELY there must be something afoot. > >However, when replying to any of his ludicrous posts, a simple pointer > >is made to a web page, it all becomes clear to that observer. Since you > >claim to have been here for years before you started posting, SURELY > >you know that Sam was an absolute.... Well, surely you know. It was HE > >who made such a bid deal out of his medical history. It was HE who > >wrote pages upon pages about how the Masons had been filling him with > >drugs etc. What is so horribly wrong with pointing out those FACTS so > >that others can understand and appreciate the 'whole picture'?
> Well, I see two problems at least. One, it makes us look > mean-spirited. These are obviously people with mental and emotional > problems.
Hmmmmm....
I take your point but: in EVERYTHING I've done on my website, I've tried to point out that it's an INDIVIDUAL interpretation. There's no imprimatur anywhere and, in fact, I've been particularly careful to avoid such a thing. It's one person's opinion. If folks judge all Freemasons as mean-spirited, what does this say of their objectivity?
Beyond that, though, I wish I could share with you the MANY positive message I receive each and every day. It's hard, I'm sure, for someone who's convinced that my website is the work of the Devil incarnate to understand that at least a couple of times a month (sometimes a couple of times a week) someone writes that they've decided to join Freemasonry because of my website. I am SO humbled by that - and then to have the charge of 'mean-spiritedness' levelled.... Well, it's difficult to process frankly.
Please know that I'm not trying to toot my own horn but am taking this opportunity to clarify where my mind is on these things. After this post, I'll let it drop.
> Second, if I see a homeless person talking to a building, I > don't walk up to them and start an argument, let alone do it for years > at a time. A crazy person loves the attention. As long as someone > responds, Chris will never stop. But I'll bet any casual observer here > can identify him for what he is without a scorecard. I can usually > pick up on it within the first two sentences of whatever name he is > using at the time.
But some don't. Did everyone know right off the bat that "Sanjay" was another of his 'socks'? And what about our little reptilian Jason? Heck, I bet half the folks posting here couldn't identify even 1/10th of his monthly identities. Having a guide map can be handy for folks who're using rickety software without features that enable them to readily identify this stuff. And so when "Sanjay" starts whining that he's being mistreated, pointing to the page about Chris helps folks focus - again, in my opinion. (It ALSO provides the permanent record which Google doesn't always show readily - and in their new version is even MORE tedious to dissect.)
> Of course, we have "good guys" who are as bad or worse. David Simpson > comes to mind lately. JB is another good example. The k00ks may tend > the bonfire, but we keep supplying the wood.
We will definately have to agree to disagree about this. We don't all behave like Stepford Wives - and good on us, IMO. The two Brethren you mention are EXCELLENT long-term participants here and I am PROUD to call them 'Brother'. You certainly do have a point in our building up the bonfire at times: it's something that comes naturally for a lot of us, I'm afraid.
> >Beyond that, when I become the lightning rod for outbursts like that of > >Chris and I maintain the 'high ground', it shows in sharp contrast who > >wears the white hat! That's my take on it anyway.
> Better to put the sixguns away, so the indians get bored and quit > circling our wagons. ;)
If only.... And this goes directly back to the old saw that the lie travels around the world while truth is still putting on his trousers.
> >As for Daryl, he was here before I was and gone when I arrived. > >However, the idea of a porn film producer running around with a Masonic > >ring makes me physically sick. Why on earth should I ignore that? > >Somewhere, sometime, SOMEONE will write saying, "I knew this guy who > >was a porn film maker who was a Mason...." and darn it, it's not so. If > >*I* don't record that somewhere, who the heck will? Think they'll put > >it on the website for the Grand Lodge of California? I don't > >frankly....
> I think the only reasons he wears it is because it honks us off.
I agree - but remember, SOMEONE thinks HE is a Mason!
> He gets a response from us. I think 99% of the bad behavior here is > simply attention-seeking children.
> >> If an individual, sane or not, is of the opinion > >> Freemasonry is a bad thing, he should have the right to voice that > >> opinion without reprisal. We can correct their mistakes here without > >> resorting to destroying them publicly as individuals.
> >Destruction is NEVER my intent. These folks have ALREADY done whatever > >it is that they've done though. How can someone who lies about their > >own lives (pretending to be wheelchair bound, for example) have any > >legitimacy in what they say about Freemasonry? Why do they get to be > >'taken at face value' whenever they walk into the room? (Again, and > >again, and again....)
> >I'm not arguing; I'm simply trying to understand the logic here.
> Well, by challenging them and attacking them, we just look mean. And > every now and then, you are going to get the wrong guy. None of us are > all-seeing.
Understood - and will be taken into future consideration.
> >No need to leave on my account. There are several who wish to provide > >spelling lessons, review rare book matters, and/or plumb the depths of > >Al Pike's publisher. And, as I've ALWAYS said, I'm open to > >contributions at any time.
> All interesting topics. But this nym would always be a lighting rod as > well. Better to shift and get back in the pool, and hope things > improve.
I've never believed that trickery or deceit wins the day in ANY way - and the nym thing (for ME at least) falls into that category. I look forward to conversing with you in some other 'life' and in a more pleasant way in the future.
> Nothing will change if we keep going on the way we are...and > I would like to see this newsgroup as something other than a masonic > war zone. Bro. Russ, Bro. Bennie, Bro. Renzland....so many good men > calling for change. It would be a shame to disappoint them, since our > misguilded brothers seem to still believe there is some good left in > us. ;)
Anyone who is _truly_ a Mason would think the best of his Brothers - and, hopefully, would behave that way towards them.
> >Oh, I do. And I certainly hope that Jeff will give us all the > >opportunity to clarify the many questions that were raised when his > >several organizations were being
Ed King wrote: > And as just a follow-up, Jeff: I'll take the page you object to down > early-on this weekend. I can make the updates to the rest of the site > later. Can we discuss the points you raise here then?
> Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.
Ed,
All I ask is that the page be removed. The RRCG is dead. There is nothing left to discuss about it, and I have negative zero interest in discussing Freemasonry or even being involved in the organization. If you would like the TracingBoard.com domain consider it as my gift to you. Simply get with me and make arrangements for the transfer.
