Originally Posted by YinYangMind (Post 212026)

AJ,

Do you just stop in and spout to make yourself feel relevant or do you actually have some data to back up your short intellectually vacuous statements? Your post above sounds just like the childish non-sense that Bill threw on the table starting this latest of many questionable events surrounding the PC/PA world.

Question looking for an answer: Have you done any actual research on the subject discussed on this thread? If so, care to share your findings?

Peace,

YinYangMind

Originally Posted by Average Joe (Post 212060)

My findings are that HPH is an entertainment website that has not predicted anything accurately so far. Like I said.

Originally Posted by YinYangMind (Post 212086)

I see. You've definitely demonstrated a severe depth of critical thinking, participation and response. If you would actually take the time to 'read, ponder and respond', I'll be more than happy to post empirical data that is contrary to your findings. Somehow, I'm not sure you'd take the time or consider data outside of your own realm of evidence, but I will provide you some thought provoking results from my research if you'd like nonetheless.

Peace,

YinYangMind

Originally Posted by Average Joe (Post 212090)

Go on then.

Produce empirical data that shows the site to have predicted anything remotely accurate, and I'm not talking vague co-incidences here.

Also, show me how the site is not for entertainment purposes only - it had that disclaimer on it for years. It doesn't now, but you don't seriously believe that an entertainment website is now churning out serious stuff and serious results do you?

Originally Posted by clarkkent (Post 212109)

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by clarkkent (Post 212109)

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by sjkted (Post 212111)

The bit about it being for entertainment purposes is quite obviously a legal disclaimer so that nobody takes legal action against HPH in case they misinterpret what he says or if he makes a prediction that doesn't come true.

--sjkted

Originally Posted by clarkkent (Post 212109)

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan (Post 200860)

Actually, the thread title should be Bill Ryan on Clif High's accusations! :)

I was appreciative that Clif posted my original message correct and unchanged.

(Please do read it carefully, by the way.)

It had been a reply to a question on the Bill Ryan thread, asking why Clif had stated publicly that Bill Deagle was a paid agent. So I answered the question, because that was the purpose of the thread.

Clif was correct about my getting the 'PI' wrong. That was my error. The rest of what I wrote was essentially correct.

The substantive issue is that Clif was trying to smear a whistleblower for reasons best known to himself, and was searching for information he could use to discredit him. For me, that's an integrity issue.

What I'd called a PI [Private Investigator] was described in the original e-mail (sent to me on 14 April) by Clif as a "researcher/detective". This person was NOT hired by him. My mistake, and I'm happy to correct that.

Meanwhile, Clif's reason for escalating this issue publicly was - I'm as sure as I can be - an excuse to raise the profile of his allegations against Bill Deagle. So I will not be wrestling with him anywhere.

But I'll make this simple response here (or else people will wonder why I'm not saying anything) - and then Clif can shout from the rooftops if he wants to make an idiot of himself.

The issue is this. We will protect Camelot whistleblowers against smears and innuendo. If not us, then who? This is our job and is one of the reasons Camelot exists.

If someone wants to create a wonderful new world by raking through the personal finances of someone they disagree with without directly facing to the person they're trying to make a case against, then I suggest that this is not the direction to take to create a new civilization.

It sounds terribly like the old one to me.

Very best wishes to all - Bill

______

Note:

* For me the issue feels closed, and the above is a pretty good statement of where I stand.
* I won't be visiting this thread again. You're welcome to ask me questions on the Bill Ryan thread, and I'll answer them. The reason for this is simply limited time - I can only reasonably monitor one long thread on the forum, and it's helpful for members to have just one place where they can find me. So please forgive me if this is my only post here.
--Cheers, B

Originally Posted by Myplanet2 (Post 212142)

There's always got to be one, it seems. "I gots dis here opiniun, and wants to shares it wit chew all (scratch-scratch)". Nothing wrong with sharing opinions, but kind of useless when accompanied by a "facts" vacuum. I guess the wedding interrupted by the quake, and the northeast power outage were "coinkydinks"

Originally Posted by Average Joe (Post 212182)

I still await somebody, anybody, to provide me with solid facts that show it is a serious site and has gotten predictions in the past right.

Originally Posted by Luana (Post 212212)

AJ, I wonder if you have bought and read any of the alta reports? If you have, then you are able to be part of the webbot discussion forum. They have been keeping track of bot hits. There are way to many to post here. Which is one of the reasons Clif is so highly thought of here.

Originally Posted by Dood (Post 212627)

I HAVE to 2nd what Carol just posted.
Trust me on this...Carol and I have not always saw eye to eye on things but, I HAVE to agree with her on this wholeheartedly!

Carol stated it better then I could so I will just simply 2nd what Carol posted!

In the spirit of Openness:
I will say since I have met Francie way back when she was made a moderator here on Avalon without her knowledge or anyone asking her if she wanted to be a Mod was when I got to meet her and know her.
(long story there)
She has aways been dead honest and forthcoming.

She has integrity in spades! I am honored to have had the opportunity to have met her.
She is a true Lady. I do not see anywhere on how she broke any rules regarding the Terms of Service here!

Originally Posted by Argante (Post 212894)

I also agree with what Dood and Carol have said regarding Francie.

Very sad to see a senior member silenced because they were trying to get to the truth. Francie was a valuable member , and I will miss her unique input and posts.

Originally Posted by metaw3 (Post 212916)

To those who didn't see it... She made 2 posts and the second one is deleted. It was an email from Bill Ryan forwarding to her his reply to Cliff High and asking her to "not post this letter anywhere". That's why she is banned I think. When I read this post I knew it would be deleted.

Originally Posted by eleni (Post 212957)

Posting private communication asked to be kept private will result in a ban. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Dood (Post 212972)

Let me get this straight! You are saying she broke the Terms & Conditions of this forum?
I would agree with you IF both parties AGREED to whatever information was shared would remain private.
But, that was not the case here....She was never given any CHOICE to say yes or no to this.
It was just sent to her freely and without her asking for this information.

For example I cannot PM you and say: "Here is something on the side...blah..blah...blah..." and then expect you to not say anything unless you agreed to it.
I cannot just decree that it is confidential unless you agree with me. You have to have that choice.

Both parties have to AGREE in order for something to be private.
It was freely given to her without her asking for this information.

So, in that respect she did not break ANYthing regarding the Terms & Conditions that we all (Staff included) agreed too.

I have seen emails shared on this and many other forums.
It is not privileged information unless both parties agree to it...

Even if said information is 'uncomfortable' in order to keep one's integrity one must live by the rules that were set up.
Since Francie Jones was not given any choice about anything being confidential then she did not break any rules.
She was simply told this information without her ever asking for it....
That is the difference here! She did not agree to this being 'private' because she was never given the choice to agree or not.

Now if an Email at the beginning of ALL of this stated:
"Francie I want to share something with you privately. Will you agree to keep this strictly confidential?" and if she replied: "Yes, I do..." then that is a whole nother story all together.
Then I would say you had grounds for a suspension of privileges.

Anything different ruins the integrity of the forum.