The following exchange on the Patriarchy List would be funny if it weren 't so DANGEROUS.
Here we have Super Kike Diechmohle disciplining members of the Patriarchy list for posting to "a Knight's list", after he suggested to his entire list that they post insults to our list accusing us of being "nazis".
He threatens to kick them off the list if they post anything but insults to our lists!!
And then he has the chutzpeh to say in response to the comment " We also agreed that attacks were to be directed against arguments, not against persons":
THIS, from a man who changed his internet screen name to "Bill Cervantes" and proceeded to insult Christians, Christianity, Jesus Christ, and every father in the country involved in the struggle to restore responsible fatherhood, who hurled hate speech around like rice at a wedding and referred to us as "nazis" almost a full year ago, whom we never addressed as "Super Kike" until months after he continued to bash us under various pseudonyms: "the other list", "the nazi list", "the Knights' list".
Is there any wonder why three quarters of those who have responded to the poll have opted to send all jews to Madagascar?
A key point here is that you will NOT discuss policy matters offlist.
Or on the list. Often I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall: you
only respond to what you want and ignore the concerns and questions
I have sought clarification from you at least FOUR (4) times on
certain matters and you refuse to acknowledge, let alone answer, the
These arise from you issuing instructions/directions about where I
can and cannot post emails to on other lists and threatening my
unsubscription if I didn't comply. I sought to clarify certain
issues with you - because it didn't appear your instructions matched
written list policy - but you have not done me the courtesy of a
Additionally, because I involved Art and Walter as 'witnesses' to
what you were doing to me, it appears that they are now suffering.
If you won't act responsibly off-list and respond with to questions,
about issues you initiate, then it makes it very difficult to work
together. It makes the Patriarchy list look less like a
I have since again asked you those questions off-list and I see you
have posted to the list since I asked the questions again, but you
have chosen to ignore me and not respond.
For the record I am now asking those questions on the list. I
believe this is an important issue. Off-list harassment is not a good
thing. If you have rules they should be upfront, clearly definined,
make sense and be agreed by people on the list.
This may be my last posting because you may unsub me. Be that as it
may, Art, Walter, myself and others, will continue our work no matter
what. It is possible to work together.
Subject: *Immediate unsubscription*" from Patriarchy
Jan, Thank you for your post.
However, I would appreciate it in future, if your post to me about
'disciplinary' issues, that your include one or referees/witnesses
(suitable to both you and I). I ask this because I believe that
secret 'discipline' or threats are unhealthy and open to abuse.
I am having difficulty fully understanding your email below.
You say: "According to our list policy it's not compatible with
Patriarchy membership to post to John Knight and associates - except
for sharply opposing the Nazi trash."
Where does it say that please? I was unable to find that on 27-28
November 2000, when I looked at the eGroups Patriarchy site and files
What I could find only appeared to limit cross-posting and reposting.
I understand that there may be some difference on the definition of
cross-posting, but I have always understood it to mean posting
simulateously (on the same TO field) to multiple addresses. I have
not previously understood cross-posting to mean posting individually
separately to other (several/multiple) email addresses.
Would you please clarify the following:
1. What constitutes posting to a Knight's list?
a. Using my name? And any other email address?
b. Using the email address I'm subbed to Patriarchy with?
If (a), what is the basis for limitation on me posting using an
unrelated email address?
2. What is your rule for not posting to a Knight's group? I can only
see rules about reposting and crossposting.
3. Have the rules changed? Previously it was not crossposting or
forwarding. Now it appears you are seeking to control where are
person can post by limiting posts to certain other lists. Is this
the case? If so, where is this in the rules?
4. Can we discuss this on Patriarchy please? Especially if you make
a rule change - it's only fair people be aware that you are directing
where they can and cannot post - not just cross-post and repost.
You also say: "Anybody posting to John Knight and his hate lists,
I'll *immediately unsubscribe* from Patriarchy and other groups I
I find this statement threatening. Because it is unclear what you
mean elsewhere, it appears that you are seeking to limit and dictate
where I can and cannot post to.
What are the other groups that you allude to please?
I look forward to your early response and clarifations.
Thank you, Lindsay
PS It is my view that you appear too fixated on John Knights.
Perhaps you should not be chasing him so much, and maybe then he will
cease harassing you, as you claim he is. Interestingly, I moderate a
number of lists and I've never had any probems with Knights - either
reposting maliciously or attacking me. Perhaps this is because my
focus is patriarchy and the associated men's and fathers' rights and
At 00:46 27/11/2000, Jan wrote:
etc, etc... (Jan's email not posted as he has requested that it
remain secret (it was headed *private*).
I look forward to your response to my specific questions. It
disappoints me that you will not do me the simple courtesy of
answering these simple questions off-list, and that the issue must now
be raised on list. But I believe these issues are important for all of us.
Jan Deichmohle wrote:
> In my previous post I asked you not to discuss policy matters public, as had been supported by Art and you when others were involved. Now please keep the same guidelines yourself.
> --- In patriarchy@e..., "Walter H. Schneider" wrote:
> > I really don't see how we can get around having a public discussion on this.
> Again you're debating policy matters publicly contradicting Art's and your view. That's not fair play. Some ask that opponents play to the rules without doing themselves.
> > > No political discussion was "banned" at all. I called an end for the controversy on that thread as it doesn't help us, and explicitly only those in the controversy were addressed.
> > You didn't clamp down when the bad language was introduced.
> False, immediately after reading I asked him not to do so. As it happened twice, two such requests were sent.
> As explained, nobody likes to be moderated. I assume in that case you would be *very* angry, yet you're quick in requesting that others are moderated. Therefor it won't be good to moderate after one occurence, or else we would lose a lot of members - in an angry od.
> It's not my job to get anybody's political antagonists off the list.
> Moderation needs to be impartial.
> > We also agreed that attacks were to be directed against arguments, not against persons.
> Indeed that's agreed and doesn't need a debate.
> > In my mind, using bad language in attacking someone on a discussion forum is the equivalent of a fist fight. That isn't done in polite company. The list rules forbid it. The person throwing the first punch should be taken to task, not the one trying to defend himself.
> While it's perfectly true that bad language isn't done in polite company and violates list policy, your conclusion is partisan.
> First, more than one was involved, one of them being Rod. You probably can't complain that he would have used bad language.
> Second, trying to make one's party line the list agenda is a step into controversy; and I had asked Art not to try it before receiving the impolite post (reading posts with some delay in chronological order).
> Similarly third party views have been attacked at previous occasions. It's just not true to call anybody not supporting the own party a "liberal". At that time the election campaign was going on and leniency seemed requested. Art even excused himself once after he found out that the opponent he had fought bitterly was a Canadian.
> Since foundation, by list policy we're "uniting people from all backgrounds to promote Patriarchy and oppose feminism".
> It's not in the spirit of our agenda to force those off not supporting a specific political party line. That what's been repeatedly tried (for several members), on- and off-list.
> As moderator I've to be immune to such efforts.
> It's a misuse to criticize the moderator when he's not helping in achieving this.
> > A good start could be made by immediately pointing it out when someone is out of line and not letting it go by.
> False. No occurence was left out, each resulting in an immediate request to stop after reading. I assume that you don't like to be moderated either, so it may be a good idea trying other methods first when somebody uses inadequate language.
> > > However, this discussion is contradicting not to discuss moderation publicly as promoted by you.
> > Somewhat like a man who was falsely accused of being the aggressor in a case of domestic violence but found guilty in camera even though it wasn't he who either provoked the fight or threw the first punch?
> You're led by partisanship in this comment, Walter.
> Criticism of bad languange was only made towards one side - the side using it.
> > I have the clear impression that you clamped down on the innocent party, and that the guilty party was permitted to repeat his offense. That was even though you were quite well aware of what was happening.
> Walter, previously you used to lecture me privately unasked for.
> Now you resort to lecturing me publicly. That's not acceptable and I protest.
> It's not my job to get anybody's political opponents off the list.
> Moderation needs to be impartial, otherwise it's a farce. That means that at times both sides need to be requested to stop a controversy.
> As it seems, some ask for moderation of others while not accepting it for themselves. That would result in injustice one day. If members prefer, we could agree on not moderating at all, but we can't restrict moderation to one side.
> What would a football match be like, when on side starts attacking the umpire because he didn't decide in their favour?
> We already lost members complaining of "narrow-mindedness" while thanking me for allowing other opinions.
> Now the top of it is that some tried to keep other opinions off the list (e.g. non-republican), while the same complain when list policy excludes association with Nazi hate mongers which is discrediting, illegal and unconstitutional here and deservedly so.
> I'm promoting tolerance. Other political opinions are allowed; our patriarchal list agenda needs protection, though. Aggressive, hateful, violence-inciting intolerance however needs to be fought in the name of tolerance. That's the modern definition of tolerance.
> It's not tolerant to do things the wrong way round - accusing any other party line to be "liberal" and out of place while insisting that it's allowed to associate with hard core Nazi hate mongers inciting violence.
> > I wouldn't mind to have discussions like this in private, but I don't feel safe any longer doing so, seeing that you just changed the list rules once more, without discussing the change with anyone I'm aware of.
> That's another unfair play, as in this case public debate is clearly adverse, because the hate mongers have moles on Patriarchy and like to use any such post and controversy for weird, irrational bashing.
> It's likely that they will have much fun when reading this. It was important to avoid this situation, Walter.
> The change was needed because of tries to circumvent the policy to do what it requested not to do. This involved disclosing private letters, among other things.
> >You thereby attempt to expand the scope of your control beyond the boundaries of the Patriarchy list.
> I'm avoiding that we and I become criminals according to my country's law which I support in this respect. Even without the law that would be advisable. Now you made it unavoidable to publish the background, meaning that we get involved into the hate mongers' mess which you didn't want.
> >It seems to me that the focus of your attention should be on what happens on the list.
> The private controversy involving two others and you was keeping me off the list since days.
> Play fair! Play to your own rules!
> Keep policy matters off the list.
> A major importance of moderation is to stop harmful controversies, just as an umpire in a match.
> Stop this controversy.
> Promote Patriarchy, not controversy.
HERE is an example of a jew following his own advice under the pseudonym "Bill Cervantes":
UPDATE: More Hatred Of Knight's Hate Company