psketti wrote: Thanks for bumping it

Anytime

Just got back from reading that thread at the DIF.

It's noted that blackyblue has quite rightly drawn attention to this thread.
Also observed is that this thread's presence is being painted as an act of hypocrisy by certain admin.

So to anyone reading, I'd like to point out that the Sanctum Zone isn't the David Icke Forum.

The David Icke Forum is a part of a commercial website.
The Sanctum Zone Forum is a part of a so far small community's self funding website. You don't need Ad-block plus here

We here have a very very different way of going about the subjects of such things as moderation. There are many varied views on the subject amongst the members here, a consensus was achieved that has led us to have moderators that take the consensus view to be the arbitrator of what and who gets moderated. Sod you'll have your ears pricked by that no doubt Sod for example was banned because the members collectively agreed that he wasn't presenting himself in the best light shall I say

Similarly, other decisions at SZ are made through open and informed discussion by the members with an aim to consensus. We have an up and running system to take everyone's view into account as in our long standing question of which chat room to go with.

So, with these things in mind.
It's pretty bloody obvious that an email conversation such as the one posted here (with the remunerated manager of a commercial business, who is acting in that role) would be posted for the community to discuss. It is something which every member of the Sanctum Zone (and I believe any other interested "traffic" ) has a right to be aware of and a right to comment on.


We respect community, openness, accountability and PRIVACY. The last bit is why the site is set up on a platform that has no other option but to have ALL PMs encrypted. Beyond that, the really really paranoid can password protect their encrypted PMs too.

@blackyblue

I have expressed my own concerns about one aspect of the David Icke Forum. Speaking for myself and NOT for the SZ.

Others will have totally different opinions. The person I've expressed concern over happens to be the Webmaster of the David Icke website. I have no personal issue with the moderators as I am sure Weeman could confirm.

If you take my words as being the position of the Sanctum Zone's consensus, you're mistaken. I'm likely to be in a minority of one.

There is no attempt to "take over" the DIF from the Sanctum Zone Very few of us want to go back to posting there A few would like to keep active on both platforms and fair play to them. If I'm hearing a consensus here it's that SZ just wants to be left to grow. Most here are bored with this "War" that we didn't declare.

So a few people swapped emails at the DIF and linked up on a new web site? Wow! Front page news!

Exiled?
En masse?

Why not sign up here so we can have a more natural chat?

Hi Dubs, you know I love you but I don't think publishing a private email you received from Sean was the most sensible move you ever made.

Personally, I find that a bit wrong.

I'm sure other people might not but just wanted to say I don't think anybody should be posting private emails

dawnbreak wrote:
If you read the email sean said it was ok to pass it on. The first one anyway, not sure about the rest.

I take your point Dawn I'm more than happy to retract them if people would prefer.

dubmeup wrote:
Dont bother, the deed is done, stand by the courage of your convictions

Some food for thought....

If I don't know lets say a david cameron and nick clegg, said come on the lets address all the rumours circulating the web about us and then we can tell you the 'truth' about how the country is run - how many of you would just take the answers that they give at face value?

The thread over on the icke site is there to quote sean, to ensure 'this ends tonight' - the issue appears to be about 'poaching' members - you cannot 'poach' someone with free will. Really think for a second about what is being implied there. It is being implied that people are unable to choose something for themselves - that they will just willingly follow - it is said that we 'poach' people and then feed them lies so they stay here - again think about what that implies - it implies that people do not have the integrity or ability to make up their own minds - rather that sean - as it is him saying it - believes that members of the icke site will buy any shit told to them on face value and act accordingly - in line with the will of those feeding whatever story they choose.

No one here wants people to post here against their will - no one here wants people to choose between 'them and us' - no one here has been banned from mentioning other forums or from linking to other forums or from suggesting people check somewhere else out.

This place has arisen due to people wanting to be the change - we did exactly as was suggested - we didnt like what we saw on the dif so we started our own forum - a natural result of which ended up with people venting about what it was that spurred them on to want change. They could finally talk openly about it with others who saw the same problems without fear of recrimination.

That really is the be all and end all of it - merlincove, i_am and sean have all been guilty of insinuating some things about this place and individual members which are untrue - we have said things about the admin on dif which they say are untrue - it is up to each and every individual to choose for themselves whether want to believe what is being said here - there or a bit of both - it is up to every single individual what they decide to do with that belief - be a member here - be a member there - get off the net altogether - create your own forum - it really does not matter.

As dub has said the email was printed here for all to see because unlike the dif we do not have a 'team' that makes decisions for us - so he put it to the people with the power to make decisions - namely the entire community - we all have the option to give our opinion - and the consensus will decide the outcome - do people really believe it is a problem to let everyone have a say? or to let everyone know what is going on so that there is not a case of 'you don't know what goes on or what we see' - this way everyone knows - everyone has to take responsibility and everyone has an equal say in how the place is shaped. Which is just one of the changes we wished to see.

We have woken up, thought what can we do?, got off of our knees, been the change and we are we and we are free. (well as free as one can be on an internet form but am sure you get the drift)

Bravo thoreau!! It can't be said any more direct, truthful or better than that!!

And to Dawny: Dub made it clear to Mr. Adl that whatever transpired through their email correspondence would be posted publicly for all to see here, not only members but lurkers. I don't think Dub would have done so had Mr. Adl not agreed with said idea. I for one fully support it! The time for transparency is LONG overdue!!

Truth does not Fear investigation.

I completely see where you are coming Thoreau.

However I think perhaps if the email was to be shared with members it might perhaps be better suited to being in the members area?

The whole 'forum wars' thing actually does my head in. Not the sentiement behind it but the way Sean has handled it ....what does he expect? If he starts slagging everyone here off and calling us parastic wankers, and worse , that we won't get pissed off and slag him on return?

We are just a bunch of ordinary people who like chewing the fat with others over the internet.

The idea that this forum is anti-david icke and is out to destroy his forum/him is completely and utterly loopy

There have been so many 'mistruths' about here painted on DIF

@phem well if Sean gave his permission then it is me that retractes my post

*note to self* read all related threads

dawnbreak wrote:
to be fair theres been a lot going on and its hard to keep up with.

thanks dawn - I do get what you are saying - I think that wherever it was posted would have created a stink over there - but that is my opinion.

As you are say we are just ordinary people - we make mistakes - we react - we do some things rashly - we also support, respect and offer a helping hand to each other - each individual here is taking responsibility for what they say and do and listens to the feedback from others - I love it - I like that we do not always agree - I like that we can disagree without being called names, insulted or accused of being anything other then just ordinary people.

dubmeup wrote:
Care to refresh my memory about this? Wasn't it something that Mutwa said that some close to Icke will cause him big trouble in near future? That's what I remember... And Mutwa said this some few years ago?

Hexhammer wrote:
Thats it yep

dawnbreak wrote:
That wasn't meant in an angry way Dawn Of The Break!!

phemohilia wrote:
Looking just at the latest bout of my email conversations with the Webmaster of the DIF it seems clear yeah that I informed Sean what I would do straight away. He then of his own free will chose to continue the conversation for a further two email exchanges.

With regard to Sean's email, Dubs did entirely the right thing.

He had been advised of a possible resolution from the webmaster at DIF, informed him that it was, correctly, not his call to make and that he would put it to the membership of SZ for discussion. Which he promptly did.
This site does not operate on a top down, group of high admins/mods deciding for the whole.
It's actually the reverse. Imagine that!

The allegation that we, in turn, blackmailed DIF by demanding this site be removed from their banned list is absolute fiction.
Here is the quote where I made that suggestion ...feather wrote:
"It would be nice" is a blackmailling demand!?
In which universe?

Why did I request that?
Because I thought that some people may want to be able to explore other options freely and without restriction.
I don't assume that people are stupid and that anyone would fool them into joining a site.
They are perfectly capable of making that decision on their own, then leaving again if it did not match their expectations.

This site does not wish to restrict it's users to here, and here alone. How patronising would that be?
In fact, there has already been a discussion on exchanging links with other sites and forums.
SZ is still in it's infancy and both tech admins have done sterling work, (for free!), the said Linkzone is in the queue for attention, once basic utilities have been installed and tested, but it will happen.

Contrary to claims made at DIF, SZ does NOT have 20 mods
There is currently;
1 site founder, DiamondGeezer
1 tech admin, Frog
1 tech/admin/mod, Novum
1 mod Psketti

People did not 'steal traffic from DIF'
They contacted their online friends or people they found interesting to make them aware.
It's your call whether you wished to be regarded as 'traffic' or not.

I hate to confuse things with facts but hey!