flickr user admits to being cause of my deletion [updated]

Two of your fellow editors seem to think it is.

 Perhapse you should read everything from the begining, in order, and don't presume that this is a "simple case of personal beefs."

i'm starting to see a pattern here... someone has decided that it's time to crash down on me because i've posted a bunch of things.  i just dealt with one of your fellow editors throwing memes at me like you have here, attacking two postings within the same 10 minutes, indicating a problem with reading comprehension and a personal bias against someone who has a complaint about a "technology" company or service.

Frankly, PEP, declaring this to be "a personal beef with another user on another website" is totally missing the point and is just a casual method of trying to degrade my credibility and my right to have a voice about something that's not right. Something that's illegal, in fact. i've tried all the traditional "ways to go about it" and i am HERE NOW because those methods have failed. i am blacklisted because i embarassed flickr staff when they acted without that proclaimed "erring on the side of caution" declared by Stewart Butterfield when flickr got its last black eye over censorship.

Also: Notice that this is an opinion piece. The other guy seems to have missed that point, too. There are a ton of things i don't personally consider "news worthy" but i'm not out there trying to throw my weight around and discredit them for posting it.

Why is it that within the span of 15 minutes, i'm getting an assault from you and this other guy, all with the same general commentary? Are you the self appointed watch dogs policing this website because you have the esteemed position of Editor?

i beg you not to abuse that position because you will have demonstrated the very same behavior that flickr has demonstrated which has driven me HERE to NOW make it PUBLIC. Is this website to be used for the exercise of power of a few editors with opinions about what is and is not news or is this a web site that is here for people to make public what they feel should be known by others? 

i found my common thread between you and the other editor... You both give yourselves away by having links to your websites/blogs.

 You've taken the position that i'm a liberal, which you're biased against. You show that bias with the kind of extreme that does not belong in journalism.

journalism, which you claim to be passionate about, is not about using your influence to spread your bias. It's about spreading information that a society as a whole either should know, or might need to know, for the betterment of the whole society.

Perhapse you should re-read your Emerson quote... 

"Do not go where the path may lead.  Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

i am not going where the path may lead. i am going where there is no path, attempting to leave a trail of evidence. Some seem to be threatened by that. i wonder why?

instead of tearing each other down on this site, you should be building each other up and supporting the sharing of information. Not trying to discredit and obstruct information you have a personal bias against. 

dysmoria, I'm not sure how you decided that I think that you're a liberal. I actually came back to this thread to offer you some ideas on how to shape your presentation.

I went to Google and typed in flickr, complaints, and came up with a plethora of resources.  Here's just one: Flickr admits mistake.

You may not believe this right now, but most Guest Editors try to help contributors learn how to use the site to best advantage. Responding by personally attacking others falls into the area covered by the flaming policy. 

If, by using the j-tips found in the Newsroom, you can let readers know if your issue is not simply a personal problem but a larger one potentially affecting others,  present the material in a way that provides data to back that assertion up, and gain readership, why wouldn't you want to do that? 

Hi PEP,

The material you suggest i provide is indeed provided in the other stories. Like i said, two of the other editors have already commented that they believe i am providing worthwhile contributions. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that i have not done research on this issue already. i have. i've linked to some of that very same material. i have read all that Google has to offer. i have read all that flickr has to offer. The "Flickr Admits Mistake" issue is what lead me, erroniously, to try contacting Stewart Butterfield directly, which i did in four different ways (once through Yahoo PR, secondly through his posted Yahoo email address, thirdly via starting my second account - a free one which was also deleted without justification - to email his flickr account, and finally by posting the open letter to the forums (which lasted 10 minutes before it was deleted and i was locked out of posting in forums). i have not had one single response in 1.5 months of attempts which included emotional responses, flames and calm and rational attempts at discussion. People under assault shouldn't be expected to have their first reaction be calm and passifying. i did that my whole life and it got me the destruction of my career at the hands of two sociopathic superiors who were age-biased and threatened by my demonstrated abilities with clients. i wasn't always a reactionary and paranoid person.

 Don't cite your flaming policy at me. i do consider that as passive aggressive threat. i consider your previous comments on my postings as being inflamatory because they were NOT trying to help; they were simply passing judgment and the language used is quite revealing. You might want to look into human communication sciences a bit to get some detail on what i'm referring to. i know most people aren't specialized in this area but have had to become specialized there. That doesn't mean i do everything the right way. i'm still human and i still have emotions.

As for deciding that you perceived me as a liberal, let's just attribute that to having received two seemingly passive aggressive "flames" from two guest editors within the same hour where very little actual discussion was involved except for my response. Then, looking at those editors' web sites, reading up about their biases and then knowing how people like myself are perceived by "those who hate liberal complainers" (take the meme "you seem to think they owe you something" without acknowleding that they DO owe me something and it is stated very clearly in my ongoing flickr stories) and myself finally coming to a conclusion based on a relatively known pattern. Both you and the other editor made sarcastic commentary aimed at "liberals" and, in the other guy's case, "radicals" on your linked websites. i've been called all kinds of things and i have a distaste for divisionary labeling and social order pecking. Radical, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, geek, nerd, popular, whatever. We're all people and we all have our differences and our preferences. The goal is to make those differences into complimentary elements and to harmonize.

But, i've been through it before. Presumed guilty until proven innocent (and those making the judgments never bother investigating to see if i am innocent or not - flickr staff didn't - in fact, the last message i got of any kind that was almost communication from them was "i don't care" - quite the opposite of their marketing, wouldn't you agree?).

If i have made a major misjudgement about your intentions, i do sincerely apologise. Please look at what you started with and try to see things from the perspective of someone who has been censored, harassed and intimidated by "authority figures," website staff members and the general population for most of his life, just because he questions authority and the way it is utilized.... and because my method of social interaction is "no walking on eggshells," "not using passive aggressive or other underhanded methodologies" and "carrying everything up front, in the open." It makes people uncomfortable and they tend to do as much as possible to repress me because they feel like they have something to lose.  i am enherantly different from the majority and i am used to being nailed to the wall or beaten to a pulp psychologically by those who assume superiority over me and those who assume i am just a complainer or a retarded defect. You want to see flaming, go look at dave sewell's harassment of me and his other "enemies" on flickr and on my blog. Outright racisism of the "i hate disabled people" kind.

If you'd like to start over again and wipe the slate clean, i'd be
more than happy to do so. You just let me know without any passive
aggressive threats or flaming, please.  Am i a defensive kind of guy? Yes. i'm sorry for that. That said, i would be very happy to get help on
getting my story accross to people better and more effectively. i am
NOT a journalist, but i do hold those who claim to be journalists to a
high standard. i am not without fault and i am not perfect. i simply seek some form of social justice in a situation where i have been harassed, intimidated, blacklisted, stolen from and several other things that are, i believe, illegal. On top of that, it isn't just myself who has been this man's victim and it is not just myself who has been abused by flickr staff. My blacklisting is largely because i called Staff Michelle on her act of "delete first, ask questions never," which is what Stewart Butterfield proclaimed in his huge public apology would not happen again.

thank you for writing back. i leave the next step in your hands, PEP

in the last 24 hours i have had 4 accounts deleted. 4 other members have also had their accounts deleted because one member of Flick staff

http://www.flickr.com/photos/99871248@N00/

has decided he doesn't like criticism of his work 'ethics' or rather, lack thereof. Complaints to Flickr have gone nowehere. So now we go public.