Here is a brief summary of the sequence leading up to my LRF banishment:
 Posting from Herr der Elf Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:48 AM with a dreaded but benign "Dear Mr. Jayhan". (6:48 AM local time).
 Private Message from Phil Jayhan Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM with a warning and command: "You will not address me that way or again [as "Mr. Jayhan"] or your account will be permanently banned."
 Posting from Phil Jayhan Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:44 AM with notification that a private message was sent with that warning. (9:44 AM local time.)
 Private Message from Herr der Elf Mon, Mar 7, 2011 before 11:00 AM telling Mr. Jayhan (although not addressed as such) to grow up.
 Private Message from Phil Jayhan Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM saying that the warning stands.
 Private Message from Phil Jayhan Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM talking about when he was a kid.
 Email Message from Phil Jayhan Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:17 AM implying that at some point in time since Mr. Jayhan's two March 6 warnings, Herr der Elf wrote a posting or message that addressed him as "Mr. Jayhan", and therefore banishment was now in effect.
When a warning is given, the offender traditionally must transgress again before the authority is justified in acting on the punishment of the warning. Given the March 6 warning(s) and no further evidence of transgression, on what basis does my banishment come?
You really wanted me gone, eh? Couldn't you have come up with a better excuse than the mister honorific?
In the private email message , you wrote:
But where I grew up, if we met someone, and they asked not to be addressed in a certain way, because it was offensive to them, I gladly comply.If I were using any name other than your avatar (e.g., like a childhood nickname, slur, insult), if I were bestowing upon you unearned honors in a sarcastic manner (e.g., Dr., Your Highness), if I didn't have the precedent predating LRF of using honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Dr.) with everyone to keep my postings on the up-and-up, and if society (and LRF email) didn't have established understandings for their meaning, then quite possibly you might have reason to be offended by "Mr. Jayhan" and I would indeed comply.
"Mr. Jayhan" isn't just respect directed at you, but respect directed about you, like an aura. It influences all within ear/eye shot and trains us to curb our baser language instincts, particularly in a public forum. If any of your paternal ancestors were standing next to you when I let fly a "Mr. Jayhan", none of them would find it offensive. If the President or a Senator, congressman, judge, police officer, etc. were present, not one of them would find it offensive, and all of them would probably address you in like manner. Other than showing respect, the mister honorific has another important function: professional distance. I had no desire to be on a first name basis with you.
You went on to write:
The fact that this simple common courtesy is beyond you tells me everything I think I need to know.
The fact that you get all bent out of shape regarding a simple common courtesy embodied by the honorific "Mr. Jayhan" becomes a telling fixed data point.
In other forums, I coined the phrase "Semaphore for 9/11 Truth" that I applied to the die-hard OGCT defenders. So-called "semaphores" are noteworthy not for the words that they write, but for the words of others whose postings they come down hard against. Although their words are gestures from the semaphore flagman franticly waving off a landing aircraft, astute readers begin to realize that their message is just the opposite: "Land on the preceding posting from that damn lying troofer, because they are on to something we don't want readers to seriously consider."
Sometimes it is well to step back from a heated situation, take a deep breath, view it from a new perspective, and possibly recognize "dark & sinister motives."
Here's my version of the run-up to the banishment.
When a notice was published on Feb 14 about Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook, Where Did the Towers Go?, it was quickly run through the mud sight-unseen by you [Mr. Jayhan] and several regulars: Lynx_land, 2getherwestand, do2read, Bigtexan, dizzillusioned, stannrodd, hanuri, Orion67.
I gave my reasons for ordering it and reading it, namely to mine any nuggets of truth from the rabbit hole before its entrance was milli-nuked shut. Given Dr. Wood's history, I can understand the knee-jerk reaction against the book. But it should have stopped when it was demonstrated who did and didn't have the book and who was in a position to speak knowledgeably about it.
The discussion took a turn for the worse when you persisted in running down Dr. Wood's textbook based on unrelated and superficial arguments: "I hate her. I don't like the way she project herself. I don't like the way she talks. I don't like her PhD." Such lame arguments were only making you look bad. You had no ammunition that could counter having the book in hand and seeing what it truly said.
The number of people who posted disparaging comments didn't surprise me. That few could be bothered to plunk down money on the textbook and would rather talk through their asses also was of no surprise. The three things that surprised me, though, were:
(1) The quality, usefulness, and importance of Dr. Wood's research efforts exhibited in the half of her textbook I have read. I have found much of value in Dr. Wood's textbook, even if (or maybe because) the last x chapters may be proven disinformation.
(2) The number of detractors who continued to shoot blanks (e.g., false suppositions about the science & truths within the textbook) despite my study of the textbook proving the contrary and amounting to live ammo being fired back.
(3) The many ways you weaseled out of accepting my repeated good-faith offers to provide you with live ammo (e.g., Dr. Wood's textbook) at no cost to you so that you might overcome your ignorance about what was contained therein and thereafter be able to substantiate your disparaging comments from having seen it, held it, and cracked it open. Guess your common courtesy lessons never taught you how to graciously receive a gift. In light of my recent banishment, your refusals to my repeated offers goes from being a fuzzy data point to a fixed one in the trend line. Can't be bothered with the facts, eh?
You deliberately detour the thread with the whole "dark & sinister LRF motives" ploy, to egg me into a flame war that your cohorts failed to achieve (which could have then been used to justify my banishment). My comment about "hidden agendas for LRF" was an offhand joke that was made in the context of the concerted, overblown, and without substance "reviews" of her book. "Dark & sinister LRF agendas" weren't on my radar until you put them there and placed the 9/11 semaphore flags at your feet.
Then of all silliness, to take umbrage over being addressed as "Mr. Jayhan"? "I'll ban you from my forum if you call me 'Mr. Jayhan' just one more time," (and I double-dare you to do it, dickhead.)
It would have been ironic to have been banned from LRF for defending Dr. Wood, particularly when I might find myself in the same basic camp as her detractors by the time I reach her conclusions in the 2nd half of the book. As such, defending Dr. Wood was a fight I didn't even want to be in. I wanted to evaluate the evidence she presents, re-purpose it, and move on.
But to be banned because you imagine a sarcastic tone of my voice when I type respectfully "Mr. Jayhan" in my discourse? Priceless.