Why did you lock off this thread:

David Myatt and Islam

before I even had a chance to reply to this raffy9 guy?!

These posts are important and I have a right to reply when a stalker is accusing me of all sorts of rubbish.


We have a stalker hypocrite here. It was me who made the polite initial requests for help and in virtually every instance I have been followed to these message boards and insulted by the person who is stalking me. You will notice that in most cases, my detractor is a brand new member and has presumably registered for the specific purpose of attacking my work. He has stalked me to all these different message boards (and more).

Bloglines | Forums :: Off Topic :: David Myatt
David Myatt
David Myatt and Islam | libcom.org
David Myatt and Islam, page 1
The UK Politics Forum - View topic - DAVID MYATT - LAPSED MUSLIM?
David Myatt and Islam
Black British forums - issues affecting Black Britain • View topic - David Myatt and Islam

One is prompted to ask why anyone would be so concerned about David Myatt that they would join all these message boards just to snipe at one insignificant posting amongst thousands. Why the frantically obsessive attempts to suppress two harmless links. Someone must be very frightened of what the 'Searchlight' and 'Declare Peace' articles contain.

In answer to some of the accusations made against me:

Yes I have made the same posting on different message boards the world over. That is how the internet works. If one is seeking out information, the web is a massive resource and it doesn't make sense to limit the search to my own locality. I made the same posting on different forums because that is how computers work – why type out different versions? Whilst you may not like the links I posted, they are at least demonstrably written by someone other than Myatt himself – which is perhaps what all this hostility is really about. I can't begin to imagine why you think links to texts that are clearly written by Myatt himself – or have some input from him – could ever be classed as 'independent resources'. Clearly they are not independent by any measure.

Finally, the situation regarding the 'Wikipedia' is a little more complex. There was a case recently, where a relatively well known musician had posted details about his life on Wikipedia. Due to to the interactive nature of this resource, one of his 'fans' repeatedly rewrote the entry with 'facts' which were a direct contradiction to the man's real life. The musician corrected these mistakes time and again, but his 'fan' was so persistent, that in the end the subject of the article had his life circumscribed by a stranger! It works both ways of course. If the subject of an entry is persistent enough, they can suppress information about themselves. The last I heard was that this was becoming such a problem, that certain categories of entry would lose the 'interactivity' which makes Wikipedia such a unique resource. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is wonderful for all uncontested areas of knowledge, but for anything contentious, I would always be concerned about missing information.