--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <kitty@...> wrote:
>
> In the wee hours of 3/2, I was asked in an email if I knew whether
> LifeMirage, posting and moderating at Imminst.org, was also Lee Crost
> MD. My reply basically was that, while I could not affirm that, Paul
> and I had many reasons to think that LifeMirage and LefMirage/Edward
> were the same person. The latter had been a poster at LEF Forums
> since long before we left in January 2002, but no claims of a
> medical background were ever a part of his posts.
>
> Before sending off the email I did a lot of Internet searching and
> the tangled web of anonymity/pseudonymity that I found was enormous,
> not only for LifeMirage, but for so many others with their penchant
> for pseudonyms. Much of it can be seen in the contents of a recently
> started and still active thread at Imminst.org regarding LifeMirage
> as moderator and advisor, and his removal while the thread was in
> progress for apparently abusing moderator privileges by removing or
> editing posts and threads all without proper cause, falsely claiming
> to be an MD, and threatening and lying (to Imminst.org "leadership"
> from what I can determine). The fact that neither the forum
> moderators and nor even the directors of that organization (a
> non-profit corporation with 501(c)(3) IRS status) fully identify
> themselves - with verifiable information - has created this problem
> and it will continue until authenticated identification together
> with all public pseudonyms used (except any that are needed to guard
> against coercive force including that of governments) is required
> of every director, moderator, advisor, navigator *and* poster.

If the moderators at Imminst.org had requested that this person
identify himself and also thoroughly examined his background this
problem could likely have been prevented. Had they done this I doubt
LefMirage would ever have been allowed to have moderator privileges
in the first place.

[I'll note here that Bruce Klein, originator of ImmInst.org announced in April
2002 that LefMirage was a moderator, along with a list of others.
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=26&t=483 LefMirage had been
listed in Bruce's announcement of new members in the "Immortality Newsletter" of
late February 2002.
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=480&hl=lefmirage&s=
Sometime later LefMirage changed his "name" to LifeMirage, but no posts by him
under the orignal "name" can be seen. So the "audit trail" of his identity was
clouded over early on.

I will correct myself here re. an earlier statement to the email questioner -
that LifeMirage had not posted to sci.life-extension, but only to
rec.drugs.smart. I later did a better search and found that he had participated
in 3 threads at sle; his very first post on the newsgroups (under that handle at
least, but using the name Edward) in July 2002 is to sle. There are a total of
50 posts ascribed to authorship of LifeMirage@... all in 2002/2003.
Well, for those who find soap operas and/or mysteries fascinating, the history
and ongoing events/statements of and about LefMirage/LifeMirage/Edward/LeeCrost
are a wonder to behold. But there are so many more worthwhile mysteries to
solve, that it is a shame to see so many people needing to spend their valuable
time on this when it was totally preventable. **Kitty]


The moderators at Imminst.org clearly do not realise how important it
is to find out who the people with whom you interact really are. And
unfortunately this appears to be very common - at least I can say the
same thing about the moderators at proactivehealthnet.com. I was a
moderator there for about a year (my moderator privileges at that
board have recently been removed due to conflict between me and the
owners of the board). When I and my twin brother Egill joined
proactivehealthnet.com, Egill was given moderator privileges there
soon after joining. The reason why the owners of
proactivehealthnet.com gave him moderator privileges there is because
they had seen and been impressed by his posts on a bodybuilding board
at which he was active. Basically, based on his posts, Egill was
given moderator privileges at proactivehealthnet.com. I joined
proactivehealthnet.com just shortly after Egill did and I did not
know the owners or the moderators at the board nor did they know me
since I was not a member of the bodybuilding board from which they
knew Egill. In an introduction thread at the board I told the
moderators I had been researching life-extension for the last two
years, that I was quite knowledgeable in it and also that I was
Egill's fraternal twin brother. Egill then contacted one of the
owners of the board and recommended me as a moderator. On the basis
that, in regards to being knowledgeable on health related matters, I
was more qualified than him to be a moderator on the board.
Following this I was given moderator privileges.

[The fact that Egill's recommendation of you as a forum moderator to
proactivehealthnet.com's owners was based on the fact that you actually knew
more than he did on health matters speaks well for him and the relationship
between the two of you. Egill did not (and likely still does not) need to
compete with you in the way that many people do - by putting other people down
or at least not giving others full credit for abilities that are better than
theirs. **Kitty]

[In fact, this kind of negative competition or rivalry is often very strong in
siblings and I place full responsibility for it and all its negative effects
directly on the parents and other influential persons in the lives of such
children. So in this case, Olafur, Egill and their parents are all to be
commended for it not happening. --Paul]

[I and Egill were mainly taught to help each other, rather than compete with
each other. If one of us was better at something than the other one, most often
he was encouraged to help the one that was worse at it. However I do compete
with Egill sometimes, but not as much as I compete with myself, and certainly
not in the sense that I want him to do worse than me. -°Olafur]

[That last is the essense of *correct* competition. You are desiring and
striving to do well and never to want the other person to do badly. --Paul]


The owners of the board did not ask me to identify myself or provide
more information about my background. I also highly doubt they ever
verified my claims of being knowledgeable in life-extension. I'm
quite sure the person behind the pseudonym LefMirage could get
moderator privileges at proactivehealthnet.com (and probably many
other boards too) by lying about himself just like he did at
Imminst.org.

[Actually, I think that Edward (LefMirage/LifeMirage) got moderator privileges
*without* any lying, because he had been posting fairly knowlegably on other
forums and Imminst.org was then new and somewhat desperate to get support. To my
knowledge he had never before (eg. on the LEF Forums) claimed that he was an MD
and used the name Lee Crost. Until I heard of his actions on Imminst.org, I had
always considered Edward to be a reasonable person and a valuable contact. In
fact, the reason why I am still not completely convinced that the original
LefMirage who posted on the LEF Forums and with whom I later had some
correspondence is the same person as the current LifeMirage, is because there
appears to be a large character change between the two. The original was not
pushy or overconfident and wrote with good English ability. The current one
makes grandiose claims both for himself and the nootropics that he pushes, and
makes so many grammar mistakes that some people think he is not a native English
speaker. Another possible explanation is that his overuse of nootropics has
altered his personality. If only his identity had been required right from the
beginning on the LEF Forums and everywhere else, then no one would need to be
spending precious time trying to determine the facts of this situation and there
might even be some important information about the effects of nootropics to be
gained.

Bruce Klein asked for my support of Imminst.org at the start, but I would not
give it because I rejected their name and still do. The word "immortality"
should never have been used because it is the wrong concept. Immortality is an
unreal mythical state, supports belief systems and is therefore anti-science.
True immortality is physically impossible and, thus, humans do themselves harm
by seeking it. All that any lifeform can hope for is a truely unbounded
lifespan. "Unbounded" does not equate with infinite. It merely means that
lifespan has no currently known maximum. The distinction may be subtle but it is
philosophically and practically very important. --Paul]


Because the owners of proactivehealthnet.com (and most of the
moderators) did not provide much information about themselves on the
board, such as their background and education, and did not provide
any identifying information, it took me a long time to figure out
what kinds of people they really were and to find out that I did not
want to interact with such people nor be a part of their board.

<snip>

> [I just want to add a statement concerning why the objection that many
> people have made to our urgings against anonymity is incorrect and
> why completely authenticated identification of everyone on the Internet
> including linkage to all their aliases (except ones which access their
> own property, accounts, etc. or are used to combat government
> coercion) should be the norm.
>
> Many people state something to the effect that:
>
> "Only the words or information that is written should matter, not where
> or who it is coming from. The truth or falsity should be judged on the
> words alone, not on anything else about the writer."
>
> While I have great sympathy for the statement above, it only applies
> where the words that are written *can* be objectively judged by
> themselves, independently and on their own merits. This is only true
> when the words are integrated with objective scientific evidence (peer
> reviewed papers of empirical data and its analysis) or are logical
> deductions from clear assumptions.
> However, most often people do *not* produce objective evidence or
> make clear logical deductions from state assumptions in their writings.
> Instead they merely state opinions very loosely based on all their
> previous reading, thinking and accumulated knowledge. It is in this
> last kind of circumstance that knowledge of the credentials and
> complete background of a person is necessary in order to judge the
> likelihood that his opinion is valid for reality. --Paul]

This method of stating opinions very loosely based on one's previous
reading, thinking and accumulated knowledge is exactly what the
owners and most of the moderators at proactivehealthnet.com usually
did. When they answered questions, hardly ever did they present
anything to back up their claims. I, who did not know these people
when I started as a moderator at the board, was very sceptical of
their claims and frequently asked the moderators to provide evidence
for their statements, particularly if I had good reason to think that
the statements were wrong. Most of the time I did this they did not
provide any evidence for their claims and I found out that the reason
most often was that their statement was not based on any evidence in
the first place. I also came to realise with time that the owners of
the boards and some of the moderators there do not qualify as
moderators at any health related board, at least not as moderators
that try to make sure the information on the board is accurate and
try to teach the members. Probably the most important role of
moderators at any health board is to make sure the information
contained on the board is as accurate as possible. This, the owners
and some of the moderators at proactivehealthnet.com completely
failed to do, IMO.

[I think that most often moderators are only there for the purposes of acting to
keep the discussion in "good order" ie. to prevent verbal conflict, smears and
flaming. --Paul]


As I've told Kitty and Paul privately before, my criticism of the
unscientificness of proactivehealthnet.com is the main reason I was
removed as a moderator there.

In short I was not allowed to openly criticise the methods by which
the owners moderated and ran the board. The owners (Michael and
Lacey), in an attempt to save face, moved the posts containing my
criticism of the board to the moderator forum where no one but the
moderators could view them. I was removed as a moderator shortly
after that. Interestingly the owners, particularly Michael, had
often been criticising articles and abstracts for being biased while
they were biased themselves by hiding the negative information about
themselves.

[I had looked at the proactivehealthnet.com forum while Olafur was still
actively moderating. The owners were missing a fine opportunity to provide sound
health information to young people - many younger than themselves, who I
estimated were in their 20s themselves. It is unfortunate that they took the
attitude that learning scientific information would be a drudge and therefore
they wouldn't bother much with facts, but rather pass along sound bites and
watered down articles. How much they actually realized of what they posted
themselves was lacking in soundness is hard for me to say, since I only read a
smattering of the posts by the two main parties.
I think it is quite possible to have a forum where exchanges of sound
information take place and learning is enjoyable. Proactivehealthnet.com's
owners placed a great deal of emphasis on fun and too little on fact - a mistake
for a site promoting itself as promoting proactive health measures. **Kitty]

[When I criticized the moderators for their unscientific methods, they did not
improve on it. I often commented on articles they posted, showing how
unscientific and full of errors they were. I also commented on the poor advice
they sometimes gave, which often seemed to be more based on belief than
scientific facts. Yet they kept on posting these articles, and giving unsound
advice. Either they did not realise how poor their methods were, or worse, they
did not have any desire to improve their methods. -°Olafur]

[I would like to add that my comments above are not exactly written like I
originally wrote them. When moderating posts at the group, Paul and Kitty
always help me improve my english skills. They point out to me grammatical
errors I make, and also often make suggestions on how I can better phrase
sentences. In this message in particular I had made quite a few grammatical
errors. But Paul was very helpful, by pointing them out to me, and also helping
me improve my phrasing in many of the sentences. -°Olafur]

[Actually, none of Olafur's errors were major, or even ones that many native
English speakers do not often make. But he is such a good student and so pleased
to be helped that I am always delighted to spend the time to do so. And I do not
use the word "student" in any belittling sense. Everyone should always remain a
student because there is always more of importance to learn. I certainly
consider myself to still be a student. Reality is my teacher. --Paul]