Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Censorship Special


A new and incredibly shocking censorship scandal exploded in the Censorship Forum on The Day After Orsam Day (as it is known), 10 March 2022.

Totally unknown to me (and I never even saw the post), The Baron posted a link to the article 'News from Liverpool' from that website.  I'm told that he did so with the entirely reasonable comment, 'Amazing, great article'.

It's hard to see what could possibly have been wrong with that.  He was evidently alerting other members to an important article relating to the Maybrick Diary that he thought they should read.

That post was, without any explanation, deleted!

Quite understandably, in my opinion, the Baron then made this post in #721 of the Special Announcement thread asking for information about the post deletion:


'As you may all know now, Orsam has published a very interesting article called "News From Liverpool" which adds further insight about the "Aunt" wrong reference in the faked diary.

Yesterday I posted a link to that article, but it was  somehow deleted.

I would like to ask the Admin if we are still allowed to post links to his articles on this website, as Menges previously allowed, or if there are no new rules here we don't know of.

Please clarify.'

It turned out that the answer was NO, members are NOT allowed to post links to Lord Orsam's articles, as the Chief Censor had previously allowed, and that there were, indeed, new rules.  

But, of course, Crazy Ally couldn't admit to this new regime of Putin-like censorship on her highly censored website. 

We were told that ooopsie, she had accidentally deleted the Baron's post, like one does when one is Admin. I mean, it happens all the time with these accidental post deletions, not suspicious at all, and that such a link would have been fine but now that the Baron had raised the point publicly, rather than asking in private why his post had been deleted, she said that, well, yes, actually links to Lord Orsam's articles are now banned because, after all, this is the fucking Censorship Forum and no opportunity at censorship should be missed.

I would imagine that the Baron had seen the recent case of the 'FDC' posts where the issue had been raised in public on the boards as to whether members were or were not allowed to post on behalf of non-members and Chief Censor Menges posted to say that he didn't really know, followed by a ruling, in public, from Admin.  Plenty of similar discussions had happened in public but now, of course, in her famously irrational and spiteful way, because the Baron had raised this issue in public, and it was connected to Lord Orsam, there had to be punishment.

It's a funny thing actually because when, back in 2018, I tried to do the right thing and raise Crazy Ally's outrageous ruling from a Tumblety thread with her in private, by Private Message, she not only didn't answer me for almost two whole months (from 21 June to 17 August) but she then refused to engage with me at all, leading to me famously resigning from the Forum (although in her mind, to comfort herself, she likes to say that she banned me, even though, in fact, she never did).

Here was her full response to the Baron, which it is worth considering in detail:


So, in the first paragraph we had:

'If you would like to ask the Admin something, then you ought to send an email or a Private Message to Admin, shouldn't you?  But you weren't really wanting to ask the Admin anything were you?  You wanted to make a public scene.  I adore a good scene.'

It's amazing how Crazy Ally thinks she has the power to read minds, ain't it?  To me, the Baron was literally trying to find out why one of his posts was deleted, and if he was or was not allowed to continue to post links to Lord Orsam's website.  If he was wrong to have done so in public, that should have been enough, but for Crazy Ally to suggest that the Baron wasn't really wanting to ask Admin the question is an outrageous allegation against a member based on no evidence whatsoever.

Then we had this bit of craziness:

'To clarify as you asked: "Menges" didn't delete your post.'

That's a total comprehension failure from Crazy Ally right there.  The Baron hadn't asked if Menges had deleted his post or even suggested that he had done.  He simply said that it was 'somehow deleted'.  The only reason he mentioned the Chief Censor was because he had, in the past, expressly allowed links to Lord Orsam's website.

For example (from 7 June 2020):


'You can't copy and paste from his website onto the boards.  Post a link instead' 

Naturally, that makes no difference because, on the Alice in Wonderland world of a website which is the Censorship Forum, Tweedledum says one thing on one day and Tweedledee says something completely different the next. 

Crazy Ally continued:

'That was my mistake, yesterday when I was doing some pruning on the website and apparently, accidentally selected your post. There weren't any rules about posting links to Orsam's website yesterday, but because I am punitive, and because  of his bitchy little post today, and because I found the manner and the tone of your post objectionable, there will be now.'

'because I am punitive!' lol.  I think she means "because I am crazy and totally irrational".  I mean, it might have made some sort of twisted sense if she had banned the Baron from linking to Lord Orsam's articles, because he had dared to ask in public why one of his posts had been deleted, but how can it possibly make sense to ban all other members from linking to articles by Lord Orsam because of something that the Baron alone had done?  It is incomprehensible on any level.

To the extent that she is spitefully attempting to punish Lord Orsam for a member of her website posting a link to one of my articles (which, let's face it, is obviously what is going on in her mind) that's nothing more than absurd censorship and, I might add, doesn't punish me at all because I simply care one way or the other.  It's her members who are going to suffer because it's just censorship of information in the same way that Nazis used to burn books of authors they didn't like.

And did you note that very strange phrasing: 

'because of his bitchy little post today, and because I found the manner and tone of your post objectionable'

Why is this crazy woman switching pronouns in the same sentence?   She can only be talking about the Baron's post from that day right?  No one else was posting.  So why did she switch from 'his' to 'your'?

Then we had her trying to convince us that she didn't know what she had deleted (because, you see, she deletes posts all the time while 'pruning' the website, it's quite normal): 

'I checked through the email copies I get sent of the posts to find what you were talking about. It wasn't a post discussing anything of relevancy. Just basically advertising, for Orsam. No discussion, nothing relevant. Just carrying his water. For him. On a site he's banned on. And now you're making a scene on his behalf.'

'Advertising, for Orsam'!  What does that even mean?  Does she think I make money from clicks on this website or something?   It's obvious that the Baron found my article interesting, nay important, and wanted to let others who are interested in the Maybrick Diary know about it.  What could possibly have been wrong with that?

The Baron was certainly not carrying my water, whatever that is supposed to mean. And I'm not even banned from her website, I resigned!   The banning is in her own mind only, like a loon.

But her insane analysis of the situation led her to a petty, vindictive and spiteful conclusion:  

So yes, now there's a rule. Don't promote Orsam's site on this site. Don't link to his nonsense.

'So yes, now there's a rule. Don't promote Orsam's site on this site. Don't link to his nonsense'.

The true reveal about the petty spitefulness is in the word 'nonsense'.  What can she mean by this?  What was nonsense about 'News from Liverpool'?   Does she even read the articles on this website?

It's nothing more than a crazy person who has been given some power on a website through having married the founder being allowed to run free with vindictive spitefulness against someone who stood up to her and annoyed her by resigning from her Forum and then exposing the secrets of that resignation which she would have liked to have been kept private.

Why did she go through all this accidental deletion and how dare you ask me questions in public nonsense?  Because she doesn't like to be thought of as censoring information like the Nazis burned books but she does it anyway and needed some kind of pathetic justification. 

This was a great finale to her post:

'And in the future, if anyone has a problem with a decision they think the moderator has made, then take it to me in private, and don't attempt to make a drama out of it. Because once again, it wasn't "Menges" who deleted your post, it was my mistake and I would have been happy to have clarified that with an apology as I've done many, MANY times before when I made a whoops.

Had it been handled differently that is.' 

Does anyone else remember her admitting mistakes in the way she's run her website?  Coz I don't!  When I contacted her privately back in 2018 in order to convince her that she'd made a mistake in her ruling in the Tumblety thread, did she admit that she'd made a mistake?  Did she bollocks!  No, she quietly deleted her ruling while saying NOTHING about it, either to me or to her members.

Back then, of course, it was obvious that she'd made a ruling without having read the posts in the thread properly (having, as it later transpired, relied on what she'd been told by Diary Defender, and now Chief Censor, Menges, himself a participant in that thread).  There was no admission of mistake.

But what's so hilarious is that when she says she would have been 'happy to have clarified that with an apology' she must be talking there about a private apology, because how could it ever have been a public apology if the Baron wasn't allowed to ask her about the post deletion in public?

If the Baron hadn't raised the issue in public, would anyone ever have known that his post had been deleted?  Of course not!

Did anyone know that Admin goes about pruning the website and in the process randomly deleting members' posts?  I don't recall it ever happening once during the four years or so of my membership of the Forum, nor has it ever been mentioned since to my knowledge.

But it just so happened she deleted a post linking to an article on this website! 

If you are not shocked by this latest act of brutal censorship from Crazy Ally Ryder you haven't been paying attention.

Some, however, loved it, and Miss Information was clearly wetting herself with excitement at the new policy of censorship.  I'm told by one of my spies that a childish 'Like' of Crazy Ally's post appeared at about exactly the same time Miss Info logged on to the Forum one morning.  Unable to contain herself, she then posted gleefully to RJ Palmer in #8502 of the Incontrovertible thread:

'I also suggest you read Admin's post on the Special Announcement thread if you have not done so already'.

She wrote this even though RJ Palmer hadn't posted any links to my website that day.  She just wanted to echo and amplify the policy of censorship because she too can't stand anyone holding opinions that are opposed to her own, let alone someone exposing the misinformation that she spreads online with astonishing regularity.

Thankfully this site is now so popular, and everyone knows when Orsam Day is, that it doesn't need links to be posted for people to find their way here.

The cack-handed and transparent attempt at censorship will backfire as all such attempts throughout history - think Hitler and Putin - always do.


14 May 2022