Zerdini's Departure from the Forum

I've noticed some topics here have been transferred.

Admin Notice

Aplogies Mark74 due to the actions of Z and the fact that the administrators have had to work non-stop for the past 9 hours to replace a great deal of material Z had cut and pasted from other sources which he has now arbitrarily removed from this site, we are uninclined to promote any forthcoming 'blog' created by Z.

For that reason your post, and a few others have been edited or deleted so as to minimize confusion on various threads and topics.

The shame is of course that now we have threads on here that mean nothing because Z has taken the material he posted away.

Most of the material posted did come from elsewhere so I will work my way through reinstating the information. Where this is not possible or where it may create a breach to the old Noahs Ark Society copyrights, which Z says he owns, then I will be unable to do this.

It is sad to find a member removing his material but still I suppose everyone has that right. However, there is then little point staying a forum member. I was, sadly unaware that this had been done so thank you Mark for mentioning it. Given the non inclusion of Admin in what Z has done I will not be making much effort to promote the blog.

Jim

What a great pity. I hadn't realised that Z had removed his material from the forum.

Neither had I Bill, it must have taken a long time. Obviously I now have a lot of work to do to try and tidy up the mess that is left behind, thread with no content but discussion folowing it.

Still it is a shame as Z was one of the first members and a major contributor. I have, of course now a need to study what has gone, delete threads that now have no meaning and re edit content onto the first post in a thread when that is available. There area a few technical issues involved with that because I need to ensure that material reinstated from other sources is not removed again.

I can only say to members bear with me while I carry out this work.

Jim

The removal of so much, by stealth and without telling us is very upsetting. We did know that much of what was put on here by George Cranley, alias Zerdini, was available freely in a variety of places on the internet, however it was useful to have that range of material in one place on this forum.

Most of the threads are now well on the way to being restored.

It was rather an astonishing act to diminish a forum that set out to give people free access to history and knowledge.

I don't understand why he felt he had to transfer them from here, he could have left well alone, and used them in his blog without removing them from the forum.

Actually Mark neither do we. It is sad but we have to try and pick up the pieces.

In some ways we are lucky that much of the work Z has done is available in other places so it is easy to replace. However, although anyone who have contacts with UK Spiritualism will know Z is a controversial character, he also genuinely had met the people he claimed to.

I admit that to discover the removal of the threads was a big shock, clearly, as you say, there was no need to do this and then his new blog would not be at the price of damaging this forum.

However, we will ensure we post a lot of new material, attributed properly, to the original source. Most of what Z removed is either back up from our research today, or will be soon.

KatyKing wrote:Kid I knew growing up always had the best toys.
If his side wasn't winning at footy he'd take his ball home.
We just carried on kicking an old can about and somehow those games when we improvised stick in the mind as more fun than ever the ones with his match grade ball were.

In some ways true katy and much that was kicked in the can people could have found for themselves, with a bit of effort if they gave up tea, cake and whipping their kindle (just a tad kinky), but Z had did have knowledge which was valuable, even if the conditions for sharing it may not always be acceptable. It is important to remember when to knock the kindle on this forum and when to be serious. The light chitty chatty bits are fine in some areas, but not when they cross potentially valuable discussions.

It is one area which has exercised my mind, to the point of doing exactly what Z has done, moving the serious stuff elsewhere and let the chit chat stay here. However, I had always hoped that, given the age of people, their years involved in Spiritualism and their experience then they could ensure a reasoned level of communication. I think on the basis of the combined ages of the major protagonists on this forum, with Z the oldest, Spiritualism really has little chance when elder statesmen behave this way.

Well at this point in time I have decided to ensure that the forum has lost no information and will begin to add more.

Jim

KatyKing wrote:Kid I knew growing up always had the best toys.
If his side wasn't winning at footy he'd take his ball home.
We just carried on kicking an old can about and somehow those games when we improvised stick in the mind as more fun than ever the ones with his match grade ball were.

You know KK, there are times when humour and personal reminiscenses are appropriate, and even lift the energy in difficult situations. There are times when taking such an approach is so crass and inappropriate that one can only wonder at the lack of insight and sensitivity of the person resorting to it at that time.

No doubt there is a great deal of truth in the homily you spun, especially in terms of Zerdini and his actions on this forum. Not a game player ever, and always one to assert his alleged superiority over others in terms of knowledge, experience, and especially as an opportunity to claim he had been there, done that, knew this one, was deep and meaningful friends with the other.

One cannot dispute the knowledge or the experiences. However, appreciating the ego that accompanied the expression of that knowledge or experiences is an other matter. Yet whatever George Cranley is or has done, to make light of the damage he has deliberately attempted to cause this forum, and clearly with an intent to undermine, as a result of what one can only assume is one of his unfortunately well-known tendencies to throw petty tantrums, is in extremely poor taste and most ill-advised.

This forum has the potential to be an invaluable resource for serious enquirers. It has been created by hard work, and endless hours of commitment and effort over the past 7 years, and if there are people who want to reduce it to stupid remarks and silly conversations, and who want to devalue all that effort just to amuse their own egos, then it may well be time for Admin to call it a day and close this forum down.

Admin

How annoying... Makes threads 'dribble'...

On a positive note - Admin... is it not possible to change the settings of the forum to 'prevent' editing after a certain period of time - i.e. leave them editable by the member for say 5mins (to allow the editing of mistakes) after which the forums post remain 'un editable / delete able' with the intervention of a Mod / Admin?

There may be some merit in the idea Leslie but 5 mins seems rather too short a time. A day seems somewhat more reasonable and after that if a change is wanted contact with the administrators.

@ Lis - its something I do elsewhere and it works fine. There’s nothing worse than having a thread that has portions missing - rendering it unreadable...

Can I also suggest that perhaps part of the 'terms' when signing up to use the forum includes a note about this - warning new members etc..

Perhaps even a clause that 'We do NOT delete accounts' as is if a member leaves their account cannot be deleted thus creating the same problem again with posts (changing the account to that of guest maybe... so that the posts / threads are left intact)?

There may be merit in your thoughts Leslie. We will look at what is possible on the format of this forum.

Luckily, however, in terms of George Cranley's actions, since most, if not all, of what he has ever posted that may have merit, can be reinstated since he has never ever written anything original, only cut and pasted other people's work, only sometimes acknowledging the source.

The NAS 'Ark' newsletter was parked in the public domain for years but last time I looked the article hyperlinks had been locked off so you can no longer open and read individual pieces.

It's a shame that Z. didn't devote all that work time and energy to something positive.

I havent been on here long and havent posted very much,im a watcher more than a poster in a lot of ways.but i have noticed that zerdini never posted his own work. and i do know that he causes a lot of trouble on other sites,
i just hope that this site can get back to what it was without zerdini,as has already been said before, none of his work was his own,


Namaste

Thanks Blackcrow we have recovered most of it already thanks bit of a push though.

Blackcrow wrote:


I havent been on here long and havent posted very much,im a watcher more than a poster in a lot of ways.but i have noticed that zerdini never posted his own work. and i do know that he causes a lot of trouble on other sites,
i just hope that this site can get back to what it was without zerdini,as has already been said before, none of his work was his own,


Namaste

I confirm that,Carron.

Well I crossed swords with George a time or two on here and he could be a bit acerbic and perhaps, as I said at the time and in relation to a specific series of posts involving a lady poster,less than gentlemanly. But none of us is perfect. Top marks to Jim Admin and Lis for all their hard work in restoring the gaps made by George's departure.
Spiritualism in common with all movements survives serial splitting.Folk go off to found their own versions of what they want it to be so Zs defection stands witin a long tradition.
This forum on the other hand is a broad church. We may not always agree but we rub along pretty we together by and large. I'l kinda miss George in a way.
Edwin Waugh the Lancashire dialect poet and essayist tells of a character Tom o' Nabs who said.....
'I reet enjoy avin belly ache cos it's so grand when it gives over [stops]'.

Admin wrote:The shame is of course that now we have threads on here that mean nothing because Z has taken the material he posted away.

Most of the material posted did come from elsewhere so I will work my way through reinstating the information. Where this is not possible or where it may create a breach to the old Noahs Ark Society copyrights, which Z says he owns, then I will be unable to do this.

It is sad to find a member removing his material but still I suppose everyone has that right. However, there is then little point staying a forum member. I was, sadly unaware that this had been done so thank you Mark for mentioning it. Given the non inclusion of Admin in what Z has done I will not be making much effort to promote the blog.

Jim

How could a single individual hold the copyright of material (other than that they personally authored) published in the newsletter of a now-defunct organisation?

Wouldn't copyright belong to each individual author of any contribution?

mac wrote:

Admin wrote:The shame is of course that now we have threads on here that mean nothing because Z has taken the material he posted away.

Most of the material posted did come from elsewhere so I will work my way through reinstating the information. Where this is not possible or where it may create a breach to the old Noahs Ark Society copyrights, which Z says he owns, then I will be unable to do this.

It is sad to find a member removing his material but still I suppose everyone has that right. However, there is then little point staying a forum member. I was, sadly unaware that this had been done so thank you Mark for mentioning it. Given the non inclusion of Admin in what Z has done I will not be making much effort to promote the blog.

Jim

How could a single individual hold the copyright of material (other than that they personally authored) published in the newsletter of a now-defunct organisation?

Wouldn't copyright belong to each individual author of any contribution?

Very interesting point Mac but Zerdini has been very insistent on this, however I would love to have the thoughts of past members of the Noahs Ark Society I am sure that they would love to see the material they paid for, in their subscriptions, freely available.

As I would understand it only Colin Fry and George Cranley, aka Zerdini, remain as possible members. It would be very interesting to know the constitutional requirements of the society. i wonder what happened to the wonderful library, that I believe the society acquired.

Can anyone share their knowledge upon this subject?

To be honest the last 3 to 4 years have told this forum that enough is enough in regards to Zerdini, but the latest effort means that we now have zero tolerance for him. In honesty it is very easy to reproduce 95% of his posts, I understand that he did have very good contacts but feel even that is an interesting point of discussion which I would love to hear more about.

Oh well we are forced to move on and have done.

Thanks for your thoughts Mac, if copyright is not an issue I am happy to repost all the major NAS items here.

Jim

Admin wrote:

mac wrote:

Admin wrote:The shame is of course that now we have threads on here that mean nothing because Z has taken the material he posted away.

Most of the material posted did come from elsewhere so I will work my way through reinstating the information. Where this is not possible or where it may create a breach to the old Noahs Ark Society copyrights, which Z says he owns, then I will be unable to do this.

It is sad to find a member removing his material but still I suppose everyone has that right. However, there is then little point staying a forum member. I was, sadly unaware that this had been done so thank you Mark for mentioning it. Given the non inclusion of Admin in what Z has done I will not be making much effort to promote the blog.

Jim

How could a single individual hold the copyright of material (other than that they personally authored) published in the newsletter of a now-defunct organisation?

Wouldn't copyright belong to each individual author of any contribution?

Very interesting point Mac but Zerdini has been very insistent on this, however I would love to have the thoughts of past members of the Noahs Ark Society I am sure that they would love to see the material they paid for, in their subscriptions, freely available.

As I would understand it only Colin Fry and George Cranley, aka Zerdini, remain as possible members. It would be very interesting to know the constitutional requirements of the society. i wonder what happened to the wonderful library, that I believe the society acquired.

Can anyone share their knowledge upon this subject?

To be honest the last 3 to 4 years have told this forum that enough is enough in regards to Zerdini, but the latest effort means that we now have zero tolerance for him. In honesty it is very easy to reproduce 95% of his posts, I understand that he did have very good contacts but feel even that is an interesting point of discussion which I would love to hear more about.

Oh well we are forced to move on and have done.

Thanks for your thoughts Mac, if copyright is not an issue I am happy to repost all the major NAS items here.

Jim

"As I would understand it only Colin Fry and George Cranley, aka Zerdini, remain as possible members. It would be very interesting to know the constitutional requirements of the society. i wonder what happened to the wonderful library, that I believe the society acquired."

When the Noah's Ark Society was dissolved its members naturally lost their then-current membership. I know a little about the circumstances as I was a member.

Whether that happened in line with its constitution I have no idea but as the Society no longer exists (whatever its former constitution) there can't now be any members.

Which was the library you were thinking about. Jim? I wasn't aware of that.....

Copyright is vested in the author unless it is designated to another.
You'll note some writers in magazines will insert (c) Their Name 2012
after a piece that ensures copyright without dispute.
If that's not done then the intellectual property remains with the author but the copyright may be deemed to vested in the publisher always providing submission has been made to one of the copyright libraries. (Bodleian, British Library etc). An ISBN number is no guarantee that has been done but it's a fair guide. Deep waters Jim Admin, rule of thumb in the academy at least tends to be that if someone claims copyright and it's not your own text that you've personally produced that they're claiming it for; then leave them do so. Othewise you could be entering the lists on behalf of someone you don't know who may or may not wish to have their material copyright to someone other than yourself.
Being in the public domain is no guarantee that original material is not copyright.
HTH

Was uncertain to reply to this topic or not but a final word.
Z does have his good points and is very knowledgeable about spiritualism etc.
He taught me a lot about the various subjects and which books to read for the information which I needed to know.
He also had a terrific sense of humour and was very patient after my interminable questions about facts about spiritualism.
Through an unfortunate incident which was no one's fault,we ended the friendship as enemies. I pressed the wrong button.
Just wanted to finish this topic off in a nice kind ending.
Joan

I always found Z to be polite and helpful, and as someone coming to grips with spiritualism and spirituality in general, he was a great source of information and advice in that area. Recent actions aside, I will certainly miss his presence on this forum.