That's what he wrote the following in email exchange...

From: Jules Siegel <siegel@cafecancun.com>
Date: July 13, 2006 7:35:23 PM GMT-05:00
To: webmaster@narconews.com
Subject: Please remove my name from your masthead

I really can't be associated with the site any more in good conscience. Al has accused me of being on the take one time too many. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you of his political positions nor his motives, but they are also part of my decision to make this request.

Thanks for your cooperation.

--
JULES SIEGEL Apdo. 1764, 77501-Cancun, Q. Roo, Mexico

To which the editor responded politely (with a copy to the publisher)...

From: Daniel A. Feder <dan@narconews.com>
To: Jules Siegel <siegel@cafecancun.com>
Cc: "Alberto M. Giordano" <narconews@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 13, 2006 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Please remove my name from your masthead

Jules - sorry, but that list is an automatically generated record of all people who have contributed to the Narcosphere via their reporters' notebooks. It is not a "masthead" of staff members, but rather a directory of the content on the site. You're free to post anything you like or never post again, but the stuff that's already up there is part of the permanent content now and gets processed and organized just like any other content.

-dan

To which Jules replied with a threat...

From: Jules Siegel <siegel@cafecancun.com>
Date: July 14, 2006 5:09:59 AM GMT-05:00
To: "Daniel A. Feder" <dan@narconews.com>
Subject: Re: Please remove my name from your masthead

It says "Reporters Notebooks"

 I'm not one of your reporters. I don't have any "notebooks" on your site. Please remove my name or I will bring the matter to the attention of your ISP.

By "ISP," he means "Internet Service Provider." If Jules doesn't have the right email address to carry out his lame threat, here it is: support@voxel.net. It won't be the first nor the last time our Internet Service Provider got a complaint. It comes with the turf of having lots of readers. Voxel is the same valiant company that got hundreds of pages of threats from Banamex in 2000 seeking to silence us and Voxel told the richest banker in Mexico to pound sand. I'm sure they'll be quaking in their boots when the mighty Jules screeches at them.

One a certain level, I don't blame Jules. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I had used a public space to implode in a tantrum.

But the Narcosphere has never been censored and we're not going to start now. Jules has to live with the circumstances he agreed to when, of his own free will, he posted here. Everybody here receives equal treatment.

Jules posted 27 comments since the Mexican "election" and they are preserved for, ahem, future generations.  The historical archive of his comments shall remain.

Like any one who signed up for a copublisher account, he may edit his own Reporters' Notebook entries, even into oblivion, as he did in recent hours. But as an online newspaper that a lot of people have tried to censor or hack, we maintain very regular backups and have a full record of the dates, times and texts that posted under the category clearly marked as Reporters' Notebooks.

What Jules thinks is a "masthed" (huh? Did he put that on his resume?) is in fact an archive, in reverse chronological order, listing who last posted a notebook entry: it appears on the right side of the page. We're not going to enter into his Watergate-style cover-up and erase the evidence that he did once post notebooks here.

The comments are indelible, like this one, posted recently by Jules:

"I used a number of vulgar and very insulting terms that were the verbal equivalent of kicking someone hard in groin and  again several times in the face when he/she/it collapsed to the floor, and then urinating on the semi-conscious victim."

Or this one...

"When I insult people they feel it. My Mayan horoscope says, 'This is one who knows how to hurt with words.' It is a vice I struggle to control."

Well, this would not be the first time on the Internet that someone entered a public forum, made an ass of himself, and then revealed that he didn't post comments to shed light on issues of public importance but, rather, was on a fantasy personal power trip.

What happened here with Jules is what generally happens in those situations: Once the person realizes that he was unable to "hurt with words" - because mature people don't let words hurt us, nor do we delude ourselves that other mature people will let ours hurt them - he stomps off in a huff and makes lame, impotent, threats.

The illusions of self-importance are what get fractured, and fragile egos go looking for some other place on the Internet where, hope springs eternal, people will "share the hurt" that the person inevitably inflicts upon himself again.

What is to be expected from someone who, in one breath,  accuses others of "McCarthyism" and in the next accuses another (in this case, an anarcho-syndicalist) of being a "Stalinist"?

The hypocrisy in style corresponds to the hypocrisy in substance: One who defends an official cover-up of a massive electoral fraud will, eventually, call for other censorships and cover-ups.

As I said when this thread began two weeks ago, "People reveal their true characters at times of moral crisis."

Or as the late, great New York drag queen Jackie Curtis used to say about such people, "oh, dahling, don't worry about those people. They're with the slow class."

Here's hoping that Jules finds a forum that matches his fantasies. He wasn't ready for Prime Time here, so he's stomped out in a rage. But it's a big Internet out there. There's always, um, Alternet! And, despite his hollow vows, it wouldn't shock me if Jules hasn't finished crapping on himself here. I suppose it will depend on what his "Mayan horoscope" instructs. After all, it's a wise man that rules by the stars... and a fool that's ruled by them.