--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote:
Hey thanks for responding Edg. Your POV seems much more calculated as a parental act towards Kirk than Alex's to me. I like the vibe of someone who is willing to help me avoid stepping in dog shit by saying "look out." I would do the same. I don't know why you didn't just go with your own first impulse to warn rather than default to the tough love angle, but then, I am not you. (shut up Vendantists!) The least instructive aspect of this board for any of us is it's rules IMO. A warning is a nice way to maintain the board's rules with the kind of compassion that gives the joint much of it's charm to me. But I asked the highly intellectual, WTF?, and you gave your perspective. Thanks for that. > > below > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: > > > > Come on Edg, Alex shows a bit of kindness and you question it? WTF?? > > > Curtis, > > Hey, I was just sayin'. Miss not that I think Alex is a fine human > being, and that he's doing us all a big service by helping Rick with > FFL. > > I guess I should have told Alex that I, too, was worried about Kirk > overposting, and I was crossing my fingers and hoping he'd control > himself -- cuz, more than once, he's quit FFL after having been banned, > and if he flits off in a snit, that would be a loss for all of us. > > So, again, it's not Alex's heart's desire that I disagree with. I > wanted to protect Kirk too, but my desire extends to letting Kirk fail. > When my kids first started walking, I had to let them practice without > my holding their hands. They fell many times, but each time was a > learning experience. > > And, fuck, Kirk's a growed up man for crissakes. > > If he wants to overpost for any reason or by mistake, it's his life to > run and bear the consequences. In fact, since Kirk has been banned here > from time to time, we all get to see how stellar his soul is by the fact > that he comes back here and subjects himself to the rules once again. > If I were banned and thought of the rules being as unwise as I believe > Kirk thinks of them, I strongly doubt I would have the strength of > character that Kirk has -- I wouldn't be coming back. My bad, but my > bad underline's Kirk's bigass modeling for us....a modeling that only > happens when Kirk "fails our rules." > > I think the most Alex should do is what he actually did at first -- warn > Kirk about the limits. Even that is "too parental" if Alex doesn't warn > others in the same way. > > Kirk's a neat guy, and I would suspect he'll come out with a "no skin > off my nose" statement and tell us he wasn't bothered by the "velvet > handcuffing." > > But, growed up folks are nutured by tough love and "exceptions to the > rules made for the sake of a lesser endowed person" should be very very > rare. > > I would be insulted if Alex did this "favor" for me. I'd be embarrassed > to get any special treatment, and I would take it that this was a > negative judgement that I was a mental cripple of some sort. > > So, yeah, I elbowed Alex, and we got to see Alex's response. And, > that's what Kirk deserves -- we get to see what he does if we elbow him > off of FFL for a week. Adult stuff, see? > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Alex, > > > > > > > > Um, was that a moral act? > > > > > > It was according to my moral compass. Others may differ. > > > > > > > Where's your sense of "The Prime Directive?" Must not we allow > > > > Kirk the right to "fail" our posting rules? > > > > > > FFL is not the fictional Star Trek universe. > > > > > > > Seems to me you did him a wrong by some sort of unauthorized > > > > "parenting." > > > > > > And, maybe I did him a right. > > > > > > > And, hey, do I get the same oversight by you? > > > > > > It would depend on the circumstances. > > > > > > > If not, then you're kinda saying, "Kirk's not responsible for > > > > his actions, and we have to 'contain' him for his own good." > > > > > > That's basically true. I had a very strong feeling that he would > overpost, and considering the crummy space he's been in lately, I > intervened. > > > > > > > To me, whenever Kirk goes over the limit, I cringe, cuz I like > > > > the dude's stuff, but I think he deserves the right to see what > > > > his mind comes up with when he's banned for a week. I'd rather > > > > see him banned and come to terms with that reality than see him > > > > "controlled by Alex" -- and, please note, I think you think you > > > > did him a favor, so your intentions are not the focus here. > > > > > > Your opinion is duly noted. Frankly, though, I'm more interested in > hearing how Kirk feels about this. And, if he doesn't want to waste a > post on meta stuff, he should email me privately. > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Kirk" <kirk_bernhardt@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you do that again? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mods ;) > > > > > > > > > > Kirk, I admit I was keeping an eye on your post count, and when > I saw that you had hit 50, I killed your posting privileges until 7pm > Friday because I *really* didn't want to see you booted off for a week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, tomorrow I and my longtime friend and erstwhile cooking > partner > > > > > > > Darren Housey of Lakeview, Louisiana, will be trying out for > a New Orleans > > > > > > > based cooking show for Food Network. Please wish us luck. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
