---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :
Had to laugh - dunno how FFL could have 2 - I vote for going back to no moderator status for the group - still can't believe Rick caved into Buck's need to be some sort of controller. He didn't cave. Rick had been receiving numerous complaints about FFL and decided to find a moderator, even asking me if I was interested. I wasn't. He knew Doug had been interested in the job for a long time and they evidently came to an agreement that Doug would take this on. From: "jason_green2@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 2:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: mjackson74 can be moderator (A modest proposal) I think, mjackson74 should be made a moderator. He can be a good counter-balance to Buck. Is mjackson74 willing to be a moderator? --- <s3raphita@...> wrote : Re this new FFL regime where members are banned after posting offensive messages. There's a division between those, like me, to whom an insult on a topical website simply makes me shrug my shoulders - like water off a duck's back, to mix my metaphors; and those to whom FFL is a "spiritual" site and members should have a certain, minimum consideration of the feelings of those they disagree with. Here's the thing: there used to be a rule that those who posted too many messages over a period would be banned from the site for a week or whatever. Now that Buck has volunteered to be the site's censor why not allow him to ban someone who is offensive for a week at a time (not permanently)? That way anyone who persistently abused others would, as persistently, be banned from posting to the site. Would that not be a reasonable compromise? One difference from the rule when posters were ostracised for too many messages is that that sanction was automatically triggered when the counter indicated someone had got too fond of the sound of his own voice. Whether someone is offensive is clearly a subjective judgement. Buck has taken on the role - isn't he a true believer? So won't he come down hardest on those who take a more sceptical view of TM and MMY? But setting aside that issue - Buck is the one who volunteered to take on the role, and I wouldn't like the job! - wouldn't my "modest proposal" be an acceptable solution? --- <salyavin808@...> wrote : It depends on what you mean by "offensive". I found "Back for more" really offensive for spending three days slagging off Xeno for having the temerity to post a series of logic and reasonable arguments against Buck's first putsch. I could have been all nicety-nice about it but what's the point? If someone is so pathologically clueless they spend days attacking someone in exactly the sort of way that they claim drove them away from FFL in the first place they are going to be too self-centred to notice any subtle inflexions that I could impart. Personally I think behaviour like that ought to be self-moderating in that if I was called on such rank hypocrisy I'd be too embarrassed to show my face here for a month. But here they are already commenting on this very post with another round of sneering, lying, goading and insulting. Some people are just too full of themselves. Go figure....
