What are the specifics ? Which are the hyperbole ?
Allan, my friend ? I do not even know him well. Loyalty ? What's loyalty got to do with this ? You've taken a decision, where you were on trial ! Remember that. On Sep 16, 9:48 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam, your hyperbole is laudable especially when coming to the aid of a > friend who is perceived to have been wronged. Loyalty has its place. > The specifics in this case fly against your stance though. > > On Sep 16, 5:57 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Moderation is and always has been subjective. It also is not > > > democratic no matter what pretense or trappings are added to it. > > > Subjectivity can include emotional instability and rank egotistic > > stupidity. But we all work at learning to be on guard against that > > because IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR. Especially Moderation of a > > Group... with members who are pretty much evolved and conscientious on > > their own. This Group has had the hallmarks of such great members... > > > I wasn't meaning that the Moderation process be " Democratic." But it > > certainly needs to be open and transparent. > > > > gabby, if you feel attacked by vam and want action, let me know > > > specifically and I'll address it. I use judgement when it comes to > > > individual cases. > > > Nothing in your judgement, Mr Moderator, can force me to give ' value > > ' or assign so much ' worth ' to particular posts. I actually do not > > give much value to Gabby's posts and actually assign much worth to > > them. And I felt it necessary to say as much, when I did. > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the task/responsibility > > > lightly. > > > Lightly ? No, OM, I do suggest you take the matter heavily. The > > seriousness implies that the Moderator CANNOT be wrong in his > > judgement in the context, even if he has to give the offender the > > benefit of doubt everytime, all the time. As can be seen, you are in > > absolute minority of ONE, from the reactions on this thread. Perhaps, > > you need to look at your subjectivity... > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears to be we are > > > not about trials here. > > > Then you most definitely are not taking the matter " seriously " at > > all. IT IS YOU WHO IS ON TRIAL everytime you have to take a banning > > decision ! > > > > On Sep 15, 9:41 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I believe banning is a serious matter. > > > > > I really have not kept track of what Allan has said or done. In the > > > > event, I feel there should be a separate thread titled : Why so-and-so > > > > deserves to be banned, by the Group rules ! > > > > > The person can then be clearly charged, allowed to respond, and a call > > > > taken by the Moderator in full public view. Shouldn't be difficult. > > > > After all you wouldn't be doing it every month. > > > > > On Sep 15, 8:24 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Vam, I deleted the offending posts. Allan himself knew he had gone > > > > > over the line and said so in one of his remaining posts. He followed > > > > > that one with more unprovoked direct attacks (self admitted/defined) > > > > > upon me. He knew what he was doing and what the result would be. > > > > > > Evolution, freedom, acceptance and toleration include self > > > > > responsibility. > > > > > > On Sep 14, 10:33 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > If true, as Allan himself informs me, the act seems > > > > > > disproportionate, > > > > > > a result of disbalanced mental process, and plain gross, as in > > > > > > absolute unfit for a Group comprising of such evolved members who > > > > > > believe in freedom, acceptance and toleration. > > > > > > > I sure would like to hear the Moderator speak on this matter.- Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -
