I didn't realize my auto sig was on. Poor form, and of course you're right.
Regarding Allan? I have no idea. However, there is a group of moderators you can ask about it. :) On Sep 29, 2011 4:54 AM, "gabbydott" <[email protected]> wrote: > Being too close or over-identifying with the moderation role can have the > opposite effect, as we have seen. Has this effect been corrected yet? > I haven't seen Allan reentering the fair exchange stage so far. > > And please switch off your automatic signature when you are posting here, > Chris, you might be taken for a spammer by moderators to come who don't know > your history here. > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Chris Jenkins > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> *laughing* I think that Gabs was insinuating I was about to re-enter the >> moderation fray. As it turns out, that is incorrect. I have completely >> removed myself from any form of moderation or ownership. As I mentioned the >> last time around, I was far too disconnected from the daily going-ons to be >> effective in that role. >> >> Now it's in the hands of others, and I'm free to pop in from time to time >> without dealing with moderation issues...unless, of course, I were to be >> banned. :) >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Pat <[email protected] >wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 7:39 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Ah, Mr Putin is preparing to reenter the stage light! Voting for a >>> natural >>> > death is indeed ridiculous in the eternal presence of God. >>> > >>> >>> Putin is Russia's answer to G. H. W. Bush. In other words, he's the >>> man behind the puppets. Actually, they're muppets, because the >>> strings come from below rather than above!! Nevertheless, Bush Sr. >>> and Putin call the shots in their respective countries. The facts >>> abour Bush are all laid out in an appendix of my book. The whole >>> story of how the power moved from Hoover's FBI to Bush's CIA. It WILL >>> stir up trouble, but there's no such thing as bad publicity!! >>> >>> > If I was in power, I'd learn to see rants as rants against my own power >>> > position - is this how you are trying to impress others? Now guess who I >>> > think is looking ridiculous. But I promise I won't go into details. Go >>> on, >>> > my American Hero, clean the group from unwanted, unsupportive, >>> unproductive, >>> > degenerated elements and get it going to how it used to when you still >>> had >>> > full control over what was happening here! >>> > >>> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chris Jenkins >>> > <[email protected]>wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > God I hate banning people. >>> > >>> > > I seriously, seriously do. It's a win for martyred trolls. It >>> accomplishes >>> > > silencing disruptive input, but create further division and animosity >>> (much >>> > > like Gab's oft descriptions of my jack booted thuggery). >>> > >>> > > I've asked Orn for a detailed explanation of the banning. It's a heavy >>> > > hammer, and I'd like to understand why it happened before making any >>> further >>> > > decisions regarding group management. >>> > >>> > > Chaz contributed much to this conversation, and I was sincerely >>> regretful >>> > > that I had to ban him. His absolute refusal to engage in civil >>> conversation, >>> > > and instead to flame incessantly, forced our hand. Craig and I debated >>> it at >>> > > length; those who were around then may recall he was put on moderation >>> twice >>> > > prior to being banned. >>> > >>> > > Despite not having anywhere near the time necessary to be a meaningful >>> > > contributor to this group, I still want it to flourish. I believe >>> important >>> > > conversations have been held here, and archived in perpetuity through >>> > > Google's group pages. Contributors like Neil provide the opportunity >>> to >>> > > speak directly with a Bukowski, a Thomas; Francis Hunt has given me a >>> fine >>> > > education in the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, and western >>> > > religious politics; Pat has melted my brain with Yeti-Phi-Tau space >>> and >>> > > inside out tesseracts. The thought of Minds Eye losing contributors >>> like >>> > > that pains me greatly. I still miss my squabbles with Atalante...she >>> was >>> > > another Professorial type whose vast knowledge and experience made me >>> feel >>> > > lucky to be part of this group. >>> > >>> > > I'm reading through threads now, trying to catch up. I wanted >>> management >>> > > questions to be resolved when I initially posted, and it seems that >>> the lack >>> > > of a clear direction then has led to a further breakdown now. Let's >>> get it >>> > > resolved once and for all. >>> > >>> > > Oh, and Gabby, I'm tempted sometimes to make YOU the owner of the >>> > > group...I'd love to see the threads where you ranted against yourself. >>> :D >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Pat <[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >> On Sep 23, 12:20 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> > I was asked to moderate but had to decline on time. Does the fact >>> I'm >>> > >> > selling tickets to the pissing match between Molly and Gabby accord >>> me >>> > >> > a ban? Our mannered society is often the 'rotten State of >>> Denmark'. >>> > >> > This group is less interesting without Chaz and Allan. I wonder >>> about >>> > >> > us if we can't be more tolerant. If Allan did something bad enough >>> > >> > for a ban I'd probably want to go and see if he was OK. >>> > >>> > >> Ahh, yes...I don't want to forget Chaz!!! I'm all for crediting even >>> > >> those who disagreed!! >>> > >>> > >> > On Sep 23, 12:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> > > I hardly want to lose my odd contact with you Gabby and I really >>> like >>> > >> > > Orn. >>> > >>> > >> > > On Sep 16, 7:17 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> > > > This is unacceptable. >>> > >>> > >> > > > Neil, and who else is not willing to keep on engaging here >>> under >>> > >> these >>> > >> > > > circumstances, could we please try to let common sense win? >>> > >>> > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:43 AM, ornamentalmind < >>> > >> [email protected] >>> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote: >>> > >> > > > > gabby, thanks for the response. That is what I had guessed >>> about >>> > >> you >>> > >> > > > > and Vam but wanted to be sure since you brought it up. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > Allan is banned from Minds Eye. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > On Sep 15, 1:57 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> > > > > > No, Orn, not feeling attacked by Vam but being attacked by >>> Vam. >>> > >> But I am >>> > >> > > > > > able to stand my man here, thank you. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > What is Allan's current posting status, is what we'd like >>> to >>> > >> know. Is he >>> > >> > > > > > being banned, set on moderation or have only some of his >>> posts >>> > >> been >>> > >> > > > > deleted? >>> > >> > > > > > Thank you for providing us with factual information to help >>> us >>> > >> increase >>> > >> > > > > the >>> > >> > > > > > level objectivity. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, 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. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > 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. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Vam, yes it is serious and I've never taken the >>> > >> task/responsibility >>> > >> > > > > > > lightly. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Also Vam, as egalitarian as your suggested method appears >>> to >>> > >> be we are >>> > >> > > > > > > not about trials here. >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > >> > - Show quoted text - >>> > >>> > > -- >>> > > Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal. >>> > > The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com>- Hide quoted text - >>> > >>> > - Show quoted text - >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Planning without action is futile; action without planning is fatal. >> The Web Guy <http://imtheirwebguy.com> >> >>
