Yep, and watch how the non-committedness of one behind near the lens can
block the view on tens of activists. ;)

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Chris Jenkins
<[email protected]>wrote:

> 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>
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to