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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <atewari2...@gmail.com> 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 <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> 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 <atewari2...@gmail.com> 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 -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário