<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kanebear:
If there was ever an axe that'd been ground to the base of the handle...
...However, when members get into these little 'shouting matches', they infringe upon the rights of the rest of the community by disrupting the flow of information and ideas. So, while you may be free to express yourself and exercise your rights, you most certainly are not free to stomp all over mine. </font>
---
Axe to grind? Shouting match? Right to express themselves? Rights stomped over?
Wasn't the flow of information disrupted when we all suffered through the past eruptions?
All I did was pose a few simple honest questions, no? Hopefully, we all have rights here!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
Is there perchance some listed criteria upon which the selection of "Moderators" is presently being made?
Looking to the past, (and I'd naturally be willing to provide the numerous threads that still remain as references) one wonders, will "Moderators" be moderate, and be subject to the TOS now and in the future?
Is there perchance some listed criteria or any rational, tangible basis upon which a decision to perhaps not have "someone" serve, or continue to serve as a "Moderator" is/will be made?
With particular reference to the above comment regarding "...they know when they are wrong and i think have shown they can accept any consequences for that line..", I concur most heartily.
Yet could you kindly please elaborate upon where and how this "awareness" of being wrong was manifested and/or just what the suppossed "consequences" were, since it is not at all apparent to me!
Thanks very much!
-Mark</font>
---
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by missydarlin:
...still haven't received follow up, perhaps A) you're not going to get it and should decide whether you're going to let it go or just go. B) Take it up with Randy and/or Ess privately...
...The long-winded public rehashing and commentary of old posts and actions aren't going to get you what you want. If you didnt get the response you want in private, does anyone really think a public stoning is going to evoke an apology?...
...Either we accept his benevolent nature and agree to be civil with those who we have personal issue, or we can leave, or we can continue to elevate the situation until we are possibly asked to leave.
</font>
---
Rehashing? I hope not!
FWIW, IMHO, it's manifestly not about me, nor about her, per se. These are, I felt, relevant questions posed to Randy. Again, isn't it within our rights to politely pose a question in this regard?
Regarding what I might want, I truly have no personal agenda, nor specific wants, at least of which I'm aware!
I do however want what is best for FT and all FT'ers and this surely includes Ess, as well as Randy.
As I'd said, it's over with, as far as
I'm concerned. It was over then. I put it behind me long ago. My concern is/was whether others genuinely have, and if Randy perhaps recalls what he had previously remarked. What happened was a real embarassment to FT and I hope that it will not happen again - period.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
...Yet I do not wish to rehash all the issues here.
There was no effort, in this notable case, to edit their past remarks, and there was even a stauch and absolute refusal to do so! Ultimately, FT actually had to do the editing themselves, sadly!
Was there any sense of remorse whatsoever exhibited? Well, sadly, not that I ever saw! So what has been learned?
If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected! And please do! I hope I am!
Finally, in any case, the past, is just that - past. I long ago put it behind me. Does Randy deserve the benefit of the doubt, and our trust in "Moderator" selection? Will those appointed work to maintain a flame free, fair, respectful board of contributors that does not tolerate personal insults?
I hope so!
Is the past a guide? I hope not in this case!
It's fair to assume that "Moderator" selection is done only following a rather careful, honest analysis of each applicants track record of posts. Clearly a firm agreement is "understood" if not written, and the rules as defined by the TOS (as well as the kind spirit) of the FT boards will hopefully govern any and all actions concerning posts related to effectively carrying out the difficult and often thankless task of moderation.
Clearly, "Moderator" is a truly special title, in my view, to be bestowed only upon a very select few that show both special interest and uniquely suited personalities. Not me! And surely it is unlikely that Ess/Sam would have been my choice! Yet assuming the minimal conditions addressed above are being meet, I guess we should all perhaps join in supporting her in her efforts!
Have a great weekend all!
-Mark
</font>
---
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JonNYC:
Enough with the persecution complex-- Randy has made his decision, let's just move on!</font>
Persecution? Complex?
Geeezzz! Did someone mistakenly think that they'd been picked on? All a figment of their imagination, eh?
PLEASE!
Having said these things, to be absolutely clear, I have nothing against Ess and wish her the very best!
-Mark