No one has suggested that it makes the battle "unwinnable". What is absurd is that there are people who point at the lack of dissenting opinions in "welcome back ____"-type threads as evidence that everyone is happy that ____ is back. I once pointed out on one of these threads that not all were posting welcome back messages and was promptly flamed by those pompously accusing me of being negative.

The wise man speaks! To tell you the truth, we in the COE and anti-COE camps got tired of it ourselves, but will once in a while still poke fun at each other.

To robb: COE shall rule OMNI!

And to ozstamps: You are correct, this thread should be closed soon, as it has now become about a specific member, though it wasn't that way when it started. It's just that certain posters feel that it's always about ____.

FewMiles..

------------------
[ FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web ]
[ Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage ] [ Unofficial oneworld Info Desk ]

I actually thought this thread was a discussion of moderation (as robb is a moderator.)
The problem I have in understanding the Randy quote is that I felt the original post by Spider of placing all the other 'closed' quotes a mockery of the community spirit.

A hearty welcome back without the reference to a guideline that was being enforced in other forums would have sufficed. Also I questioned why the other 'welcome' thread in community was closed. Sure it was thread that was a mockery but it seems that was what the 'MOST' of the first post was IMHO.

Of course my opinion my be different than most as I also feel that people who post topics in community such as;
I will be on XX airlines flt 123 tomorrow - anybody else?
are mocking those who take the time and effort of organizing a 'community get together'

Is there truely a line that can be drawn? Well I believe it is not easy enough in the examples drawn above. 1)Don't say anything bad about someone else (but does this include constructive criticism also) and 2)Don't be all inclusive in you comments of some one (eg: Everybody thinks your a ____________.)

[This message has been edited by magic111 (edited 06-14-2003).]

Well, I'll just chalk this up to another FT "thing" I just don't understand.

When folks are already analyzing a "Welcome Back" thread for its tactical uses in an entirely juvenile Internet fight, I either don't understand those "folks" or don't understand the gravity of the "fight" they're preparing for.

Ah, well . . . .

This thread has gone significantly off-topic, and I'd like to bring it back to the question: What are the specifics of the peace process in which we are to participate?

doc has emailed me and made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of participating in any peace process--that any problems are everyone else's fault (essentially saying that an organized conspiracy is out to get him).

Therefore, I remain confused as to how any peace process is supposed to work. Surely the expectation isn't that one party will harrass, provoke, and annoy, while the other parties are to be banned for merely crying foul.

Well put, robb

robb,

The one thing many of us know is that lots of flyertalkers aren't as tolerant as they appear to be. That's a shame because many of Doc's postings are worthwhile.
If they aren't complanining about him, they'll complain about someone else.

Dan

Exactly, Dan.

For the sake of argument, let's say that that's what doc was trying to say (because if that is NOT what he wanted to say, then the one-sidedness aspect of your question would then be moot).

With doc, I could then name six individual FTer's, three of whom are LOOOOONG time members, the next two of whom have thousands of posts, the remaining one who ceased participating, who believe there are packs of people who go around attacking those who are on the "wrong" side of issues. (Left uncounted are those who agree with that idea, but whose views are unclear to others.) Surely, if six such members believe this, it hardly takes a paranoid conspiracy kook or antagonistic type to believe it.

Randy may just very well have to ban some member names. I would not like to see him do that, but if people are going to be intolerant, then I can't see that there's any alternative.

When considering anybody who has thousands of FlyerTalk posts to his credit, chances are 100% that I (or anybody else) am going to find a lot of that person's posts that I don't agree with.

It's clear that Randy expects people who use this board ought to have a lot of tolerance for other posters.

And by "tolerance" I don't think Randy means that everybody else has to agree with certain opinions, prejudices, and preferences - else they be ostracized.

------------------
-Otto

[This message has been edited by OttoGraham (edited 06-14-2003).]

Otoo,

I assume that means EVERYONE. Right?

Including avek00?

So, I can rest assured that you will no longer be attacking avek00?

comments deleted by author

[This message has been edited by avek00 (edited 06-14-2003).]

---

Wow! Did I ever make a mistake emailing you robb!

First, as we all know, the contents of ones email are private, unlike those posted on an internet BB. I'd have thought you would respect that. Simply put, if I'd wanted to say something more publicly here, I would have!

Secondly, that is NOT what I said - nor is it even remotely close. Quite the contrary! Without robbs permission, I will not share his emails, despite what happened!

Yet, most importantly, I'll note the email exchange I'd initiated ended rather abruptly - at the specific request of the very same FT'er quoted herein, who proclaimed unilaterally, as well as suddenly, that it was "non-productive" and that I should never email them again!

FWIW, here is the content of the initial email I'd hastily, ie without proper proofing, sent off to robb:

---

robb:

Hi. Thanks for expressing your opinions in such a respectful manner.

I was going to post a lengthy reply to CameraGuy, and I just eliminated it
instead of posting as I do not think any good can come of it.

Here is the content of the reply that I was going to post to you, on that very same thread, FWIW:

...All I said was that if someone constantly is at the center of controversy, leaving disrupution and chaos in their wake where others do not, then they need to accept their share of the "peace process," and not just expect everyone else to do all the changing...

[This message has been edited by robb (edited 06-13-2003).][/QUOTE]

---

robb:

Your logic here completely escapes me, sadly! The argument is entirely specious for various reasons.

What is the "improper" behavior here again?
One is raped, because they asked for it? One is robbed, because they went out at night? It's their fault then? Their responsibility?
Sorry, no way!

Who is "constantly at the center of controversy..."??

Who left the destruction? the chaos?

Others do not??? Really???

The victim will vary here, as it has in the past. Open your eyes, please!

As you yourself noted, using your case, the "issues" arise here, independent of the specific participants at hand - whether you or I, or whomever.

It is the attackers that are the common link here. Do a "SEARCH!"


For example, using your analogy, if I should decide to get a few of my like-minded belligerent "friends" together, and proceed to flame you at every opportunity, whenever you post, what responsibilty do you bear? None! You are being victimzed by a gang attempting to wrongfully exert power over you!

Your responsibility is ONLY that of having posted in the first place.

Again, the rules forbid the attacking!

It is up to Randy & Co to enforce these rules, IMHO.

What change(s) should you then engage in? None!

Not posting? It's your other option! Or fighting back, which is also against the current TOS.

The rules are quite clear! The FT TOS states you do not flame/mock/attack and so on.

Moreover, this board is a privately run endeavor, and we all post at the pleasure of the owner/benefactor! It's not a democracy! Rather it is a benign dictatorship!

---

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robb:

...It's just very odd that Randy would post that you can come back and conduct yourself in exactly the same manner that has upset so many people in the past, and somehow that's entirely the fault of the other people??

Don't get me wrong, people who launch outright attacks on you are wrong and
should be punished. Muggers should still go to jail, but people who keep getting mugged have a responsibility to stop going down dark alleys late at night holding a fistful of cash.

So, I wanted to clarify the "peace process" or just protest it if it truly means that you have no responsibility to reduce what your experience absolutely tells you is provactive behavior, even if your logic tells you it isn't.</font>

---

Again, these are not multiple, unrelated people, but rather a gang with an axe to grind!

And I do not attack "them."

Shouldn't we accept each other and our differences? Or should I just attack those who I allow to upset me?

Nor did I attack your wording here. Or did I assume anything. Rather, I simply asked! What would you do?

Is it odd of Randy?

No. Not really, It's not odd of Randy, because I did not post anything
wrong! Get it? Read what he has posted previously on this matter if you like.

Or email him, as I asked earlier, no?

Remember also, it's HIS board!

I upset so many people? Suppose I decide, again, that my bellicose friends and I are now gonna' be upset with you, and whatever you post?

Should you just go away then, eh?

Be gone then!


BTW, did you ever see me harass the COE, or anyone else?

Do you think that I feel that the board is perfect?

No, on both counts.

IMHO, we should all do what we think is best for all involved.

Some of the folks involved in persistent attacking are just a bit self absorbed in my view and not convinced of this.

I think they get their jollies from harassing others - whoever it may be,
me, you, oz, - it doesn't really matter.

Again, that's for speaking your peace.

Trust you are otherwise well.

Regards,

Mark/doc

---

You can surely tell that I was awfully tired when I wrote that note!


BTW, I'm now in the process of drawing up a list of FT posters who have, IMHO, in the past, repeatedly proven to be divisive and disruptive to flyertalk. They harrass, provoke, and annoy.

Oh, so far, your name is not yet on it!

Perhaps if you keep on trying, you'll eventually succeed!

Not that you should or do care!

GREAT post, doc! Sums up everything very well, IMHO. Nuff said, for my part.

(Let me just post-script that, without naming names, I do believe some people have indeed changed for the better over time. It's all a learning curve...)

BTW, would you mind taking my name off your list? Thanks! ( )

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 06-14-2003).]

Obviously, I stand by my interpretation of these excerpts as doc perceiving an organized conspiracy out to get him and a recalcitrance that indicates no intentions to change his behavior in any way shape or form.

I also point out that I have in no way violated doc's copyright on his words. It is fair use to provide my interpretation of an unsolicited message sent me with no indication that it is to remain private. As you're so fond of saying, I've done nothing against any rules, so you must be out to get me!

By the same token, I, of course, offer doc the right to reproduce my emails in this exchange in part or in whole here if we wishes to make any point. I ask only that if he publish them in an edited format, that he grant me the same right, so that I can publish the context surrounding any excerpt.

I found his seeking me out after I made it clear here that I saw no value in conducting a private email exchange to be a form of harassment, that quickly proved to be as unprodcutive as I had originally expected.

I still await an answer as to what peace process is in place here? I'm completely at a loss to understand it.

Doc's only sin, so far as I know, is that some people think he posts too many news-link posts.

On the other hand, Randy has never suggested that it is appropriate to troll or post false information on these boards in order to cause disruption. When he does, I will say that the boy's actions are appropriate behavior.

------------------
-Otto

With all due respect, it is YOU who has had your credibility undermined after attempting to call me a liar on the UA forum (re: UA approaching Bethune for the CEO gig), after which I promptly posted an old news release and FT thread which proved your accusation to be baseless and completely without merit.

I am 100% committed to a new era for FlyerTalk; I hope that others will show a similar level of commitment in the very near future.

------------------
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a proud member of the SkyTeam Alliance.