by Englishman 98 Replies latest jw friends
As for unfairness ... believe me, it is impossible to read every post in every topic and to be totally consistent all the time. I am not a machine and will make slightly different decisions from time to time.
Sometimes the context of the topic or what is currently going on affects things. In the recent cases, all hell seemed to have broken loose so I felt I needed to clamp down on some unruly behaviour.
I think there have been some great posts here. I readily agree with Xena and Expat (maybe I have something for the letter X hmmm)
Anyway I agree this is Simons Place and therefore has the right to run it as he sees fit. Personally I can't think of ANYONE else I'd rather have fun it. He's not perfect, but he doesn't have to be. We're all grown adults(well most of us) and I think we should act that way. I mean people don't throw these kinds of fits at work do you??????? Well then I think we should have enough mutual respect for oursleves and others to manage to behave ourselves online. If we read something that upsets us we have two options, to reply or to walk away. Sometimes it's best to walk away untill we've calmed down and can approach it in a rational matter.
Sometimes I feel that people reserve this board to take out all the frustrations they've had throughout the day or week, with their mates, kids, at work yada yada yada. They see a post they dont' like and just go off, and maybe feel better for that, but is that fair to the rest of us. This is a support board. This is Simons board and we're his guests, that means we still have to use some kind of common courtesy or else others will leave just because the enviroment is icky. We don't want that. We all have our bad days and say something we don't mean, or wish we hadn't said, but Simons been very forgiving and as 'reactivated' several people.
I don't think it's the same as df'd because anyone can still talk, IM, or email the person and half the time we don't even know who's been deactivated. I've been gone for about a month and have just heard bits and pieces so I have no clue who's still here or not. But I was sickend that Simon goes on vacation and we can't behave long enough w/o 'daddy' here to watch out over us, very co-dependant!!!!
Ven
Hi, Ven--welcome back!!!!!
Like the Jws, there is no consideration from the elite few when considering what rules to apply to whom.
How can anybody take this notion seriously when the owner of the Board, the person who sets the rules is considering the very issues, on this very thread, giving his reasons for his actions
The issues? Who cares? You dont like it, leave.
What is the problem with this? As I explained earlier in my post above, this is standard modus of human behavior in any social group.Why does it now become an issue when it is applied to an XJW Board? Could it be that those who try to draw parallels between the WTS and JW.Com are actually themselves locked in a prison of thought.
Or, better yet, we will remove you. Autocratic.
A person might eventually be deactivated if their behavior is offensive to others true. However let me ask you, if a person were to continually harass and insult you publicly on this Board and accuse you of say, being a child-molester, would you expect Simon to allow that person to carry on his tirade ad nasuem? Would you appreciate Simon curtailing his freedom and deactivating his account?
Also, this mantra is red herring. It does not address the issues at all. The Elders? They wear blinders and just do their job.
Presumably you mean by mantra the oft repeated statement that Simon owns the Board, sets the rules, if you do not like them you are free to leave? It seems to address the issues for the majority of the Boards subscribers, and that is surely all that can be hoped for with thousands of subscribers, each with a point of view.
This board does take public donations, so some "consideration" to persons that have a "stake" at making what the board is today, should be given, right? Or, do we only take the good with the bad?
No, what you have the freedom, the total freedom to :
1) Donate or not donate.
2) Leave at any time with no strings attached
3) Remain a subscriber and live by the Board owners behavioral preferences.
How do you feel about all the list members that have flamed Fred to the point that they too should be kicked out of your house, but have not? I feel that Fred was baited. However, he was wrong. Yet, two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
Fred has a long term history of making harmless provocative statements aimed toward the majority subscribers to this Board. He is played with verbally and does his own share of playing. He has never had the Board owner even intimate that he should not post since he subscribed well over a year ago. He then crossed the boundaries of decency, refused to apologize and was deactivated pending an apology. Your argument is not well served using Fred as an example, quite the contrary.
Best regards - HS
Edited by - hillary_step on 22 August 2002 14:0:7
""Thi Chi:
Making a donation to a charity or organisation does not give you any "rights" or influence over how that charity or organisation is run. There are very good reasons for this. Imagine the Ku Klux Klan gaining control over the United Way by making a very large donation, for example.
Expatbrit""
I never stated that "Rights" should be given here. However, thats one organization I would not join if consideration is not given to those who support it (like the Dubs?). However, not to acknowledge those who give their time, $$ is not right, IMHO.
Remember, we are standing as Witnesses against the WT and (among other things) their unfair treatment of their members, should we not then take the "high ground" in this area? How should you treat those who support your organization?
X: I have always respected you and your posts. Keep up the good work!
HS:
""How can anybody take this notion seriously when the owner of the Board, the person who sets the rules is considering the very issues, on this very thread, giving his reasons for his actions""
Please dont twist my words. The question was how are persons like the Dubs by saying "if you dont like it leave." Not how Simon runs the board. Nice try.
"What is the problem with this? As I explained earlier in my post above, this is standard modus of human behavior in any social group.Why does it now become an issue when it is applied to an XJW Board?"
Haaa, the "Ad Populim" argument. If everyone does it, it must be alright!! I guess that works, if you are not Fred.
"Presumably you mean by mantra the oft repeated statement that Simon owns the Board, sets the rules, if you do not like them you are free to leave? It seems to address the issues for the majority of the Boards subscribers, and that is surely all that can be hoped for with thousands of subscribers, each with a point of view."
Sounds great though this was not my point nor the question at hand!
E-Man
I do not appreciate you condescending manner. I did read your post, and I did read your "disclaimer." You have excused your actions (or lack of them) by way of blinders. Fine. It seems like a copout to me.
Listen up, Sunshine:
The post was intended in a good spirit with a dash of humour thrown in. You live in a world of 1 way traffic only?
Englishman
Edited by - Englishman on 22 August 2002 14:15:32
ThiChi,
I will not engage in verbal tennis with you but I have not twisted your words. These are your words :
Like the Jws, there is no consideration from the elite few when considering what rules to apply to whom.
This is my reply :
How can anybody take this notion seriously when the owner of the Board, the person who sets the rules is considering the very issues, on this very thread, giving his reasons for his actions
Are you now suggesting the Simon, the Board owner is not part of the elite few that you have described.
Haaa, the "Ad Populim" argument. If everyone does it, it must be alright!! I guess that works, if you are not Fred.
Address MY argument if you wish to maintain some credibilty in this situation. All you have attempted to do is to distract the reader from the larger issues.
Sounds great though this was not my point nor the question at hand!
Then please elucidate what you meant by 'oft repeated mantra'. If what you meant differs from my application, please explain yourself.
HS
PS - I think that the correct Latin is 'ad populum'
Edited by - hillary_step on 22 August 2002 14:22:3
I hear you, Sunshine:
You did not address the point(s). Very well.
This time, E-man, we have paid for your party with our dearest blood. Was it worth it?
This time, E-man, we have paid for your party with our dearest blood. Was it worth it?
As you were the chief proponent in keeping the party going, perhaps you should be asking yourself this question.
Best - HS
