On Aug 25, 11:04 pm, "jmsa...{at}aol.com"  wrote:
>
> Much silliness.
>
> Against my better judgment, as the person for whose benefit this group
> was formed in the first place, let me chime in here for a moment.
>
> It's been said, repeatedly, that this group functions for all intents
> and purposes as a private party.

        And yet it's open to the public, since anyone can breeze in and
join.

> Those who the group want to hang
> around are invited in to play; those who the group doesn't want to
> hang around, or who behave in ways obnoxious to the hosts and guests
> are not invited in to play.

        That's a clique.

> This keeps out the stalkers, the
> obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and the general, all-around
> jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's left after
> a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
> It's the slow poisoning of a group.

        You're giving me far too much credit with respect to the latter, and
I resent being lumped into that group of misfits altogether in point of
fact. But no matter --I'm just one person who is clearly outnumbered here,
and I have no "collaborators" as surely you have noticed.

> This newsgroup has been along for a very long time, operating under
> the most onerous and difficult circumstances, and always honorably,
> the moderators always ready to give the benefit of the doubt
> repeatedly, despite often doubting the benefit.

        Very poetic, but you're taking it upon yourself to speak on their
behalf only. Who speaks for the others who have had encounters with them
that you were not there to either witness or even hear about? Your
contention is that they have never done anything wrong, but they're people
who are just as fallible and prone to basic human weaknesses as most anyone
else out there in the world, and it is quite simply impossible for you to
know everything that has taken place between them and others, either
privately, or here within the group too for that matter. There is simply no
way you can possibly be that omniscient, sir, as to know it all.

> And every so often, some loudmouth breezes into town and tries to make
> the discussion all about himself, about how he thinks he should be
> treated...he shouts at the moderators to maintain standards that he
> himself shows no desire to meet, as though they were employees
> answerable to him...when in fact they are not answerable to anyone
> other than the quiet turning of their own considered conscience.

        Even though they are the ones in charge, have placed themselves
voluntarily into that position, and therefore have both a duty and an
obligation to carry out their assigned responsibilities honorably and
according to the rules and guidelines that they either established
themselves, or agreed to abide by and enforce once they took on the job, and
which involves public relations as a matter of course. So yes, like it or
not, they are also answerable to others, especially the people they
summarily impose judgment and punishment on, allowing little-to-no recourse
to the so-called "offenders" who dared to disagree with them about any of
their edicts.
        If "standards" were really so sacred to the people here they
wouldn't be breaking the rules they expect others to follow left and right
just to dump on me, and moderators wouldn't be boldfaced lying to the member
that it's happening to. I'm supposed to care about following rules when they
don't give a damn about breaking them and will do so at my expense, and then
lie right to my face about it as though I'm just an idiot? Yeah, right --I
don't think so.

> You say you got dog piled.  Well, yeah, when you crash a party and
> start behaving obnoxiously toward the guests and the hosts, you get
> dog-piled.  Where in this is the surprise?  Where the unfairness?  You
> seem to feel you can act any way you want, and if anybody so much as
> says a word about your boorish and inappropriate behavior, it's
> *their* fault, *they're* being bad and unfair and censorious.
>
> Nonsense.

        Actually, No ...for starters, I don't even agree with your
description of the situation, because all I did initially was express a
complaint--and not even all that harsh of a complaint at that if you were to
actually go back and take a look at it. I did not carry on, or stamp my
feet, or behave "obnoxiously" in the way you describe. I simply let it be
known that I felt something was perhaps amiss. And I didn't accuse anyone of
anything initially either for that matter. Now, people here could have
reacted to what I had to say in any number of ways, starting with their
simply ignoring it as one possibility. Or they could have acknowledged it,
said something along the lines of "Sorry you feel that way, but maybe the
group no longer functions the way you remember it." However, they chose the
"dog pile" approach, which was very "rude" and
"obnoxious" on their parts in
return, and which in essence you certainly appear to be saying I deserved,
so you're advocating a "two wrongs make a right" defense because it's the
best you've got, and it's utterly indefensible on your part.

> The problem is you.  You like being at the center of attention.  You
> like twisting arguments around so that you look like the offended
> party when you are the one being offensive.

       How closely did you actually even pay attention to this thread from
where the ongoing argument began? Or did you even pay any attention to it at
all, jumping in only much later on, and basing your conclusions on what
others--especially your most trusted moderators--have said  about me
according to their own biased and "toxic" agendas much further in?
       You claim I like twisting arguments around supposedly, yet it was
your friends who were intent on putting words in my mouth, asserting things
left and right that I never said (I repeatedly asked your favored moderator
to point out where I called her a liar for instance, and yet she never
bothered, because she couldn't, because I never said it), they were the ones
deliberately mischaracterizing things I actually did say and twisting them
into something other than what I meant.

> You like making people
> upset so that when they *act* upset you can gleefully point out that
> they're being upset.

        Voicing a simple straightforward complaint may well make some people
"upset," but grownups actually know how to deal with it without acting like
an out of control mob of spoiled children out to make sure that there's a
public lynching. The people here chose that latter course, however, and
that, sir, was a decision that _they_ chose to make, not me on their behalf.

> You want the discussion to be about *you*,

        That just isn't true --your friends reveled in turning it all into a
spectacle about me, but I would have been more than content had the whole
thing just dropped after my having said what was on my mind.

> about how other people
> should live up to *your* standards (which are nonexistent)

       And you base that latter conclusion about my having "no
standards" on
what exactly --my actions here, predominantly in response to a bunch of
nasty, hostile people out to make me so disgusted that I would simply leave,
completely fed up because I dared to open my mouth and express a criticism
that they can't take hearing? Or is it that you're saying I have "no
standards" period?
       Either way, how dare you.

> and justify
> why *you* should remain here before you "waste your time" in the
> company of such individuals.

        Actually, I stated that after I had been placed on "hand
moderation"
and wasn't sure if my messages _would be allowed to pass beyond the
gatekeepers_, so you, like so many others here, have just grossly
mischaracterized what I was actually saying at the time --something I've
grown very accustomed to here in this particular "group".
        If you're going to take the time to write a long message with the
intent of posting it to a public board, but it won't show up, and you know
this because the people in charge have made it clear by their actions and
"warnings," is it actually worth sitting there, spending your time writing
something most people won't get to see and read?

        That's what I was talking about the time, NOT that you bothered to
actually notice obviously.

> (In terms, I might add, that I find
> curiously familiar.)

        Isn't that nice. Have any bells gone off for you now? Or are you
still stuck in the cobwebs up there?

> The people in this group have nothing to prove to you.  The moderators
> have nothing to prove to you.

        Courtesy is a two-way street, and if they expect common courtesy,
then they should behave courteously themselves. And my experience here with
them has shown me that their special brand of 'courtesy' is reserved for a
very select group of people.
        I've also grown very tired of the "Your post must have disappeared
into the ether" malarkey every time a message of mine does not appear here;
regardless of what account, newsreader or service I happen to post it from.
I have been here on and off for _a long time_ ...almost as long as you have
in fact, though not as consistently, but nonetheless, a pattern has emerged
that I no longer care to ignore or simply tolerate. I made that known; it
was not the end of the world, however, and should not have been treated as
such, and my having spoken my mind on the matter dos not justify the weeks
of berating nonsense that ensued as a result no matter how you try to
justify it.

> They have worked for *years* to make
> and preserve this as a pleasant place for people to come and talk.

        And you consider their actions in this very long thread as an all
around exemplary case in point?

        If so, then that sure does explain a lot.

        Look, I proved previously that one of your precious moderators had
made out-and-out false statements to me, claiming that I had not been flamed
by anyone who took part in this thread, and when I replied with examples
(that's called "proof" by the way), my posts were no longer
allowed through.
Whose fault is that --mine, or the moderator's? She's there to enforce a set
of rules of conduct, but then only acknowledges the conduct in a very
one-sided way, and the guy who has been targeted by them, and most everyone
else here, is then told flat-out lies right to his face rather than just
seeing one of them simply acknowledge the truth. It's one thing if she
didn't want to apologize to me because she didn't feel she owed me an
apology in spite of the obvious, but then just say that, and don't lie to my
face and then shut me out when I provide evidence.

> You are a guest in someone else's home.  Act like it.  Or frankly, get
> out.
>
> jms

        I'm not going to apologize for expressing a complaint, and a rather
benign one at that, and you haven't justified their collective ugly conduct
in my direction here in recent weeks.

       And this isn't "someone else's home" either. It's a public
board that
anyone can read or take part in if they choose to join --unless they get
shut out by a small group of people in charge.
       And rather than "a private party," I have a better analogy
for you. I
see it more like a small town (in fact, I believe you even figuratively
referred to this place as a "town" earlier on here), with me as someone on
vacation who was merely passing through at the time, decided to stop and get
out of my car to stretch my legs, get a cup of coffee at the local coffee
shop, saw fit to express a complaint about something at the counter, and the
next thing I know I have the Town sheriff, his deputy, and an angry mob of
the Town folk all looking to run me out of town, if not worse, over
something I simply said. Disgusting. You should all be ashamed of
yourselves. Forget my behavior. Look at your own.

       I recall themes such as this --the little guy voicing dissent about
the government in power-- and being subjugated, oppressed and punished for
having done so in your work. However, it seems to me that if you're going to
preach about themes such as that in what you write, then you shouldn't be a
hypocrite by being so closed to others speaking their minds and expressing
themselves in ways that you may disagree with in a small forum such as this,
specially when they're being pounced on by a group of malc0ntents and are
outnumbered.



=======================
from the "Newsgroup back" (and so-called) "Common
Courtesy" thread
=======================
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32