Ray Murphy wrote:
>On Jun 12, 1:47 pm, Ray Murphy <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 12:19 pm, CFA wrote:
>> > Ray Murphy wrote:
>> > >On Jun 12, 10:59 am, CFA wrote:
>> > >> Ray Murphy wrote:
>> > >> >RM: There's nothing wrong with emailing in the background unless
it's
>> > >> >designed to slow down the group and cause some posters to refrain
from
>> > >> >interacting with targeted others. I've found the pattern very
>> > >> >noticeable over the last few years.
>>
>> > >> It's the pattern, not the emailing. You did the same thing in
>> > >> alt.astrology.
>>
>> > >RM: But quite openly, and for the purpose of improving communication
>> > >about astrology in the long term (one way or he the other) - not
for
>> > >the sake of fighting or getting even with personalities.
>>
>> > Okay, let me say it a little differently: doesn't matter what you
>> > thought your motive was, it achieved the same results- division.
>>
>> RM: Being at aa before the blow-up caused no division at all.
Among the skeptics, no. Among some of the other astrologers affected,
yes. You did manage to contribute to the demise of aa.
But that's separate from how others treated Ed, which didn't stop
until he stopped posting, your efforts notwithstanding, some time
after aa really died.
>> The row as caused by me being made a moderator and then aggravated by
>> me letting Pete post for a week when (unbeknown to them) I was NOT
>> even online.
I wouldn't 'blame' you, but it's interesting that's happened a couple
of times now- misunderstandings about your moderation and subsequent
ruffled feathers. But I think that's because...
>[Extra]
>
>I warned Michael when he asked me to help out, that if key players
>found out I as moderating there would be trouble.
It follows you around- moderating, not moderating, whatever. You're a
consciously provocative person*, and to call Ilma the same is just
PKB.
*From the outside, it fouls much of your positive efforts.
>Ray
|
