Ray Murphy wrote:
>On Jun 12, 3:25 pm, CFA wrote:
>> 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.
>
>RM: I was referring only to the aamod blow up. Division at aa at any
>time was never a consideration at all.
>In other words nothing I did at aa caused the aamod blow up.
I had never thought it did.
>It was
>the jealousy about moderation, which incidentally had no bearing on
>anyone's posts being rejected because I didn't reject any before their
>campaign started - I actually emptied the letterbox a lot more
>frequently that normal to make the group flow better.
I didn't see any problems with your moderation.
>Yes, I ultimately contributed to the "new look" of aa. It took a
>coupla goes to get the job done, although I was fair about it and
>provided options - "the easy way or the hard way".
There actually was some on-topic discussion up to that point. I don't
think you helped anything.
>> 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.
>
>RM: It was never about Ed, who incidentally took my advice and began
>posting at aamod.
He had tried several times previously. He really is a Taurus in a
china shop.
>Keera tried to stop him so she was kicked out.
I could see her reasoning for rejecting the post. I don't know what I
would have done. I do know he's the kind of guy that requires a really
short leash.
Maybe you have information I don't, but her comments at the time were
that she resigned (like she had other times, to take a break). If
you'll recall, she was a mod for weeks after the incident.
>When the job was all done I left aamod for a long time.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>RM: It just looks that way to you. If you carefully follow arguments
>you'll see what's really happening.
>Take all that's stats stuff recently - hundreds of posts - with Hermes
>talking nonsense and refusing to accept the facts. Then Dick comes
>along and tried the same stunt and then pissed off when the real facts
>were presented. Same with this new guy who's talking garbage about
>Yins and Yangs.
Those aren't really the ones I'm considering. Yes, a rigid attitude
usually equates to blowing out of the group, like Dan.
There are times it looks like you are unnecessarily provocative. And
maybe you know things I don't. Whatever.
>Ray
|
