On Jun 13, 4:22 am, CFA wrote:
> 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.
RM: Not in AA no, although I had 40 consecutive days discussing
testing issues with Sherilyn, which incidentally led me to writing the
big transit program over the next few years.
> >> 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.
RM: Of course he is, but he said at one point towards the end that
he'd never got his foot in the door at aamod - assuming I suppose he
wouldn't get a fair deal even if he did tread a bit more carefully. To
my surprise he gave it a go, and that's when Michael was threatened
and Keera went in to "save him" from 'them thar ferals' i.e they
wouldn't do any harm while SHE was there -- protecting aamod AND
keeping Ed Wollmann out. So Keera had the chair until I set her up and
posted a not so nice message which Gail um, accidentally let through.
That's all it took. Keera spat the dummy and it was all over.
> >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.
RM: There were a couple that should have been rejected but the the
zealous atmosphere was way too much, and bragging about it on another
(obscure) group showed what was going on without question.
> 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.
RM: I forget the exact timing, but once I exposed her motives in
relation to Ed it was all downhill.
> >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.
RM: If posters insist on talking nonsense as a subtle form of trolling
there is only one outcome. They leave rather than have the nonsense
exposed, and return when the heat dies down.
> There are times it looks like you are unnecessarily provocative. And
> maybe you know things I don't. Whatever.
RM: Well like I say, it can appear that way, but there's only one
reaction when bs is being used. I talk it out bluntly.
Ray
|
