Jyeshta wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:36:42 -0400, CFA wrote:
>>Ray Murphy wrote:
>>>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:
>>
>>
>>>> >> 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.
>>
>>If you weren't quite so allergic to history, you could have found out
>>what happened in previous attempts. In earlier efforts, sometimes a
>>moderator would ask him to trim his signature or change a few words,
>>and he'd refuse/get nasty/flounce. There really wasn't an agenda to
>>keep him out *overall*. Gail stated part of her motivation for
>>starting the group was to keep Ed and his crowd away,
>
>Is there a link to that? I never said the purpose of creating
>aamod was to keep Ed away - it was to create a place which kept
>out the so-called skeptics which were over-running aa and posting
>a great deal of ****ographic garbage - the headers alone made me
>sick to my stomach (but other people found it "humorous"... ).
.... all of that swirling around Ed. If you didn't base it as much
about Ed as I say here, okay. I stand corrected.
>>but Ed could
>>have toned it down/trimmed, and been just fine. He refused to
>>cooperate- ever.
>
>He has at times posted on-charter. It would be nice if we all
>did that, all the time. :-)
>
>>>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.
>
>I don't recall which message that was? The only not-so-nice
>messages I let through were the ones from LibraLove (only one of
>them but it created a firestorm a year ago April or May or
>something), myself :-), and Pam, and then you (we were all still
>on auto-approve at the time, except for LL in the LL incident).
>If there were others, they were allowed through in error.
>
>>>That's all it took. Keera spat the dummy and it was all over.
>
>No, Keera left as soon as she found out I'd been moderating
>unbeknownst to her.
>
>>Like I said, Gail had an agenda.
>
>What do *you* think it was? It might be interesting to find out
>what my agenda was. :-)
See above.
>>Keera just got fed up in general. I
>>suppose this incident tipped the balance, but she wasn't kicked off
>>the moderation board.
>
>If she hadn't left, she would have been.
News to me.
>Gail
|
