On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:06:48 -0400, CFA wrote:
>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.
Ken, I don't know exactly what it is, but very often I fail to
understand your meaning. It must be poor synastric
communicational ability between our charts.
>>>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.
She was a two-faced creature from the start, after max provoked
her into thinking I was against her on the mail list he
unilaterally decided to make after offering to "help" me start a
moderated group. There was friction between Keera and me ever
since then, even though I chose her to be a co-moderator that
first year.
Things worsened - when the being I loved more than anything in
the world was dying, and I made an on-topic post about it in
aamod, she said I was using the group to "dump". Even if that
were true, what a heartless thing to say. That's when I began
flaming our dear Keera in aa - fall and winter '99 - '00, and she
began pulling my posts out of aamod into aa in order to get her
dear and vicious friends to flame the hell out of me (because
she, and you, and several others, befriended people I would not
have anything to do with).
I can never forgive her for that. And apparently I was not the
only one to see behind the Venus-rising fascade of that clod,
when she made a trip to New York to visit someone who used to be
a frequent participant in aa and that chat group.
As I've said before, Venus rising is very much like make-up - it
disguises the ugliness, and creates the illusion of beauty where
there is none, in so many cases, such as hers.
I consider her now "untouchable". I might talk about her, but I
will never address her directly again, because she is poison, and
the only antidote is to *avoid*.
>>Gail
|
