Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer

[derannimer]

> Mel: 
> > I say that because I *know* she is highly
> respected by the site and
> > common posters.  She has proven to be a good
> leader and a good 
> poster.
> >  What else does MEG need?  It must be a more
> shallow, but also
> > important reason, y'all have declined to let Cindy
> back. 
> >
> 
> Pip:
> The reason given in the rejection letter is the
> truth. We had a very 
> painful bust-up on MEG, and we are terrified that
> the return of any 
> ex-MEG now could break open a rather fragile truce.
> We want to hold 
> MEG together until we can create a new constitution,
> a new way of 
> running things and have a new group of MEGs who
> don't have all this 
> baggage to carry.

Er. . . Heidi, Pip, I obviously don't know how you personally voted on this, or even if 
you did, so it could easily be Not At All Your Fault, but it seems. . . well, I mean, if 
there's a *truce,* then saying "The only way we can maintain our truce is if we don't 
have to deal with you" seems a fairly. . . counterproductive strategy, if you want to 
*keep* that truce. 

I mean, I understand the reasoning, I get that MEG *didn't* want to deal with all of 
that again -- but it just seems like a slap in the face: yes, we made mistakes, yes 
we've forgiven you for your own mistakes, no, we're not going to try to work with you 
any more. It just seems like MEG was saying: "You're not worth the effort." It would be 
a hard thing not to take personally.

Yes, I know that I am *tremendously* biased in Cindy's favor; and I *don't* know all of 
what went on; and I am bearing in mind the *possibility* that there was some 
hideously dark misdeed she committed to warrant such treatment [1] -- but if there 
*wasn't*. . . well, I'd frankly say that she's one of the best posters on the list; and has 
been (judging from my own experience) very encouraging to the newbies; and she 
also seems to be one of those people who are very good at running things, and right 
now HPfGU is obviously in desperate need of people like that. 

If she's worth hanging on to, and if the truce is worth *anything,* then it's worth a 
risk. And MEG has decided that she isn't, and that the truce isn't, then I don't see how 
you can expect Cindy not to be hurt.

And Cindy is also *right*: whatever MEG is doing, it needs to be changed. I think that 
the drastic solutions being proposed on OT are entirely in line, considering that the 
situation has gotten as bad as it has; I've seen a couple of comparisons to last 
summer, but were people talking about setting up newbie lists last summer? Was 
there anything like the degree of public concern that there is now? 

I am discouraged on more than one front, and I would like to take the opportunity 
*now* to massively apologize to Pip and Heidi for this post. Guys, I know it's not your 
personal responsibility, and I know that even if it was I'd be way out-of-line here, and 
you have both always been really very nice to me, and I'm probably not doing any real 
good -- I'm sorry. I'm going to regret sending this post about five seconds after I 
send it. Please forgive me for being so interfering. It's just that. . . well, from what I've 
heard, Cindy does seem to have been treated rather shabbily -- or at least rather 
*thoughtlessly* -- and I think it's a shame.





Derannimer, who would also like to apologize to Abigail. I'm nowhere near as mature 
as you are, or I wouldn't be writing this.


------------


[1] I started reading Agatha Christie when I was ten years old, after all. It's *always* 
the person you least suspect.