[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: More questions for MEG

[Amanda Geist]

Apologies again to FAQ. I realize this dialogue may be tiring many of you. I
will "retire from the field" and not respond further, because it seems that
Tom and I can only agree to disagree--but I was unwilling to let my silence
be consent to the implications of corruption. Or similarities with Dolores
Umbridge. Ugh.

Tom:
As it stands now, you just proved my point in
your attempt to stifle the very *discussion* as to whether or not we
could expect the overlap members to be fair.

Amanda:
? Is any comment or observation I make, going to be taken as an attempt to
stifle something? What did I attempt to stifle now? Why is me stating my
perspective, Amanda Stifles Again?

Tom:
The people who seized power in April - the very same people who have
power now - are *hardly* in a position to express anything
like "fairness" to those of us who have no leg to stand on when it
comes to decision making.

Amanda:
Seized power? On FAQ? Listen, I'm really sorry the relationship between MEG
and FAQ wasn't clarified earlier, really, but there wasn't any seizing, in
my understanding. Just because things have been miscommunicated and
misunderstood, doesn't mean that the miscommunications or misunderstandings
were the facts of the matter.

Tom:
Who benefited from your rebellion earlier this year? *You* did. Not
HPfGU.

Amanda:
*sigh* Which rebellion are we talking about? There hasn't been one on FAQ,
that I'm aware of, and I thought we were talking about FAQ.

Tom:
 In fact, there are zero indications to suggest that the
present regime is any better than the previous one, and several
indications to suggest that things are quite a bit worse.

Amanda:
Tom. Why do you keep using such charged language? "Regime"? "Rebellion"?
"Seizing power"? Why did you *join* FAQ? Was it to possess and wield power,
or was it to work with other people who enjoyed HP, in cataloguing and
compiling FP essays? How is any of this relevant to the work we all joined
to do? What is at issue, here?

I have been in the minority on many occasions in the past. Demonizing a
majority, painting them all with one brush, is not the way to deal with a
majority. You deal with a majority one individual at a time. Because
commonalities are more common than differences, in my experience.

I keep coming back to FAQ work not to "stifle" anything, but because, to the
best of my knowledge, *that* was what all of us are here for. Not power
struggles or positioning or politics.

Tom:
given MEG's recent consolidation of
authority on FAQ to *only* MEG members (and Heidi) - skepticism
regarding the *assumed* equity that MEG members quite likely do
perceive in this policy making process.

Amanda:
We consolidated moderator abilities. Authorities have yet to be worked out.
There is a significant difference. Moderator abilities are settings.
Authority is quite different and does not stem from which boxes are checked
under "moderator abilities."

There is a certain amount of trust that must exist in a group of people
working together. If every single word any FAQ member who happens to be a
MEG says to you is going to be challenged and disbelieved, there's no point
in talking. I was attempting to present how I really see things, in answer
to a viewpoint I do not myself share. Extend to me, at least, the decency to
entertain the belief that I may be an honest human being who simply
disagrees.

Tom:
This assertion is not historically supported by the veteran members
of MEG's - I am discounting the latest round of additions, because
IMHO they are not yet corrupted by the events that occurred earlier
in 2003 - past or present actions.

Amanda:
*blinks* "Corrupted by events"? What occurred in 2003 that so corrupted us?
Again, I suspect this is ranging beyond FAQ. Since you have so many times
stated that you are not privy to MEG interactions, how are you so certain
that we have been, or are, corrupt? You weren't there. And on FAQ, an
straightforward reading of everything posted does not reveal corruption.
Maybe what we said was what we meant? Maybe all the sinister intent found
between the lines is seeing what you want to see?

Tom:
Amanda, don't you see that the mere fact that you're objecting to
the distinction I have drawn is enough to make my point obvious to
anyone who is not currently in the majority group?

Amanda:
Well, I can see that *you* think this polarization exists. I can see it's a
valid viewpoint and one way to interpret things. But I won't accept your
speaking for anyone but yourself; the same way that I was speaking only for
myself in presenting my viewpoint. And we clearly disagree. But that's as
far as I'm willing to go; I don't personally extend this dichotomy to the
rest of the list, along MEG/nonMEG lines. Probably every single member of
FAQ has a different take on things. Decisions should be made based on all
"takes," not just yours or mine.

Thank you for the dialogue.

~Amanda