Some Replies and a Conclusion...

[Tom Wall]

Hey all,

It's Superbowl Sunday, so I'm writing this fairly quickly. The 
reason I'm writing it is primarily to address some of the questions 
and allegation-esque statements that have been posed and made over 
the past few days. I would have let it rest until tomorrow, but I 
wanted to clear the air, and felt it couldn't reasonably be pushed 
off.

Replies to Joywitch, Amy Z, Pippin, and Ali are in this post.


Joywitch wrote:
Tom, I can't prove that you are the one who is sending Cindy posts
from this (or other) HPfGU lists, but someone obviously is because
she has been unashamedly sending offlists to people with direct
references to current HPfGU discussions. And I can't prove that you
are in constant contact with Cindy, or that you are posting things
that she has written, but your writing style sure seems
schizophrenic, and often very, very familiar to me.

Tom:
Well, since there were a few insinuations in there, I'll have to do 
a point-by-point (even though I know that some don't appreciate 
that) and respond to each.

As Amy Z realizes, there are several ways of subscribing to and 
reading these lists. I am not sending Cindy information from this, -
main, FAQ, or any other HPfGU list. As for constant contact, I'd say 
that that's an inaccurate statement at best. Firstly, being in 
contact with Cindy is not a crime or a ban-worthy offense, nor does 
it strike me as an egregious violation in any way. I am in contact 
with Cindy, though, and we e-mail on average about once a week. 
Furthermore, and we're on other lists together. 

As for my writing style, I'll address this in my next responses to 
Amy Z.


Amy Z wrote:
***Because the very way Cindy did her damage was to carry on the kind
of debate that she is now carrying on by proxy*** (because yes, it's
unprovable, but to anyone who is familiar with their styles, it's
obvious that Cindy is ghostwriting through Tom as a way to get around
the ban).

Tom:
Oh, Amy. *Now* this is starting to make a little sense. *This* 
explains why Joywitch suggested that my posting style had been 
schizophrenic lately. That made very little sense to me at first, 
but now I see what you're talking about. Thank you for stating this 
plainly. 

Now let me debunk it. ;-)

Are you referring to the way I commandeered Cindy's propensity for 
putting periods After. Every. Word. For. Emphasis? Guilty as 
charged. I stole it because I think that it's an effective way of 
accenting a phrase or part of a phrase every now and then.

Perhaps you're referring to the way I've started capitalizing the 
first letters in phrases that represent Ideas That I'd Like To 
Highlight, the way that not only Cindy but also Elkins and others 
have done? Yeah. That, too, is shamelessly siphoned from others' 
work.

Or maybe you think that because I've employed the word "smackdown" 
(which is certainly a Cindy-ism) Cindy is ghostwriting through me. 
Well, no, it's just a case of me not wanting to use and reuse the 
word clampdown. I do try to avoid redundancy if I can.

The use of "er" instead of "uh" is not only something Cindy employs, 
but also JKR, but that is a stylistic thing that I've adopted 
recently as well.

Additionally, you might be referring to...

<Tom pauses to illustrate his example.>

...my recent use of TBAY-isms like that in posts and letters? I can 
explain that, too. It's cause I'm trying to acquaint myself with the 
TBAY style so that I can feel more comfortable participating in 
those threads.

So, now I can see why you and Joywitch might think that Cindy is 
posting through me. But honestly, guys, you are way off base here. 
*Way* off base.

First of all, you may or may not know that I aspire to be a 
professional writer, and therefore quite actively pilfer stylistic 
touches – not material, just stylistic stuff and vocabulary  – from 
others' work all of the time. Writing is not something that comes 
out of the void, guys, it's a matter of taking what you like, and 
filtering out what you don't in an effort to forge something new; 
it's a process of distilling one's own voice out of the hodgepodge 
of opinions that're out there. Not only has my style changed over 
the last year, it will continue to do so.

Cindy is not ghostwriting through me, and I am not posting – and 
have not once posted – anything that Cindy wrote independently in 
its entirety. I am nobody's proxy.

Our vocabularies, by and large are completely different; for 
instance, I've never seen Cindy use the 
words "ardently," "succinctly," or "sans," (and I love those words 
and try to get away with them as frequently as I can), nor does she 
make use of the Latin phrases ("ad infinitum," "ad nauseam," "in 
situ," etc.) that I enjoy so much. Our use of punctuation and 
accents is very distinct: for instance, I don't use **double-
asterisks** (okay, I just did, but that was as an example) in posts, 
whereas Cindy usually employs them about once per post.  Finally, 
despite my best efforts, I seem to manage at least one typo per 
post, whereas Cindy's posts and letters *rarely* have any typos at 
all. 

On that note, I will confess that there was *one* time I co-wrote a 
post with Cindy, (yes, it was called "(TBAY) Umbridge: The Truth 
Will Get You Detention") and the reason I didn't cite her co-
authorship is because I knew that someone else had already had a 
post deleted because it cited Cindy as an author. So, naturally, 
since I think the post had not only a valid canon point, but also 
because I personally have been harping on the Ministry-thing for 
months. If you'd like to request that it be deleted, that would be 
fine by me.

And as for the rest of my most recent post, I was talking about 
Umbridge and the Ministry and the simplicity of – and almost 
invitation to – comparisons to the Admin team's actions back in 
November (right down to the Hopkirk-ian way that some Howlers and 
Cindy's banning letter were written); Dicey can back me up on 
that, `cause I wrote it to her in a private e-mail. I wrote about 
that, about how HPfGU can now be described as a "Cindy-free zone," 
and how the Admin team thinks that "a lifetime ban ought to do the 
trick." Nevermind Dicey's reference to the two Admins on FAQ (which 
is only half the story, as there was also one more which was *way* 
more contentious, and then the ban itself) and how they 
have "Educational Decree Number Whatever" written all over them. So, 
the comparison between the Admin team and the Ministry is not 
Cindy's, it's *mine.* 

Also, at least six paragraphs of that post were shamelessly taken 
(and only slightly revised) directly from an e-mail that I wrote to 
Wendy about two months ago, so she can attest to that.

Now - in a case of perfect twenty-twenty hindsight - it has occurred 
to me that this quite possibly is *the* worst time for me to yank 
stylistic flourishes from Cindy; from your perspective, I can only 
imagine that I sound like an echo of her, or even her personally. 
But truthfully, I am the one writing.  I will make an effort to not 
use those flourishes for the purposes of this post, just so that 
this is clear.

On this note, I have to say that it might or might not be obvious 
that one of the things that bothers me about this whole situation 
(and has done so since day one when the conflict began its 
escalation) is that somehow a lot of people have decided that I 
*represent* Cindy in my posts on just about *any* subject nowadays. 
I could talk about *toothpaste* and someone would suggest that it 
was an oblique reference to – or from – Cindy. It's as though in the 
eyes of some I have no opinion of my own any more; everything I 
write, any complaint or critique that I make is immediately assumed 
to be coming from Cindy, or at the very least, is attributed to 
Cindy's *effects* on me. Which is ludicrous.

Cindy doesn't ask me to do things. Okay, once she did, and that was 
to remove two pictures of her from the FAQ list, but apparently 
Dicey did that for her. And I disagree with her frequently. In fact, 
as Amy Z pointed out, it's not in Cindy's interest to have all of 
her posts deleted, nor is it likely that she would really want that 
done. *I* continued the copyright discussion of my own volition. But 
I'll tell y'all, my disagreements with Cindy have never resulted in 
the stuff that you're talking about.

Guys, I'm still me. And I *personally* disagree with some of the 
things that the Admin team has done in the past. But as I said 
before, I don't hate any of you.

And again, Wendy can back me up on this... in that same mail, I told 
her that by and large I believe that the Administrators are doing a 
fine job of running the public lists, and I'll publicly state that I 
do think that y'all are doing a great job Moderating and running the 
public lists in the community. I will further than by stating that I 
think there could be a lot of improvements on internal policy and on 
the administration of the supports lists as well. But on the whole, 
yes, I think you all do a great job.

But I am allowed to disagree from time to time. And I will.


Amy Z wrote:
Nor has [Joywitch] ever had offlist conversations with Tom. (I
know because I just asked her.) So what the hell is "he" talking
about citing all the ways she behaves in those contexts? 

Tom:
Oh, Amy, let's not be naïve, here. We're dealing with the internet. 
Posts and e-mails can be copied, forwarded, mailed, and even 
reposted in other forums. Just because I wasn't on the Admin team in 
April doesn't mean that I haven't seen what went on there, and it 
also doesn't mean that that stuff never happened. Honestly. I know 
you're not going to talk about it publicly, but just so we're on the 
same page.


Pippin, quoting my earlier post:
>>She didn't screw with polls. She didn't stalk or threaten
anyone.<<

Pippin:
Are you just stating a presumption here? Or do you know who's
doing this stuff?

Tom:
*Sigh*    (stylistic flourish borrowed from Iggy and countless 
others.)

No Pippin, I think you might have misunderstood me there: my point 
was that none of that stuff happened *before* the ban. And since 
that basically comprises the list of acceptable, "bannable" 
offenses, I brought it up to demonstrate that the ban was an errant –
 and ostensibly personal – course of action from day one. You may 
not agree, and I respect your right to your own opinion.

But for the record, I don't know whose doing this stuff. I can state 
with complete honesty that I have no idea *who* is doing anything, 
and that I have personally have conducted none of the disruptive 
activities that have been described in the series of Admin messages 
(the deleted databases, the poll disruption, etc.) that have 
occurred recently. I know that any investigation conducted by Yahoo 
will exonerate me completely in that regard. So if you want to 
investigate it, then I say go right ahead.

Furthermore, I honestly don't believe that Cindy is responsible for 
these things, although I know that many people do; for my part, I 
don't think she's responsible because she promised a bunch of people 
privately that she would do nothing of the sort, and I believe her. 
In fact, from what I see, Cindy is as flummoxed as everyone else as 
to the source of the poll-spamming and the deleted files and so 
forth, and she's also steaming because she knows that she's being 
blamed and that because of the ban she has no way of defending 
herself against the accusations of others.

Truthfully, she has never, ever said anything to me in private e-
mail or on a list to that effect.

Additionally, I personally sent the Admin team two e-mails 
describing how I have recently been sent a virus – twice – by 
someone, and the first time it was under the guise of an HpfGU: 
Movie post. So, anyone think that Cindy is sending me viruses?

Okay then. 

Looks like we'll have to deal with the fact that there *are* other 
people out there who don't like HPfGU or the people who run it, or 
the people *on* it, or the *subject matter* or whatever, and that 
those people could easily be responsible for this. For instance, 
there was a guy sending out viruses this fall who as far as I can 
tell is distinct from the person that *I* got the viruses from more 
recently; and that was before Cindy was banned in the first place.


Ali wrote:
I don't know who deleted and corrupted our files, who spammed our
polls, who got an admin list deleted. If that person or persons
unknown thinks that's the kind of action suitable for membership of
a group for "grown ups", then I would respectfully disagree.

Tom:
Well, as I just said, I don't know anything about the files or 
polls. And I don't know *who* reported that deleted-then-later-
restored list to Yahoo, but I do know *why* it was reported, and 
I've already relayed that information to an elf in a long but 
earnest private e-mail in an attempt to explain my situation and my 
perspective. I *also* gave her permission to use excerpts for the 
rest of y'all so that this miscommunication could be nipped in the 
bud. I don't know if that's happened, so since you brought it up...

The list in question is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU, and it 
was reported to Yahoo because it originally stated on the homepage 
that it was a "storage facility," which placed it squarely in 
violation of Yahoo's Guideline Number Ten:

"You may not use Groups solely for the purpose of storing and 
archiving files."

I believe that this is why none of my questions were answered when I 
asked them a while ago on this list: it's because that group, which 
evidently is an HPfGU auxiliary list, actually *was* in violation of 
the Yahoo Guidelines. But since y'all wouldn't actually admit that a 
group you were running was in violation – heck, and I can't blame 
you; I'm not sure that I would do so either – I bet that some just 
thought that it was better to ignore my questions, which is what 
happened.

Now, the group has been restored, and the homepage 
reads: "Administrative discussion group for the HPfGU List Admin 
Team." That's fine, except I'd wonder how a "storage facility" 
becomes a "Discussion Group," over night. Probably it doesn't, and 
probably it is *still* a storage facility, but I don't expect anyone 
to admit that, either.

I'd also wonder what kind of discussion is going on there, since I 
know that you guys already have your own separate Admin discussion 
list, and according to the homepage of the deleted-then-restored 
group there have been only five messages for the entire month of 
January. So whatever discussion is going on, it's certainly not 
substantive. But I'm not inclined to push the issue. The group is 
back, and that's fine by me.


Anyways, everyone, I understand that this Ban is a very contentious 
issue. So, as a further sign of good faith (like the letters I wrote 
to those elves, like my earlier restraint on the Feedback list 
regarding the Ban and the Fantastic Posts list debacles, and like 
the letters I've written to –owner about the viruses in an effort to 
ensure that these lists are protected), and a course of action that 
most of you seem fairly certain that Cindy wouldn't do, I will 
voluntarily stop this discussion of the ban.

This is not to say in any way that I don't believe a discussion 
should be had. I still believe that the ban was an unscrupulous 
action, and until I hear an explanation that *makes sense* I will 
continue to do so.

But I am not willing to stand up here, by myself, and paint an 
enormous bulls-eye on my chest for individuals to aim at. I can't 
possibly respond to all of the questions, comments, and sly 
references that have been posted, there's just not enough time to do 
it, and in the long run it is not worth it. If others are willing to 
have the talk, then I'll have it. But Tom vs. a big group of people 
is not what I had in mind when I brought this up. 

It's what I got though, and I suppose it was deserved.

I hope that you take this sign of good faith for what it is and 
shift your attitudes a little bit regarding me and the positions 
that I take on this list and others.  I hope that Ali will live up 
to her repeated promises to respond to my e-mails and do so (instead 
of suggesting that I should just keep sending letters into the void 
and getting no responses), and that Dicey (when she feels better) 
and that last elf – who I think is a very cool person who I hope is 
just very busy with her RL – will continue their discussions with me 
sooner rather than later. Silence does not make the heart grow 
fonder; it makes one wonder why one is being ignored.

Thank you to Debbie, Kelley, and Amanda (particularly Amanda, who I 
am so often at loggerheads with on so many issues, despite the fact 
that I like her and that she was one of the very first people to 
reach out to me when I joined HPfGU last year), who despite the 
tension in the air, *have* treated me very fairly and responded to 
my off-list mails and on-list posts in a respectful and friendly way.

I genuinely apologize to anyone who may have been offended by this 
discussion, or by anything that I've said during the course of it. 
If you'd like to know more, I'd be glad to talk about it off-list.

-Tom

PS: GO PATRIOTS!