A response

[mafaldahopkirk]

Saitaina: I as a list member, applaud the need to keep controversial
topics off the list. IT lead no where. I have seen the fights and 
licked the wounds of the war and refuse to be a part of it again. 
Religious/Politics/What have you is a fight that has no winners and 
only losers and It's tiring to see it on the list. My point of view 
is mine and yours is yours. I do not need to see 500+ posts of why 
your point of view is the right one when I'm never going to move to 
your side and agree. I will not stand by and watch this list be torn 
asunder by someone who wishes to preach 'the right way'. I reuse.

Mafalda: This may be true for some people who are bullheaded and
irresponsible and refuse to change their minds because of a little 
thing
they are offended by. Like I do, I read from both sides, do a little
research, find evidence before posting and make a intelligently worded
argument instead of "Boo, I don't like how the mods behave on the 
list."

Note that I only mentioned two moderators, not all seven moderators.
I've heard of the new ones and haven't seen them in action yet, as for
the older moderators, like Neil Ward, I must commend him for the
excellent job he is doing on the HPFGU lists. I am not against all
moderators as you can see. I am not attacking the moderator's 
character,
just pointing out a characteristic they do. I know these moderators 
can
be nice and sweet (your allusion to John), but they have 
characteristics
which make the newer members afraid to start up a discussion.

This is a list where all discussions are supposely ok to use. Please
note that the new members have no knowledge of the banned topics and
they should be notified instead of being shot down so unnecessarily.

Saitaina: Most members do not speak for we have no need to. I read the
posts, nod in agreement and refrain from commenting due to it having 
no
purpose other then to say "I agree". Should I find a post I wish to
comment on I do so. It is not fear that keeps me silent but no words 
to
say.

Mafalda: That is true, the members do not speak for you. Although, 
I've
interviewed at least 20 members in the last year  about the 
moderator's
actions and they've said they were afraid to write on a board and were
already shot down harshly before and decided not to write at all. That
shows that there is a group within the 4,000 strong (I can't say a
definite number of people) over at HPFGU that don't like the way the
moderators act. And these people that I interviewed were in their mid
twenties to late twenties so I can't speak for the over thirty and 
under
twenty people on this.

Now onto Amy:

Amy: Needless to say, "discussion" of the personal qualities of any
listmember will not be allowed on the list. Please do not respond to 
the
post.

Mafalda: This is exactly what I predicted at the end of my first post.
You're merely sweeping this under the rug so your utopia of HPFGU can
continue. And there are people who want to respond to this but are
afraid to because of your statement.

Meineke Pallada: If these discussions are private, how do you know 
this?
Unless you are a Mod or a List Elf, you are not privy to these
discussions, so I find this argument debatable.

Mafalda: I could be either a Mod or a List Elf or a Poltergeist, or I
could be neither. I've been on the board and I know what goes on 
behind
the scenes. It isn't pretty, believe me.

Meineke Pallada: Firstly, of course he makes his own points on posts,
they're his opinions aren't they.

Mafalda: Yes they are his opinions, but John does not have a right to
shoot off certain members just because he's a Moderator. This is
considered a rant. A democrat calling a republician "an incredible 
hulk
of stupidity"  is a good example of a rant. John's reply to the
aforesaid Elizabeth called her stupid because of the way she 
complained
(one of the few people to step out) about Penny allowing shipping
discussions on the mainlist. That was an unneccessary shooting off of 
a
member by John.

Meineke Pallada: Why do you attack Penny and John so vehemently? First
of all there are seven Mods not just two, why do you hold Penny and 
John
personally responsible? This is totally unfair and uncalled for.

Mafalda: I did not say I was holding Penny and John personally
responsible. I'm just pointing out a characteristic, although stubborn
(Penny on her shipping issues, John on his apparent uncontrollable 
need
to viputerate a member), that limits a discussion on certain things
onlist. Penny and John may have qualities that may be useful for the
list, but I have yet to see these qualities. Therefore it wasn't 
totally
unfair and uncalled for.
Meineke Pallada: I am really sorry you feel this way, but once again 
if
you are not happy in this community, you are free to leave.

Mafalda: This is the sort of attitude that makes people want to leave
the list. I think it is helpful to state something out loud, in the
hopes of making a tiny change, instead of just leaving the list 
because
you are unhappy with it. I'm happy with the list and I don't intend to
leave, I'm unhappy with how it is handled.

Meineke Pallada in response to Amy: I am sorry, when I finished 
writing
and sending my reply, lo and behold I receive this message. So I'm
sorry, but I saw it too late and I couldn't undo it anymore. *bows 
head
in shame, peeking up hopefully for forgiveness* I shan't do it 
anymore,
sirs! ;-))

Mafalda: This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't have to 
say
sorry for stating your opinon to my letter, I was glad to get a 
response
because I like to hear from the other side of the story. I am not
offended and I don't get offended that easily. It is quite interesting
to read a person's opinion. It is also a plus to do some research and
reading beforehand to write the post. This is the art of intelligent
debate. I am not an Abanes who accuses people of copywright 
infrigement.

Lou_selastic: As a newbie I only posted the opinion that I thought the
www.facingthechallenge.org/potter website contained an interesting
article about the dilemmas some Christian parents have expressed  
about
allowing their children to read or see Harry Potter. It did not occur 
to
me that it would evoke such controversey. How naive on my part!

Mafalda: Don't worry about it, lou_selastic. It's interesting to see
what sort of websites talk about Harry Potter. I am definitly not a
religious person but it is interesting to see what people have to 
say. I
agree with most people that when a person says they've not read the
books and the books concur satanism etc, unbelievably narrowminded
because of their lack of experiencing the subject (Harry Potter).
Otherwise it is interesting to see what sort of opinions people have,
that means I don't storm out of the room because I don't agree with 
the
topic.

Heidi: One of the primary reasons that discussion of the book is 
banned
is because Mr Abanes accused a member of HP4GU of copyright 
infringement
for quoting sections of Abanes' book in a response.

Mafalda: What Mr Abanes didn't know was that the person had cited him 
in
their post, so he knew that even though he was cited as the author of
these works, that he wouldn't be able to sue for copywright 
infrigement
or plagerism. Even though Abanes has a profound hate for Harry Potter,
he is forever linked to Harry Potter and he is the hated cousin we
cannot forget about. He thus becomes an on topic OT-Chatter topic.

There's further discussion on Abanes on his many websites and articles
that can be discussed on the list.

Heidi: It is, IMHO, reasonable and necessary to ban discussion of the
book itself.

Mafalda: On the OT-Chatter list, this statement has the strains of a
dictatorship. In a dictatorship, the people couldn't speak for
themselves because of certain rules applying in this. On other lists,
this statement is fine because it's off topic on those said lists.

Also, the original postings can be discussed on the OT-Chatter list 
and
psychoanalyzed. Why does Abanes do this? Or do that? It's nice to go
into the mind of a HP-hater just by reading his posts.

Mahoney: I too had been wondering why discussion of Abanes & his book
was banned, while convos like the one inspired by the guy (Kevin, was
it?) who posted an essay containing his views on why the HP books went
against Christian morality (etc) was allowable. Any way you could make
this explanation available, say in the posting rules/guidelines? 
Rather
than just listing Abanes as a banned topic with no reasons as to why,
that is.

Mafalda: Excellent point, Mahoney. This is what I tried to explain in 
my
last post, but Amy had cunningly tried to sweep my post under the rug.
It would be nice to hear from every moderator on this.

Amandageist: I am *not* responding to that long, rambling post that
insulted anyone whose name the poster could remember and a few she
couldn't. Really. But I am angry and some things must be said and it 
is
the poltergeist's lot to call a spade a spade. And I cannot aim my 
water
balloons at the poster, she joined under that identity merely to post
her rant and then unsubscribed.
The coward.

Mafalda: I am so highly insulted that you called me a coward. And you
didn't check the member directory properly enough to see that I did 
not
unsuscribe as you said. You're an example of jumping to conclusions 
and
calling a member names. That is unacceptable.

Amandageist: To make my point. Penny and the moderators own the house
we're partying in. They have certain legal obligations to the hosting
service they must honor. They pay the bills and water the plants and 
set
out the onion dip. And they, because they do the list maintenance--own
the house--have *every* right, andthe *obligation,* to tell the list
when we're getting too loud, orobnoxious, or inflammatory. Don't start
breaking the furniture. No feet through the TV, please.

Mafalda: The difference between a party and a list is the list is free
to join. At parties there are discussions on certain topics which 
liven
up the party. There may be some topics that the party-giver may not 
like
but s/he doesn't kick the party-goers out because it is a topic the
people are willing to listen to. The list makes it sound like the
moderators aren't willing to listen to what we have to say. I've been 
on
the list and many lists before for nearly two years and when I first
joined there were many topics (which are now banned) were freely
discussed without vexation from the moderators. Even the mainlist 
then,
had many OT chatter topics before OT-Chatter was begun.

Amandageist: Don't let the door hit you in the butt. Start your own
group, and I wish youjoy of it, if you have a no-holds-barred,
no-parameters, anything-goes approach to the posting. Maybe you'll 
gain
enough maturity to appreciate what these mods and elves do, giving up 
so
much of their time to keep this list a flame-free and enjoyable place.

Mafalda: I know these moderators are continuously busy with real life
and the boards, but it does not give them a right to shoot off on 
other
members because they were simply just starting discussion about
something they did not know that was banned. Amanda, your behaviour
states that you want me to leave, which is a quite immature way of
putting it, although I appreciate your suggestion of me creating a
group. I am in no mood of creating a group while there is a group for
off topic subjects (OT-Chatter) when I have subjects that are
appropriate for off topic. I'm an intelligent, very well read person 
and
I'm willing to talk about anything.

To conclude my post with this: there are people who are trying to give
me an unwelcome attitude to leave, there are people who are wondering
about Abanes and the moderators refuse to continue the conversation. I
am not being immature like you stated, Amanda. Which is an example of
shooting off a poster, which can be considered as immature.

Thank you for reading this,

Mafalda