[HPFGU-OTChatter] A response

[Amanda]

Mafalda said:

> 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."

Amanda: Did you honestly really type this? That's *exactly* what your first
tirade was.

> 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.

Amanda: Please note that the new members are *all*, without exception, sent
a personal welcome message by their list elf, usually within a day or two of
their joining, which gives them, among other information, the list
etiquette, which contains the banned topics. And also tells them that their
elf is at their service to help them if they have *any* questions or any
uncertainty about what should be posted. The elves fall over themselves
trying to provide this information to new members.

> 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.

Amanda: And preserving a utopia is bad how?

> 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.

Amanda: I don't give you a lot of credence, personally. I've been on the
board and behind the scenes for a fair amount of time myself and I haven't
seen enough dirt-dealing, deal-making, persecution, or other racy activity
to fill a thimble. Depressingly honest and up-front lot, our admins.

> Mafalda: Yes they are his opinions, but John does not have a right to
> shoot off certain members just because he's a Moderator.

Amanda: Not every post from a moderator is official. Quite often they are
responding on the list as members. And it seemed to be the opinion of John,
member, rather than anything in an ADMIN message, to which you refer. And
John, member, can shoot off anyone he wants, and is subject to the same
criticism for doing so that any member would be. [Nor, by the bye, would
such criticism for doing so necessarily be public and on the list, which can
sometimes foster the impression that people just get away with it.]

> This is considered a rant. A democrat calling a republician "an incredible
> hulk of stupidity"  is a good example of a rant.

Amanda: No, no, no. That's an *insult.* A rant is what I posted previously.

> John on his apparent uncontrollable need
> to viputerate a member

Amanda: This sounds vagely sexy. And I like this word "viputerate."

> Penny and John may have qualities that may be useful for the
> list, but I have yet to see these qualities.

Amanda: That doesn't make a whole lot of difference. You do not have to see
those qualities. Penny and John do not have to establish their usefulness or
justify their existence for you. *You* have joined *their* list; if
anything, the onus is on you to show they were justified in letting you
join.

> I'm happy with the list and I don't intend to
> leave, I'm unhappy with how it is handled.

Amanda: You're unlikely to change how it is handled. You are likely to
change the flavor of the list that you claim to be happy with. If you're
happy with it, start showing some appreciation and change things
constructively rather than destructively.

> 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.

Amanda: Were you here for the Abanes discussions? Mr. Abanes knew this
perfectly well, his complaint was a direct reply to the quoting post.

> Mafalda: On the OT-Chatter list, this statement has the strains of a
> dictatorship.

Amanda: So? You are talking about a *discussion group.* I can form a
discussion group and forbid anyone to say anything bad about Barry Manilow
if I want. Or to say anything negative about Santa Claus. If anyone doesn't
like my rules, I can pitch 'em. Tough.

> Mafalda: I am so highly insulted that you called me a coward.

Amanda: Great. I hoped you would be. I was very highly insulted that you
posted misinformation and inaccuracies about people who have done nothing to
deserve it, people who, by the way, are not afraid to post under their
names.

> 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.

Amanda: So sorry I'm unacceptable. Go butt a stump.
 :-P

> 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.

Amanda: No, but I *have* requested people at my gatherings to shift a topic
when some guests were getting upset. I have asked loud and upsetting people
to leave. If the people who were listening to them want to listen that
badly, they can leave with the loud, upsetting person. I act in the
interests of the majority of my guests.

> when I first
> joined there were many topics (which are now banned) were freely
> discussed without vexation from the moderators.

Amanda: This "many topics" still bemuses me, there *are* only three. There
only ever have been.

> Amanda, your behaviour states that you want me to leave,

Amanda: Perceptive. But I'd settle for you being a constructive member,
taking issues with the mods up with the mods, and discussing any of the
myriad infinity-minus-three interesting topics on the list.

> 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.

Amanda: It is not your decision which subjects are or are not appropriate.
It is the moderators' decision. You have joined someone else's group and
cannot dictate to them. The few subjects which we have been requested not to
discuss are reasonable and justified.

> To conclude my post with this: there are people who are trying to give
> me an unwelcome attitude to leave,

Amanda: That would be me. But I'm neither a moderator nor an elf, nor
speaking in an official capacity.

> there are people who are wondering
> about Abanes and the moderators refuse to continue the conversation.

Amanda: And they gave their perfectly sound legal reason for refusal, and
pointed out the way to the old messages should anyone curious want to read
them. Anyone "wondering about Abanes" will be able to see what he and we did
both right and wrong, with no further discussion needed.

> Which is an example of
> shooting off a poster, which can be considered as immature.

Amanda: Yeah. It can be. But you've been ranting about the *moderators*
doing it. I thought as a member I could discuss any topic I wanted.

--Amanda