|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 14, 2013 10:46:26 GMT 10
Bill McElligott has suspended me from the forum:Why? For asking:From the response, it seems that is indeed a policy there. If so, this is not "trivial nonsense," it even goes beyond the notorious UGL of NSW & ACT edit prohibiting esoteric research and practice. Every opinion encroaches on some others. Facts and logic render some opinions and beliefs more defensible than others, but they often require free and open discussion to come to light. If there is anything in the universe that can’t stand discussion, let it crack
Wendell Phillips In practice, people usually object to THEIR opinions or beliefs being encroached upon. Ironically, when I was recently abused after encroaching on the beliefs of another, Bill came to my defence, saying to my attacker: (However, it seems debate and interaction were not fine in this latest case).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 14, 2013 11:41:41 GMT 10
By way of contrast, the policy here from day one (29/06/2008) and as proclaimed on the Home Page (news fader) has been: "Controversy is acceptable, disagreement is welcome and humour is encouraged so long as credibility and civility are maintained" Arguably, this policy is broadly in the original spirit of MFoL, where under, “House Rules - Statement of Forum Policy”, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:33am Penfold said [excerpt]:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 17, 2013 10:45:05 GMT 10
> "30 Days in the cooler - all go to 'The Quarry' to listen to more trivial nonsense." Bill sanctioned me for something he considers trivial!? Further, how do his actions (including personal attack) square with his own policy? Zero tolerance Policy on any personal attacks [excerpt]: BTW, I did not receive any PM or eMail.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2014 7:10:36 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2014 8:42:54 GMT 10
BTW, I suggest there is a world of difference between defending one's self against false charges (in this case from a brother with the responsibilities of a forum administrator and moderator — albeit, not the founder) and "the massage of your ego." If my defence was drawn out it was only because a retraction or apology was long in coming, although the injustice had earlier been well demonstrated.
My "offence" seems to have been my failure to simply roll over and accept what Bill alleged, be it right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2014 13:24:26 GMT 10
...I have had enough of you... While Bill has the mechanical power to ban whom so ever he pleases, I do not recall him being authorised to do so capriciously.
I was under the impression that he was appointed on the understanding that he act within the rules of the forum and in support of its objects.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 5, 2014 6:08:16 GMT 10
My last post at MFoL has been described as "provocative" and "unworthy," and regret was expressed that I had not risen above Bill's taunts and simply accepted his apology "graciously".
Firstly, Bill's so-called "apology" added insult to injury, because that is what it was, an insult. Secondly, in referencing Bill's ego I was going no further than his reference to mine. Mirroring comments in such a way, when warranted, is a politely restrained form of reproach, in effect demonstrating out how the original came across. If Bill cannot handle such exchanges, he ought not begin them.
|
|