Masonic Forum of Light

[Tamrin]

Bill McElligott has suspended me from the forum:

30 Days in the cooler - all go to 'The Quarry' to listen to more trivial nonsense.

Why? For asking:

Not encroaching on the beliefs of others: Is this to be policy here? Darwin would never have advanced his theory of evolution if he had been thus bound.

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:

Now let us get it really clear.

You may have your opinions and theories and you may put them here, however if the rudeness continues, you will not be allowed to continue.

Debate and interaction is fine, the massaging of anyones EGO is not.

(However, it seems debate and interaction were not fine in this latest case).

[Tamrin]

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]:

This Forum was instituted to permit a free discussion of ALL aspects of Freemasonry and associated topics without fear or favour.

[Tamrin]

> "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]:

1. A Zero tolerance Policy on any personal attacks against any members of this forum or Freemasons that do not subscribe to this forum. You may argue the points that each person makes, but comments such as "You are stupid" will not be tolerated.

Everyone's experience and viewpoint of Freemasonry is different, discussing these differences helps to break down barriers and increase understanding. However, comments denigrating one form of freemasonry over another will be removed without notice. for example, it is acceptable to say 'We use the chamber of reflection which I feel adds to the experience for the initiate' it is not acceptable to say 'Any GL who doesn't use the chamber of reflection is stuck ion the dark ages and full of dusty old masons waiting to die'

2. Character assassination or accusations against a member of this forum will fall into the same category.

3. The Links Blog section will be made for single posts to other Blogs or web sites. You will not be able to reply in that section , but you can post a link. To discuss POINTS in any of the linked Blogs or websites , you must create a new thread in the discussion area, or you go there and make your points on that Blog.

This Forum will not become a battle ground for arguments from elsewhere.

4. We are from this point forward instigating a 3 strike rule.

FIRST Warning by PM for any misconduct on the forum.

SECOND Warning by PM this will carry a 3 day ban

THIRD Warning by PM and eMail this will carry a 14 day ban

any continued breaking of rules will result in extended bans.

BTW, I did not receive any PM or eMail.

[Tamrin]

AFTER apologising (albeit, a snide apology), Bill has banned me!?

Bro. Philip please just discuss the topic in hand and stop the massage of your ego.

If it makes you happy yes your right I am an idiot and you are all powerful.

Like the man said if you don't get it you don't get it.

That was the worst back-handed apology I have ever encountered (a simple "sorry" would have been nice).

Still, I guess with YOUR ego that is all anyone can hope for from you, so we will move on.

No we won't I have had enough of you. too many complaints form other users. tried to let you have your head but you are only interested in oneupmanship the forum will be better without you.

Make of it what you will.

[Tamrin]

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.

[Tamrin]

Mar 4, 2014 7:10:36 GMT 10 Tamrin said:

...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.

[Tamrin]

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".

Bro. Philip please just discuss the topic in hand and stop the massage of your ego.

If it makes you happy yes your right I am an idiot and you are all powerful.

Like the man said if you don't get it you don't get it.

That was the worst back-handed apology I have ever encountered (a simple "sorry" would have been nice).

Still, I guess with YOUR ego that is all anyone can hope for from you, so we will move on.

No we won't I have had enough of you. too many complaints form other users. tried to let you have your head but you are only interested in oneupmanship the forum will be better without you.

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.