|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2008 7:21:35 GMT -6
Recently, I dropped off this board. I felt it was taking too much of my time, especially since I had also joined the new LBHA board. I departed that one, as well. Circumstances were such, however, that I decided my action was rather precipitous and there was still much to be gained by posting here.
In the little-over-two years I have been a member of the LBHA I have made some pretty strong friendships, some with people I have neither met nor spoken to. In some ways, this is almost like having a childhood pen pal. I have also seen some pretty harsh emotions and some pretty strong feelings about subjects ranging from organizational finances, to George Custer’s personality cult, to older people who do nothing, to young people who do less, to personality clashes, to outright stupidity. [No names!]
I wonder why. To what benefit. Who wins? Who are the losers?
I, for one, have lost. I used to look forward to getting the monthly “Newsletter.” A talented woman who knew what she was doing did it beautifully, inviting nice, short pieces about the subject matter we all seemed interested in. That was where I really found out about Elisabeth… and Myles Keogh. I have lost that and it diminishes the value of my membership. I suspect our loss is much different than its public face.
The loss seemed to escalate and reached much larger proportions when these message boards went their separate ways. Now we have a clone… and a divisive one, at that. Why? Will it last? Will these boards last? What is the life expectancy of boards like this? Do we burn out? Why do we lose quality people like “Harpskiddie”? Why do we tolerate buffoons? Why can’t this be for more serious study like we see in the contributions from people like “Markland,” “AZ Ranger,” “Ephriam,” “Dietmar,” “rch,” “mcaryf,” “Elisabeth,” “Kingsley Bray,” “conz”? You have so many others who seem to be dying to learn more, people like "jas.watson," “bc,” people who admit they don’t know a great deal, but want to, and then contribute immensely good stuff just by some of the questions they ask. We have the critics, those people who snap some of us back to reality, the ones who police the hallways, people like “darkcloud,” even “wild” at times. There is so much talent here, so much knowledge, why does it have to be denigrated by fools?
Is there a solution? In the last 14 months, six people in my family have died and I have lost two good friends, as well. It makes you sit up and wonder. How do we keep going something we all enjoy? How do we stop the animosity? How can we end the self-righteousness of most of us. Is there such a thing as self-discipline? If we ignore it will it all go away or do we run the risk of making ourselves irrelevant here? Where does it all lead?
Or… maybe worst of all… is this just another means of expressing our First Amendment rights, but with a theme? I find that depressing.
Maybe the only question I really have is, why?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 3, 2008 8:08:13 GMT -6
In the age of the Internet many people have lost the contact of actually talking to people face-to-face. Do you think some of the nastiness, name-calling, and insults would be made if someone was talking man-to-man or woman-to-woman with someone?
I doubt it. Even the most timid, bashful, and cowardly person can say whatever they want without fear of "punishment"
While the Internet provides access and contact with things and people around the world, the "human touch" is missing, resulting in lack of regard, compassion, & consideration by some.
That's the price we pay for technology & progress.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2008 8:38:40 GMT -6
I agree with you here, Horse, but this particular situation goes way beyond the anonymity of the Internet. I also think I have been one of the worst offenders when it comes to the Internet, per se, and probably, at my age, I should have known better. I'm still not sure I can walk away from a perceived insult, though heaven knows I am trying. This is more than that, however. The other board tries to make it all about Cornut, but he isn't the issue either. Not the real issue. There is a lot more than one character in a far distant land. He is merely the smoke screen. Do you think for one moment anyone would come to bat for you like that? Or me? So what is it? He can't possibly have videos of the whole LBHA board in a sheep field. There is more and whatever it is, is affecting us, us as LBHA members, us as members of this board.
A duplicate board is asinine to the point of irrelevance. Why now is "conz" over there? What is it about this situation that immediately steels everyone to the possibility of compromise? Do you, for one single second, think David Cornut is more important to the LBHA than Diane Merkel? Man, that's not even close! Without being insulting here, Cornut's work is like a comic book characterization; Diane's work is pro stuff. I don't believe Steve Arnold is a slouch in any way, not at all, yet look at the difference in the monthly newsletters.
Somebody, please, ring the bell. Then maybe we can see some answers. Or don't we care?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Mar 3, 2008 9:33:38 GMT -6
Fred, Enjoyed reading your post. All one has to do is look at how the other board was set up to realize that it was never taken too seriously by the BOD. Why would anyone retain the same set-up,same appearance,and the same topics? Why not start with a new look? It was all about getback and their world was divided into two camps-pro Diane or anti Diane. If I were a member of LBHA I would be quite upset, by the way members who had been regular posters before, are now viewed with contempt,derided,mocked,and had their post edited or removed. You pay dues to be treated like that. Then the moderator has developed the "Little Hitler " complex, and Cornut is the know-it-all! On another site someone told Cornut that perhaps he needed to read more history,and here is his response. " "if you take time"? Are you kidding me. I know more about the history of the West than the whole New Jersey !" Thus part of the problem, some already know everything-the rest of us are mere pikers! There are too many events I can spend my time reading about, than to waste time and effort on one battle. I have learned so much from this forum,and its been the people that post here that made it interesting. Oh yes -Fred you wrote;"Why now is "conz" over there?" Well get ready-cause Cornut has already started questioning ConZ on several matters! It will be just a short time before Cornut calls him a liar too!
|
|
|
Post by conz on Mar 3, 2008 9:36:00 GMT -6
In the age of the Internet many people have lost the contact of actually talking to people face-to-face. Do you think some of the nastiness, name-calling, and insults would be made if someone was talking man-to-man or woman-to-woman with someone? I doubt it. Even the most timid, bashful, and cowardly person can say whatever they want without fear of "punishment" While the Internet provides access and contact with things and people around the world, the "human touch" is missing, resulting in lack of regard, compassion, & consideration by some. That's the price we pay for technology & progress. So true, and yet I find that with more experience in this cyberworld, you learn to check your tongue and pay more attention to the effects of your words and presentation. I call it "cyber-maturity," if it needs a name. Not that I've mastered it, but at least I'm attempting to walk that path...it is a skill to master your tongue in the presence of others, and to communicate in a way that fosters progress in understanding, rather than resistance. Some who have this skill in face-to-face encounters may not have it in cyber-encounters, but I think it helps. The great improvement in cyber-relationships is that 1) you get to "preview" and edit before you post...like being able to catch those words before they leave your mouth <g>, and 2) you get a record of what you, and others, have said so that you can analyze the process and learn more about interactions than FTF. Did you get the reaction you expected from your postings? Do you sound in reading your post like you thought you did when you wrote it in the heat of passion earlier? I find cyber-discussions to be utterly fascinating and full of new possibilities. Face to face debates and discussions are a fun skill, but cyber-debates are a very new and exciting realm too, with some different techniques and tactics to be learned. And it hardly need be said that you'll never get such personal contact with such a wide variance of minds and attitudes as on any cyber-forum...and that cements the deal, for me. I've learned so much in the past few years of belonging to various forums/boards, and the least of it has been the technical/historical knowledge gained. Far more important has been the exploration of the human perceptions encountered. As to the longevity of boards...yes, I definitely think that burn-out occurs. In my experience, a board remains "hot" for about four years or so. After that the core group moves on to find a new more diverse group, or moves to retain the essence of the original "core" that has been invaded by too many outsiders. In that regard, forums are much like churches. <VBG> Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 3, 2008 9:53:36 GMT -6
Clair, you're probably right about the longevity of most boards. I think (I hope) that this one may have a rather more robust constitution than most ... In the few years that I've been here, I've been impressed by how healthily fluid and self-renewing the population has been. The core group who were here when I joined are mostly still around, which is great, yet they don't dominate or freeze out "outsiders" as I've seen happen elsewhere; new people come and go, some disappearing after a short while, others remaining to become part of the core in their turn. Seems pretty good to me. So I hope -- devoutly -- that this one's fine for a good few years yet!
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 3, 2008 11:29:04 GMT -6
I've been on a number of forums--still am on some--on a variety of historic subjects; WWII Germany, the Titanic, Civil War and reenacting, etc. etc. and I have seen this sort of thing happen on all of them...except this one. I watched the Titanic ones totally self destruct, the Civil War ones become very devisive. The WWII ones were so neat because several of the actual veterans we'd write about were actually there...sorta like if Capts. Moylan and French, and Lieut. Edgerly and Sergt. Kanipe were on this one...but they all left in disgust because of just the sort of stupidity we are speaking of here--driven off (unbelievable that we'd do such a thing) only to be replaced with drivel. But I always used to brag to others about the LBH folks were better than that. More serious than the usual cyber games. Then, well you all know what happened. I'm still sort of shocked by it all, but beings as it has happened everywhere else...well I guess we aren't much better after all......
Jas~
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 3, 2008 12:19:32 GMT -6
Jas--
You're right. I have never seen a board last so long with so much success. We haven't fallen prey to pettiness or in-fighting. The occasional misunderstanding, but little else. For that we must thank ourselves and Diane who stopped any misbehaviour right in its tracks.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 3, 2008 13:05:00 GMT -6
If it matters, I ended my account on the "other" site.
While things may get a little slow every now and then it's still the best forum on the events leading up to, during, after the LBH.
Many knowledgeable and adult members with lots of tongue-in-cheek responses and a little come upperance when needed.
Continually learning more and getting a different slant from various posters.
Many have devoted time and research to come up with interesting theories and always fun.
Glad I found this site and happy to be a small part of it.
Keep on truckin'!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Mar 3, 2008 13:43:31 GMT -6
And one day, TK, you'll be joining us at the Hallowed Grounds!
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Mar 3, 2008 13:54:44 GMT -6
What Clair said. A while back I put my foot in something, completely unintentionally, by posting in a hurry off the top of my head. What I said was taken in the exactly opposite way from what I actually meant. After apologizing and clarifying, I have learned to take my time when posting, and read over my words several times before hitting the button.
The issues with David are a little more complicated. I don't know if it is correct to classify him as a troll, because I don't really think he's trying to cause trouble just for the pleasure of it, which is how I think of trolls. He has very strong views, as many of us do, but he is very young and still more socially immature, and he seems to think beating people over the head will make them see things his way. And he sees it as his sacred mission to rub the tarnish off the halo Libbie gave her husband. The pendulum has swung back and forth on that many times, and may some day settle in the middle, who knows? The minute Libbie died, Glory Hunter was published, and the halo slipped quite a bit in the public opinion. It certainly has gone back and forth since then. People look at history differently at different times; I have just been contemplating how differently we look at Vietnam now than when it was happening.
I think the idea with David is that because he is young, there is a chance that he will learn to behave decently instead of the way he has done here and elsewhere. That would be nice; he's very bright and talented, and it's a shame to waste that through stupid anti-social behavior. He could easily make a reasoned, rational case for his opinions, instead of howling and screaming and calling people names.
But then we have the trolls, who are just out to make mischief. Yes, I howled with laughter over the teasing of David over there, especially the stuff he didn't get because he didn't have the idiomatic English. But that was trolling, and there's a lot of that still going on. People get into a confrontational mode, and start yelling at each other, and everything just continues to escalate.
I don't know why the BOD acted as it did over the complaints about Diane as moderator. My understanding is that they intended to close the board while they investigated. My personal opinion is that they should have contacted Diane with their concerns and heard her side, rather than instantly employing the guillotine. I totally understand Diane's reaction to that. I have no idea if they bothered to investigate David's actual behavior--I never received a response to the comments I sent to Bill Blake on that subject.
We should also consider the way we say things very carefully. You can communicate the same information in different ways and get different reactions. "David, you need to read more history, because you don't know what you're talking about!" is different from, "David, maybe you should research that topic a little more, because you're overlooking (this or that info)." Being David, he might still say, "I'm right and you're a liar!" but at that point, the adult thing to do is to say, "I disagree," and walk away. The rest of us should be mature enough not to let what amounts to an uncivilized teenager (even if he is 24) drag us down to that level of discourse. And maybe, if we behave that way, he will learn something about social interaction.
Part of the issue around David is also freedom of speech--I think the idea is that he should be allowed to post as long as he stays within reasonable bounds of decency. Very few of us are totally guiltless when it come to freaking out and occasionally being nasty, so what is not banning behavior in other people should not be different for David. That is the sort of thing that requires great restraint on the part of a moderator, and when we allow ourselves to get into these confrontations, everybody loses it, including the moderators, who, after all, are also human.
As for the design of the new board, it is obvious that they are making a statement with that. Just one more example of those confrontations I mentioned. I think having two identical boards is ridiculous.
I think it might be really nice if everybody apologized to everybody else and started over with an attempt to be civil to each other. I realize that is a very difficult thing to do, since none of us likes to admit that we have been less than perfect. I certainly apologize to all of you and anyone else involved for anything I may have done to fuel the fires. I like to get a laugh as much as anybody else, but I have tried to be good--you have no idea how many funny one-liners I haven't posted. But I have a lot more fun discussing history that all this garbage, and I would very much like all of us to return to that.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 3, 2008 14:16:54 GMT -6
<He (David) has very strong views . . .>
I consider it pathological obsession. Just look at his site and the accusations and attacks he's made on this forum and its members.
And his past history here and on "his" forum has been a free-for-all when anyone casts doubts on Custer and CSS's opinions.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2008 14:46:10 GMT -6
First of all, Clair, I did not mean to single you out. To me, you are a valuable asset on either board, but I would not want to see you flame out because of over-posting. That may sound gratuitous or condescending, but it isn't meant that way.
I also have something of a problem in legitimizing something that is wholly contrived and done only as a personal payback.
Before anyone jumps through their own personal lower regions: that comment above does not apply to any site! Period! It was not meant to denigrate anyone.
I am also very happy to see the amount of intelligent participation on this thread. Personally, I like and admire everyone who has posted here so far. I also think that with these cool heads we may be able to at least pinpoint a problem and if that can be done, maybe something can be done to solve it or to at least let it rest and end the acrimony. I suspect these things are rather like water: they will seek their own level, seeping through any crack they can find.
One of the major problems I have with this whole thing is that I have "friends" in both camps and it is already affecting some of these relationships. Some might say, well forget it, they're not your friends, anyway; or, so what, who cares? Well, I do because this is something I am very interested in, I've paid money for, continue to do so, and instead of being involved in an organization where 1 + 1 can equal three because of all the talent, what I am getting instead is 1 + 1 = 1/2. And that bothers me.
Maybe what bothers me the most about all of it is the incredible lack of civility. I am mulling over an experiment I may try here, actually suggested to me by one of my favorite young ladies on this board, an experiment that could go a long way in defusing what I believe to be a diversionary bomb. Another one of my favorite young ladies thinks it is more than a diversion, but my experiment might tell the tale. And I am not telling anyone what it is; but I think it might help.
Again, I appreciate every post on here so far. This has been the most adult "conversation," to date, on this whole, pitiable subject. And Larry, I want everyone to know I think you are just a great fellow.
Very best wishes to you all, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Mar 3, 2008 15:25:29 GMT -6
Fred, I stand unreservedly behind you. What do we need to do? Larry
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2008 15:51:49 GMT -6
Larry--
I don't rightly know! I am hoping some ideas will pop up on this thread.
I don't know if anything can be done. There is a certain element of intransigence all over the place. The problem-- as I see it-- goes far deeper than anything any of us are privy to.
So here is an issue or two: if nothing can be worked out, what happens? Where do we all go from here? Status quo? Cease fire? More invective? Poor quality work?
All that leads to is a 75-year old prostate: a reduced flow. (... of information.)
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|