|
Post by wild on Jan 21, 2014 1:04:15 GMT -6
Dan Captain my captain.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 21, 2014 1:08:22 GMT -6
Montrose General salute
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 21, 2014 1:45:18 GMT -6
Unless someone wants to come to his defense, I will ban him 24 hours from now, something I should have done long ago. Diane The wisdom of a Solomon, my thanks and maybe I can reply in kind. If I make myself scarce for a time and allow things to settle down, pride and feathers and such things might return to normal. Sometimes a foreign object gets into the mix and unsettles the equilibrium. So for now my thanks for your patience and best wishes. Richard
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2014 6:15:07 GMT -6
Ian It is easier to just ignore a Bozo.
If the word truly meant something offensive only then why would the name of a resort hotel include it.
Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort 7677 North 16th Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85020, USA TEL: 1-602-997-2626 FAX: 1-602-997-2391
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2014 6:32:48 GMT -6
I think Billy was suggesting to move it away from research to another location. It would still be acessible to all. For sure it could go into general discussion or even custeriana. I do my own filtering and would prefer it that way. Some I read and some I ignore.
Freedom of speech and the press doesn't mean I have to listen to it or read it only that I defend its right to exist.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2014 8:06:39 GMT -6
Will I sent you a PM.
Work related and not board related.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 21, 2014 8:09:25 GMT -6
Well... I guess I need to chime in here.
First of all, I am happy not to be the one making the decision. Despite growing somewhat fallow, these boards remain the best, and their growth and interest are because of Diane. The biggest issue I have with them is her absence over periods of time. I also miss others, especially people like Billy Markland and Elisabeth. What I do not miss is the fighting, a good deal of which I was instrumental in... and something I will no longer be involved with, though I will certainly express my opinion.
The issue with "wild," to me, is simple. If you were to go over his posts... what, 2,000... 3,000 of them?... you will not find a single instance of a contribution to these boards. To me, "wild's" posts read like the op-ed page of the old Pravda. What has the man contributed to these various discussions? Not a single fact; not a single piece of evidence that could further a discussion.... what? What has he been here? It's sort of like e heckler in an academic discussion of the life of protozoa. Who needs it?
Now, there is the issue of ignoring him. Fine... but how many have tried it and failed? No matter what the discussion, "wild" snipes. "Helford's" posts in this thread are outstanding. And she has contributed to other threads, as well. I have copied her posts and used them, so losing "helford" to these boards is unacceptable to me, especially if it were a choice. I understand "freedom of speech" and all that, but this is a limited audience in no need of heckling or sniping every time someone posts. It is beyond annoying. He is nasty, mean-spirited, and ignorant.
I also realize people can just ignore him, but the question arises, why should others be put out-- sometimes it is very difficult to ignore someone when you catch your name being used-- just so "wild" can exercise his sniping rights? Again... I ask, what has he contributed?
I am happy I am not the one making this decision. I will say this, however... whatever Diane Merkel does, I will support. Diane and I used to be friends. I still consider her a friend. My wife and I met her and toured the Dali museum in St. Petersburg, Florida, then had a marvelous dinner together. My wife really likes Diane, and that's all the confirmation I need. Both Diane and her husband got something of a raw deal from the LBHA people, some of whom I am friends with as well. That places me in the middle, an unenviable position, and there were times I did not handle it well... especially when I came to Diane. I regret that and will never make the same mistake again. And make no bones about it: without Diane Merkel's constant encouragement, I would have never written the book I wrote or many of the articles I wrote. So for my two cents, she can do anything she wants and I will support it. My only wish is that she were more active here again. Her posts were always witty, always smart, always charming... the antithesis of what "wild" posts.
Do I like seeing someone booted off? No... not generally, but quite frankly there is a certain element of decorum needed here and it is not provided by "wild." My advice-- to Diane-- is to go with your gut. My wife does, and it seldom fails her. If "wild" were not here, Billy Markland would not have been so upset over "helford's" thread. And Billy is another of those erstwhile posters I sorely miss. Maybe I dwell in the past too much, but these boards were once spectacular with the information they provided. In many ways they still are, despite the repetition. Guys like me were once the "newbies." Now, I guess I am part of the "old guard." There will always be newbies, though, won't there? Why chase them away?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Gatewood on Jan 21, 2014 8:55:05 GMT -6
Diane, First let me say that I believe you are and have been a fine moderator. You let people say what they think. However I know I will raise some eyebrows, but I think it would be a mistake to ban Richard (Wild) from these boards. I am a newbie (A little les than 4 years) and I have seen this man be attacked along with his country constantly , and what I see is his defense of himself and his country. I have never sent him a PM, E-mail, or phone call and don't know him from a can of paint, but I think if you ban him you will be setting a precedent that we ban people that we don't agree with, and that is wrong . If there is a vote to ban him my vote is NO. Be Well Dan I echo everything that Dan said. Evidently there is some sort of past histroy between Wild and some other members of the board that I am not familiar with, but as Dan said, to me it seems that he is the one always being attacked in less than civil manner. I do not find his posts offensive and, in fact, feel that his ideas about certain things are in fairly close alignment with mine. There was another poster, JAG, who's ideas I also felt were similar to mine, but he also seemed to rub some people the wrong way. He has not been around for a while, and I fear that he has been chased off, and I would hate to see the same done to Wild. As Fred indicated, the board seems to have been fairly fallow for a while, but, it seems that anytime that someone new appears that might stimulate discourse, they are immediately attacked as well. We have several hundred 'guests' and a number of menbers that visit the board every day, but only a handful ever post, and I'm sure that a lot of the reason is that the others are intimidated by the bickering that goes on. If we make the forum more 'friendly', they may have something worthwhile to add or feel more free to ask questions without being attacked and labled an idiot, which, more often than not, seems to be the case. I heard something on this season's first episode of Downton Abbey that I thought was profound, when the dowager dutchess said something to the effect that "A person's true class is indicated by how they behave around those who have none". I invite all on this board to take that to heart and, even though they may feel that someone else has no class, rise above it and set a higher standard.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 21, 2014 10:09:39 GMT -6
Gatewood Very constructive,very positive.Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 21, 2014 11:14:40 GMT -6
This isn't about ideas; it is about approach. "Wild" can have all the cockamamie ideas he wants and people like me can laugh at him all we want. That is not the issue. If you fail to see what this is all about, go back to "helford's" original post, his response, and her responses after that. This is all "wild" ever does: I call it sniping, others may call it mocking. Whatever you call it, there is no contribution to anything. And if you are seeking an ally, then you should spend some more time reading primary sources and trying to figure out what really went on.
I keep bringing up DC, and I will do it again. He and I do not agree on some real fundamental issues, but we conduct our discussions civilly. There is no such discussion, ever, with "wild." His defense is merely to mock whatever he cannot refute. I do not consider that a contribution to anything but his own personal vindictiveness.
And if any of you fail to see his diatribes against DC, QC, Ian, and myself, then you are not paying attention. Even this debate fits snugly within his wheelhouse: he has successfully divided a rather nice group, "helford" threatening to leave, Markland and "montrose" railing about the dissension. And that is fine, if that's what you want or are willing to tolerate. Quite frankly I have no problem using the word, "idiot." There are too many of them, both in life and on the boards, this one and the others, and if the use of the word flouts your class structure then you need to re-think your priorities.
As for those who fail to post because they think they are going to be attacked, that is a load of nonsense. That situation existed from the very beginning and if that is the personal make-up of someone, who the hell wants him-- or her-- here in the first place? Some how I do not have a lot of patience for those who are afraid or do not have the courage of their convictions. Remember your teachers telling you to ask questions, no matter how silly they may seem? Well, for those who do not post because of such a fear, they did not learn their lessons very well.
I will answer any question, civilly, no matter how silly or elementary it may seem. What bugs the hell out of me is when someone-- rookie or no-- posts something that is unsupportable or parroting someone else's opinion just because it rhymes with their own preconceptions. That seems to be an on-going problem next door and why DC started the "they wish they had said that..." thread. Yet I defy anyone-- here or there-- to point out a single time I attacked someone because of a proffered question. Go next door and seek out the last exchanges between a poster-- from England-- called "tunkasila" and myself. Check out the recent history between DC and myself. How do "wild's" manners and "class" fit in with those exchanges?
My feelings are that if Ian and QC ignored him completely we would have fewer of these issues.... Then we could discuss things among ourselves and anyone who wanted to wallow with "wild" would be free to do so. Those would be some interesting discussions, I'll bet.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 21, 2014 12:38:52 GMT -6
Leave it Fred. The moderator said if one person was willing to defend me------.Three and possible an other said they had no issues with me. I said I would take time out to allow things to settle.Let's leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 21, 2014 13:02:28 GMT -6
Many here have voiced their opinions and fair enough, I too was a friend of Wilds, he belonged to a group of people who have helped me out with books, maps and stuff and paying the postage out of their own pocket (thanks Fred, Hunkpapa and Chris), but he asked me to intervene in a dispute between Chuck and himself (Chuck was a constant friend when I went through a cancer scare), now as most of you know I used to value them both as friends and Wild asked me to takes sides, now I refused, which I had every right to do if I felt that way, I didn’t want to take sides, but the way he kept on and on (it’s all still up on the board if you want to read it by the way) and I kept on asking him to please just get off my back, he started then to insult me as well as snipe and chip away and in the end enough was enough and I broke all contact with him, simple as that, now I knew he wouldn’t leave it at that and I was right, and now we have all this, and before he has his say (which he will) I will like to add this;
Now I have said some nasty things to you and your country and you know why, and the reason is that you are no saint here and calling me a coward, a lower class sexist and a racist plus calling England, so that is why I responded, it the main you are a master of the indirect attack, which must come of you being a veteran of many cyber wars.
Now this board in a very singular place, I have never been on such a board before, and I have never made so many friends as I have compared to the many other boards I have been involved on. And it those friendships that have kept me here, if this would have been just any board I would have jacked it all in last year, that’s how depressing this got, and to make matters worse this rubbish about the Squaw crap is just the icing on the cake, answer me yes or no RF would you have felt so strongly about that comment this time last year….
Really this Squaw crap had me thinking that the best course for me was to just keep in contact with the people I call great friends, and do it via E-Mail rather than post.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 21, 2014 13:45:22 GMT -6
I have stayed out of this so far since Diane had her say yesterday. It is her decision to make, and I will live with anything she decided.
What I will say now is that what Ian has just posted is completely accurate, and without embellishment of any kind. In short nothing but the truth. He took a stand for what was right and has paid the price for it ever since.
I will also say that I have never been so disappointed in two people in my entire life. Their statements were completely one sided and lacked even the semblance of balance and fairness. I fully admit that I have contributed as much or more to this affair than anyone. What I will also say is that I defy anyone to show where I have attacked without first being attacked. Like Ian I will tell you where this started. It started with lies told me and deception perpetrated upon me. I found out what had happened and I openly rejected this person, publicly for their dishonesty and deception. All can be verified if anyone cares to look. I also personally apologized to the person I had offended prompted by those lies and that deception. That too is still here and can be verified. Since that time I have been subject to unending harassment, to which I have responded.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 21, 2014 14:14:47 GMT -6
As I see it, short of banning him, there are two ways of handling someone such as “wild.” One is to ignore him completely—something I have perfected—and the second is not to post anything of value, just engage from time to time in mindless banter and a snipe or two of one’s own. This way the likes of people like Dan and “Gatewood” can commiserate with him all they want with no fear of behind-the-back retribution. I have done this before in a more perfunctory manner—much to my regret—so it certainly wouldn’t bother me to try it on a less restricted basis. It seems to me what is preferred here, especially since there are so many kindred spirits enjoying “wild” both in substance and delivery, are more subjective, more defamatory, more facts-be-damned types of discussions. I can accommodate that.
My only concern is doing a disservice to Diane. There was a time these boards were an intellectual hoot and a host of smart, savvy, and reasonable posters were attracted to them and these people dealt immediately with rabble like the “wilds” of the world. I was hoping we could retrieve a modicum of that atmosphere and some of that pack discipline, but it is clear it is all merely a figment of my imagination.
Thanks to Diane’s brainchild, artistic abilities, and perseverance I got more worthwhile information from here than anyone can know. She has, however, been on very little of late, except when called on to moderate or deal with idiots (ah-h-h, that word!), so I believe any disservice I would be responsible for might be minimal. I suspect the run was designed to be limited.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jan 21, 2014 15:07:58 GMT -6
I have wanted to run "wild" out of here many times, and he has promised an equal number of times to behave himself. I haven't gone through all of the pages of this thread yet, so I'm not sure what he has done this time, but I have always found him offensive at some level.
If I were to move it, Billy, where would you suggest? Diane, the initial posts of Helford's was OK as he put some thought and research into his post. Of course, it shortly went all to hell after that. QC, you haven't been around long enough to understand, Independent Research was that. There used to be a warning under the Independent Research thread topic to the effect that this was not a thread for personal arguments, trolling, etc. I just looked and it is gone, likely knocked out by the Proboards upgrade a few months ago. Discussion of the topic is fine; just not having it escalate as this thread had done is what irked me. By the way QC, I wasn't singling you out until today when I read your first post on this thread. Your statement "...to something more befitting the politically correct as well as turd ball Irish trouble makers..." qualify as trolling, i.e., to say something outrageous in order to get an argumentative response; in this case from Wild. Billy
|
|