|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 15, 2015 16:31:44 GMT -6
. . . I am also now committing the same offence in relation to private exchanges. It's all very sad, our doing the job of "asshole" for him. I agree with the first statement above but not the second. I will leave it to Fred to tell me what he knows. I don't think people come here planning to be disruptive. They sometimes (rarely, thank goodness) become that way because they were treated poorly from the beginning. There is an ebb and flow to the boards. I think you will see some people leave and others return. With a little luck, we'll get some new people as well who are welcomed after their first post, not ridiculed or demeaned. If you were trying to change my opinion of you, you've done a damn good job. Diane
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 15, 2015 16:40:13 GMT -6
Diane,
Don't be fooled by "Mark".
Go back to his very first post. He wasn't made that way through being treated badly.
I can't remember how many times I initially interacted with him, and all I got back was "Custer great, Benteen treacherous, Reno treacherous cowardly and drunk".
CusterWest
"Mark" will be happier going back to his old website.
WO
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 15, 2015 16:53:40 GMT -6
If that was CusterWest, then I'm impressed. I haven't heard from the old boy(s) in a long time. I always had a soft spot for him/them/whatever. He/they just took things too far.
BTW, CusterWest didn't start out as a crazy person either. He became disruptive as a way of getting attention.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 15, 2015 17:14:16 GMT -6
Diane,
Before I learnt how to block somebody after their first post, I saw quite a few recommendations from his various personalities to go to that website! But one thing you are spot on with has to change. Posters have become so fearful of disrupters that all too often the portcullis comes down and the drawbridge comes up against new posters, and that mentality has to change.
WO
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 15, 2015 18:04:53 GMT -6
Posters have become so fearful of disrupters that all too often the portcullis comes down and the drawbridge comes up against new posters, and that mentality has to change. "Montrose" has been howling about this for ages. Maybe now someone will heed his advice. I just re-read my July 11 post. There is absolutely nothing in there referring to any PM or anything brought up in that PM. What I was alluding to was a public post by Treese, part of which said this board needed 3 or 4 moderators. Conveniently, that post has been taken down... though in all fairness, it may have been within the thread Diane removed. Another "missing" post was Treese's nasty first response to a simple question put up by a brand-new member, "ness10." I noticed a rather contrite post by him... that's still up, but his first nasty comment, well, that's missing... so convenient. Interesting... or do we all forget? I am about done here. I am only interested in seeing who decides to leave. That will tell us the measure of the "man." Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by yankee on Jul 15, 2015 19:28:21 GMT -6
Fred,
When you say you are done I hope you don't mean that you are leaving these boards. I have enjoyed your posts and also have read your books and articles in the research and reviews.
These Boards would not be the same without you , DC or Diane
Thanks for all you have contributed
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 15, 2015 19:43:24 GMT -6
For the record, I did not delete any posts by QC unless they were part of the thread I mentioned earlier that I deleted in toto. QC is the only other person who could have deleted his posts, so he is the one who deleted his first nasty response to ness10 and the others Fred mentioned.
Thanks for speaking up, Doug. I don't want Fred (or anyone else) to go away, but I think we'll be hearing some different voices now. That is always the fun of it.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 15, 2015 19:46:57 GMT -6
... (3) agreed confidentiality had been breached by Fred. To put further in context, both my private forum message inbox and my personal e-mail inbox have filled up recently with complaints from numerous posters. Nearly all communications, with the exception of one about your deleting one thread created by Beth whilst keeping all the garbage from "not a very nice person" post first banning, have been in relation to Fred's breach of confidence. Far more people have issues with Fred's discussing a very small element of a private conversation in public than with your administrator style. This is an absolute bald-faced crock. I have never breached anyone's confidentiality or request for confidentiality in my entire life and I certainly wouldn't begin with the pettifogging bullshit I am seeing here. What I did do was allude to a "long-winded" PM, entertained by a number of posters, but the information Diane got regarding her "moderating" came from a public post of Treese's, not from me. You can all believe it or you can all go to hell, I could not care less. I have lived by my word my entire life and I utterly refuse to even entertain comments I have betrayed a trust, especially from the likes of someone like Chuck Treese. All you need to do is look at his record for the truth... and I might add, a record of triteness, vindictiveness, and gossip. If Treese is someone's paradigm of character and honor, then those who believe it need not ever address me or what I post again. I also find it extremely interesting no one, up to this very moment, has had the guts to address me directly about this issue... if they are so concerned. Or is this just more of the lily-livered cowardice so inherent in the masses of sheep I am beginning to see here?
Furthermore, I would strongly suggest "the mass exodus" delete their account on the way out. No need for "best wishes" here, for I am not in the mood. Well, this lily livered coward just got back from a wonderful dinner. Tried to call you, can't expect for you to answer at my whim, I have the guts to address to you about this issue, or any other, face to face if you wish. I however don't find this paramount in my life right now. I did not plan on signing back in today until I read this, I meant what I said this morning, "Thank you" all of you, Diane included for all of the assistance you have given me. My issue was only how the past week was handled. and several minor items I mentioned.
I never said good bye, I need a break, I made that clear.
Fred, at your pleasure, I have no issues. If you do maybe we can iron them out. Be assured books are no issue'
Diane, it is sheep dip I have a problem with not cow chips.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 15, 2015 20:29:02 GMT -6
Well, this lily livered coward.... Tom, I never referred to you in any such fashion, so stop taking things out of context or taking things personally. The only thing I directed at you was the comment about the book and I tried very hard to hedge it without hurting your feelings too much. Nothing you have said or done has insulted me or impugned my integrity or even bothered me. I understand fully a dual allegiance and how it may affect you and others. I have no issue with that and unlike some-- QC, for example-- I am not the kind of person who has to align myself with one person at the cost of another. I would never begrudge you that option or question your friendship because you chose to remain friends with Treese. That is not my business and I am not interested in your affairs... unless they affect me. So please, stop looking for witches in the broom closet: after Lynchburg and these boards, you should, by now, know me a bit better and know I do not play games: what you see with me is what you get. You should know if I have something to say to you, I'll say it to your face or on the phone or on these boards: direct... no innuendo, no reason to wonder what I meant or who I am talking to. I hope you read this before I return your call, probably tomorrow. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 15, 2015 20:43:36 GMT -6
Fred, When you say you are done I hope you don't mean that you are leaving these boards. I have enjoyed your posts and also have read your books and articles in the research and reviews. These Boards would not be the same without you , DC or Diane Doug, Thank you. I am, however, too ornery to quit and I have never walked away from anything in my life, not when there is a battle to be fought or an objective to be gained. I will quit something when I am bored, but I do not shun a fight, especially when my integrity is involved. Hopefully, I am "done" with this particular nonsense, but certainly never with this subject or these boards. Diane and I have weathered a lot worse than this and that includes our own flame-war which I was too stupid in starting. It is a measure of Mrs. Merkel's character and decency that we can put that behind us and resume a friendship that will never be questioned again. People must remember Diane is the sole person responsible for allowing all the good this forum has achieved. "Wars" pop up because some demand things they are not entitled to or become too big for what they can provide. This should be a forum of diverse ideas, supported as best they can be by the best available evidence. I appreciate truly your kind comments. You are very generous in your praise. My sincerest thanks. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 15, 2015 22:54:36 GMT -6
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Fred, My mantra on these boards has been: Attack the post, not the poster. I see too much emotion, and too little rational discussions. The personal attacks long ago crossed the line, in my opinion, into cyber bullying. This is the internet. The first rule of the internet, is there are no rules. Bad behavior is very difficult to control. You can encourage good behavior, but you can not coerce such behavior. At best you hope folks who join a board form an informal social contract; to work collectively towards the stated purpose of that group. Attacks on her are without merit All I ask is that we stop personal attacks. Disagree with theories through facts, logic, and discussion. Diane has done a wonderful job in both this internet forum, and in the work she and her husband have done with the LBHA. Attacks on her have no merit. I see a lot of the anger and rage aimed her way due to her refusal to take sides in emotional disputes. My focus is not the merits of a particular emotional argument, but the very fact that we are having emotional arguments. On another board focused on history, I am in a current dispute over Spengler and his Decline of the West theory. I changed the argument from his specific theories, to the fact that he is no historian, and his theories have no basis in history or fact. He is more a philosopher. Very heated discussions on fact based disciplines vice the realm of ideas. I mean, extremely heated arguments, since I have 5 German professors on the other side. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_WestBut no one takes it personally. I mentioned my favorite restaurant in Heidelberg, and my most heated opponent went there and posted a picture for me, it is still there. To quote the Godfather movies, it is not personal, only business. It is my hope we can continue to discuss this battle, while treating each other with dignity and respect. Very Respectfully, William
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 16, 2015 13:55:03 GMT -6
Posters have become so fearful of disrupters that all too often the portcullis comes down and the drawbridge comes up against new posters, and that mentality has to change. "Montrose" has been howling about this for ages. Maybe now someone will heed his advice. I just re-read my July 11 post. There is absolutely nothing in there referring to any PM or anything brought up in that PM. What I was alluding to was a public post by Treese, part of which said this board needed 3 or 4 moderators. Conveniently, that post has been taken down... though in all fairness, it may have been within the thread Diane removed. Another "missing" post was Treese's nasty first response to a simple question put up by a brand-new member, "ness10." I noticed a rather contrite post by him... that's still up, but his first nasty comment, well, that's missing... so convenient. Interesting... or do we all forget? I am about done here. I am only interested in seeing who decides to leave. That will tell us the measure of the "man." Best wishes, Fred. Fred,
If you say that you only posted in response to a since deleted public posts that I never saw, that is the end of the matter for me. I have never questioned your word. It was unfortunate that you didn't quote the posts - name and shame, if you like - so no misunderstandings can arise. As you will see from my response to your 11 July post:
As for me and my participation here, I am working on five new articles and two new books, and quite frankly I am a little tired of answering some of the stupidity I see. Anyone who would like to discuss this more privately, well, my e-mail address is easily obtainable. Best wishes, Fred. Fred,
And we Brits get accused of understatement.....
Not much point criticising any moderator. If somebody adds no value, just skip past their efforts and on to the next post.
Looking forward to anything more you have to add on Tullock's Creek in your articles, particularly as regards to how Terry (Bradley in effect?) would have needed to react to any competent action GAC undertook on the 26th.
WO
it never contemporaneously crossed my mind that you were talking about a private thread or my response above would have been radically different. That took the filling up of my inbox, forum messages and e-mail. Besides Montrose's post suggests there was something publicly posted around the 11th that I missed and which you took sufficient exception to trigger your post. I make no apology for saying that I seldom look beyond the "The Battle -- Before, During, After" section of this forum, and don't follow individuals.
I generally reiterate one of the points that I made to Fred on 12 July - Not much point criticising any moderator - as somebody like "Mark" cannot be legislated for. Skip over posts that do not interest you. If you find a poster unbearably annoying, just click that wheel and block them. Never have to read what they post ever again....
To quote Montrose, which sums up how I feel:
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Fred, My mantra on these boards has been: Attack the post, not the poster. I see too much emotion, and too little rational discussions. The personal attacks long ago crossed the line, in my opinion, into cyber bullying. This is the internet. The first rule of the internet, is there are no rules. Bad behavior is very difficult to control. You can encourage good behavior, but you can not coerce such behavior. At best you hope folks who join a board form an informal social contract; to work collectively towards the stated purpose of that group. Attacks on her are without merit All I ask is that we stop personal attacks. Disagree with theories through facts, logic, and discussion. When I first came to this board, one poster was being bullied by another poster to such an extent that I almost walked in revulsion. There is no need.
Now lets get back to 1876.
WO
|
|
|
Thank You
Jul 19, 2015 17:50:06 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by success on Jul 19, 2015 17:50:06 GMT -6
Success!!!!! Finally, common sense has prevailed and Queeniecannon, the school yard bully has been banished!!!
Scarface checking out.
It's been fun :-)
Keep the board going. Fair and balanced. And as Montrose rightly says, attack the post not the poster.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 19, 2015 18:06:21 GMT -6
And that message explains it all. He played us all like we were his orchestra and he was the maestro. We fell for it hook, line and sinker. I wonder how many of those numerous complaints came from SF and his many, many personas. He targeted certain members from the beginning and did everything he could to plant distrust and discord.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jul 20, 2015 3:03:26 GMT -6
Yes Beth, a lot of this comes from distrust. a certain amount also comes from low level paranoia with the threat of others coming from other sites and using a different name in order to disrupt. this has been a problem now for years and has been eluded to by numerous members. I will give new members the benefit of the doubt were some don't, and I had scarface's card marked months ago, a lot didn't and kept on trying to work with him and we see now it was all a sham as he had a clear agenda.
It just goes to show how you can be easily duped causing some members to be over cautious.
Ian.
|
|