The true issue lies not just in todays comments but other posts and
comments on this list specifically made by the gentle in question.
Said gentle was warned about putting more thought and care into his
posts previously and has failed to do so. I too found the post in
question as put forth in a very rude and infamitory way. To get his
point across he simply need say.
I disagree reguarding the polling since not all the populace has been
polled as of yet just those that attended said meet.
instead said gentle decided to use certain phrases and by the end of
his email it came across more as a personal attack rather then stating
a well thought out oppinion.
I've hope that everyone as always will think carefully what they are
putting out on the list and be sure to read before you post. I've
more then once written a post then deleted it and started over because
my tone could be taken the wrong way. As always in a public forum I
encourage everyone to act like an adult and remember that you are
responsible for your own actions.
Said gentle should still be able to read this list and stay informed
as to the goings on in the area he will just be unable to post for 90
days. After the suspension he can post again and I'd like to believe
will learn to give more care to how his words affect others arround
him and will be a much better person for the experiance.
P.S. The Barony of Rivenstar has been really great to me so far and I
miss everyone up in chicago. I hope to come up for a practice and
visit you guys soon. :)
--- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
> Lord Mayor,
> In keeping with your obvious desire to protect the (questionably)
innocent, I shall follow in your footsteps.
> I have reviewed what I suspect to be the post in question, and I
fear that I find your decision questionable. In fact, I can find
nothing in this Gentle Person #1's (the 'offender') reply to Gentle
Person #2 (the 'offended') or any other posts this day which could be
interpreted as 'false statements'.
> Gentle Person #2 indeed presumed upon the content of a posting
regarding the results of the TGS poll, inferring that it reflected the
opinion of the entire populace, which Gentle Person #1 rightly
corrected. This observation was summarily seconded by myself, but only
because Gentle Person #1's post arrived before my own.
> In his second paragraph, Gentle Person #1 only expressed well known
> In his third paragraph, Gentle Person #1 then gave two well founded
suggestions, and expressed an opinion based upon his own prior
observation (as opinions go, your mileage may vary), and subsequently
compared Gentle Person #2's current remarks to those previously
observed. Certainly, opinions are not worthy of removing his
privilege? And just because someone claims to be 'attacked' does not
inherantly make it so.
> Few if any know better than I that Gentle Person #1 can be a
contentious creature, and you may not like his tone. And I venture it
safe to say that at some point while discussing these subjects, you
will probably not care for mine either. However, it is you (and
perhaps your associates) who have chosen to make this a forum for the
discussion of what will invariably be found, long before its demise, a
subject of great difference, one borne by those who are strong in
thought and opinion. Clearly, to be perceived objective, you can ill
afford to be 'thin skinned' about what is or is not 'civil',
'destructive' or 'ill-considered' now. Simply claiming that you are
objective will not suffice, as you have an equally public opinion on
the subject and are in control of this venue. To remove anyone's voice
at this time, especially a vocal dissentor, will smack of censorship
whether it is in fact, or not, and can guarantee you with relative
certainty, that it will
> weigh heavily against your own espoused goals when an official
accounting is made.
> While I am impressed that Gentle Person #2 saw fit to recuse himself
as a moderator in this matter, I respectfully (and publicly) recommend
you reconsider your decision.
> In Service,
> Lord Grimkirk ap Greymoor
> Province of Tre-Girt-Sea
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "spdesroches@..." <spdesroches@...>
> To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:29:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Greetings Good Citizens
> Grreetings Good Citizens
> As it has been stated here in the past, the purpose of this
private list is to further greater cooperation and communication
between the various groups in Chicagoland. Mature and constructive
exchanges of opinion and useful information is its sole purpose.
Destructive and ill-considered posts are counter to its purpose. It
with some concern that I have viewed this day's postings. The various
opinions stated contained many valid points, and have for the most
part, been constructively put forth by the members of this list.
However one post today has contained an untrue accusation of
falsehood. It is with regret that I have asked the moderators to put
the person who made this statement on a non-posting status. This
action has been taken because the individual in question has
repeatedly made inflammatory statements here, and has previously been
put in this status a number of times. Should this individual, after 90
days of suspension, wish to post a
> public apology for this disgression, their ability to make posts
here will be re-considered. I do not take this action lightly, or out
of any personal ill-will, but of the need to maintain the civility of
> In Service to the Realm and Ayreton
> THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches
> Ayreton Lord Mayor
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
> that gives answers, not web links.