Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Complaint

Expand Messages
  • Mark and Bev Tindall
    Susan, you wrote: ... From: Susan Schnelbach To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:18 AM Subject: ExistList ...
    Message 1 of 3 , May 2 4:26 PM
      Susan, you wrote:

      *************************
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Susan Schnelbach" <susan@...>
      To: <tindall@...>
      Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:18 AM
      Subject: ExistList


      > Mark -
      >
      > Please be more polite when posting your responses or opinions. Being >
      polite does not include condescending to people when they disagree
      > with your point of view. If you'd like to try to educate people, take
      > the time to prepare responses logically, not just shoot off one line,
      > meaningless answers and expect people to automatically agree with
      > you.

      ********************

      ... and yet eduard posts ...............

      *******************************
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "yeoman" <yeoman@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 2:35 AM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW


      > Condescendent ..
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "David Leon" <dave@...>
      > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:58 AM
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
      >
      >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "yeoman" <yeoman@...>
      > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:34 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
      > >
      > >
      > > > Dave,
      > > >
      > > > Amazing.
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > > >
      > >
      > > Gee, thanks. But I dont really know how you meant that. Is
      > it interest or
      > > condescent?
      > >
      > > Dave

      ***************************************


      Do your arbitary rules apply to everyone including eduard or are they only
      applied against those who mention God or Christian Existentialism?

      Why do you act on one so virently but do nothing in the other case?

      Isn't that called hypocrisy?


      Mark
    • Mark and Bev Tindall
      ... since I m not tackless enough to do it publicly. I am not cowardly, gutless and devious enough to do things behind people s backs as others have done to me
      Message 2 of 3 , May 2 6:38 PM
        Susan wrote to me:


        > As I stated before, you have no idea who I reprimand and who I don't >
        since I'm not tackless enough to do it publicly.


        I am not cowardly, gutless and devious enough to do things behind people's
        backs as others have done to me on this list. Keep your dealings with me
        open. I have nothing to hide. What do you have to hide?

        Again I ask: What is being done about eduard's following one liners that
        eduard admits is condescending and which appears to be the opposite of what
        you have stated?



        > I'm not exactly sure how you are reading the few things I've posted as
        > 'virulent.' I thought I was being relatively polite...


        You wrote to me .........

        *********************************
        > "All right, children. Let's drop the religious discussion or take it to
        > one of the millions of chat channels echos, or groups that allows such
        > discussions," Susan said, dragging the discussion back to
        > existentialism.

        **************************

        I consider this statement by you to be demeaning, condescending, tackless,
        uninformed, incorrect and impolite. I gather, from Chris's statement that
        Christian Existentialism is finally acceptable as Existentialism to you and
        not regarded as merely 'religion' (like the religion of brushing my teeth).
        Again, I suggest you read posts in context rather than jumping to false
        conclusions.

        Who monitors the Moderator when she is wrong?

        As a university trained Manager, Educator and Philosopher I am interested in
        your response as your past limited responses have been erratic and arbitrary
        in what you choose to act upon and what you choose to ignore. Some type of
        consistency in your actions would help in determining what is acceptable and
        not acceptable. At the moment it is pure guesswork on anyone's part.

        I include the past posts for your reference below.



        Mark


        >
        > On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 04:26 PM, Mark and Bev Tindall wrote:
        >
        > > Susan, you wrote:
        > >
        > > *************************
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Susan Schnelbach" <susan@...>
        > > To: <tindall@...>
        > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 10:18 AM
        > > Subject: ExistList
        > >
        > >
        > >> Mark -
        > >>
        > >> Please be more polite when posting your responses or opinions. Being >
        > > polite does not include condescending to people when they disagree
        > >> with your point of view. If you'd like to try to educate people, take
        > >> the time to prepare responses logically, not just shoot off one line,
        > >> meaningless answers and expect people to automatically agree with
        > >> you.
        > >
        > > ********************
        > >
        > > ... and yet eduard posts ...............
        > >
        > > *******************************
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "yeoman" <yeoman@...>
        > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 2:35 AM
        > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
        > >
        > >
        > >> Condescendent ..
        > >>
        > >> ----- Original Message -----
        > >> From: "David Leon" <dave@...>
        > >> To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > >> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:58 AM
        > >> Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>> ----- Original Message -----
        > >>> From: "yeoman" <yeoman@...>
        > >>> To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > >>> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:34 PM
        > >>> Subject: Re: [existlist] Choosing Ford or BMW
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>> Dave,
        > >>>>
        > >>>> Amazing.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> eduard
        > >>>>
        > >>>
        > >>> Gee, thanks. But I dont really know how you meant that. Is
        > >> it interest or
        > >>> condescent?
        > >>>
        > >>> Dave
        > >
        > > ***************************************
        > >
        > >
        > > Do your arbitary rules apply to everyone including eduard or are they
        > > only
        > > applied against those who mention God or Christian Existentialism?
        > >
        > > Why do you act on one so virently but do nothing in the other case?
        > >
        > > Isn't that called hypocrisy?
        > >
        > >
        > > Mark
        > >
        >
        >
      • Susan Schnelbach
        ... I don t reprimand publicly since it s not of general interest and has no place in the general forum. :) These types of posts have nothing to do with
        Message 3 of 3 , May 2 9:58 PM
          >
          > I am not cowardly, gutless and devious enough to do things behind
          > people's
          > backs as others have done to me on this list.  Keep your dealings with
          > me
          > open.  I have nothing to hide.  What do you have to hide?

          I don't reprimand publicly since it's "not of general interest" and has
          no place in the general forum. :) These types of posts have nothing to
          do with existentialism...

          Your choice of words and tone is disturbing. I'm sorry that you are so
          angry all the time and see deviousness all around you. I think you need
          a cat. It's impossible to be angry or take the world seriously with a
          warm, purring cat in your lap. :)


          > *********************************
          > > "All right, children. Let's drop the religious discussion or take it
          > to
          > > one of the millions of chat channels echos, or groups that allows
          > such
          > > discussions," Susan said, dragging the discussion back to
          > > existentialism.
          >
          > **************************
          >
          > I consider this statement by you to be demeaning, condescending,
          > tackless,
          > uninformed, incorrect and impolite.  I gather, from Chris's statement
          > that
          > Christian Existentialism is finally acceptable as Existentialism to
          > you and
          > not regarded as merely 'religion' (like the religion of brushing my
          > teeth).
          > Again, I suggest you read posts in context rather than jumping to false
          > conclusions.
          >
          > Who monitors the Moderator when she is wrong?

          Christopher does. And my statement was done more with tired humor than
          with a demeaning, impolite tone. I'm sorry if the tone didn't some
          though. I'll have to practice more with description and dialogue.


          > As a university trained Manager, Educator and Philosopher I am
          > interested in
          > your response as your past limited responses have been erratic and
          > arbitrary
          > in what you choose to act upon and what you choose to ignore.  Some
          > type of
          > consistency in your actions would help in determining what is
          > acceptable and
          > not acceptable.  At the moment it is pure guesswork on anyone's part.

          I don't think erratic and arbitrary are accurate terms. I only choose
          to interfere when rules regarding quantity of posts are broken,
          inappropriate language is used, personal attacks are launched, or
          conversations stray for an extreme length of time off topic. I did warn
          you all I would not interfere very often and would expect most of you
          to know the rules and not violate them too badly, and most do just
          fine. I'm a great believer in self-moderation and self-direction. I
          only step in when the rules are broken more than a few times, not just
          once or twice, with language abuse being the only exception.

          I do however, consider most in-depth discussions of religion and God to
          be off topic.

          Since you aren't clear on the rules, here is an excerpt from the FAQ:

          6. What are the rules of the list?
          No personal attacks. No lengthy discussions of specific religious
          issues (take those to other lists, please). No strong profanity (you
          know which words those would be). Be polite, and try to keep
          discussions on the topic of philosophy as much as possible.

          7. Is this group actively moderated?
          Ideally, no. Only violations of the "personal attack" rule are likely
          to result in a temporary "kick" from the list. We have never "banned"
          anyone from the list permanently and would like to keep it that way.
          Language violations receive a private warning, and that tends to be
          sufficient.

          Neither Christopher or I feel the need to actively moderate or
          interfere in discussions. Christopher because he doesn't have the
          inclination, I because I don't have the time. I'm only a control freak
          with regards to my own life, what you do in your spare time is up to
          you as long as you don't violate anyone else's enjoyment of this group.

          I would appreciate it if you can moderate your posts to be more
          communicative and more instructional for everyone in the group,
          formally educated or not. The people without formal educations in
          philosophy should be made welcome to participate. And while I have my
          moderator hat on: you posted 33 messages between 3:44 and 6:38 (my
          time, not yours). That might be bit excessive for such a small group.
          I'll have to have Christopher come up with a reasonable limit so as not
          to be overwhelming.

          Good night all. Time for my nightly struggle to breathe.
          Susan

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.