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

Re: [existlist] Re: Complaint

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , May 2, 2003
      > 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

      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.

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