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

Missing Members of this group

Expand Messages
  • Viktor Zimmermann
    Hello my follow citizens of the GLK, as you possibly have already realized, we are missing a couple of our group members. E.g. Jaix Broox seems not to be
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello my follow citizens of the GLK,

      as you possibly have already realized, we are missing a couple of our
      group members. E.g. Jaix Broox seems not to be listed on the member's
      area, and indeed he informed me that he was banned from this group. I
      asked Bill yesterday to comment the topic in a private mail, an answer
      still missing. I'm sure, Bill or other moderator will have a good
      explanation for such activities and maybe rethink their decision. If
      controversal discussion is not welcome at this board, please say it
      properly, change the group settings to "messages can be posted only by
      group owner and moderators" and we will continue our discussions on
      the political discussion forum. But why ban unconvenient members and
      prevent them from voting? What kind of justice is this? If Jaix put
      wrong adress or wrong name on his application, you can ban him and I
      will never talk about this topic again. But if his only mistake is
      giving a "000-000-00000" for the telephone number, he must not be
      excluded from elections. Besides, we should handle the personal data
      of our applicants VERY carefully and never make them public without
      their consent.

      Those of you who are interested what Jaix thinks about this subject,
      should look onto the GLK's political discussion forum:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/glkpolitics

      Regards,

      Vicky
    • William J. Freeman
      Hi Vicky, When did you post your email to me of yesterday, VIcky? I m not asking to humiliate or ridicule, but I d have liked to think I d have a couple days
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Vicky,
         
        When did you post your email to me of yesterday, VIcky?  I'm not asking to humiliate or ridicule, but I'd have
        liked to think I'd have a couple days before having to deal with any public chastisements from the people we
        are trying to serve.  Perhaps I expect too much.
         
        I did respond to your message this morning, about 6am my time when I received it, to your private email.  I
        replied directly to you, and copied the person who removed Brooks, and suggested you speak with that
        moderator.  When I get home, I'll resend that email again - but I will verify with the other people I copied
        that they got their copy of the original email.
         
        It might serve you to be a bit slower to draw unfounded conclusions in the future, and to be more certain of the
        facts before making public statements that aren't true. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but I was not at
        all involved in censuring Brooks. I'd appreciate your public apology to the extent that you have publicly stated
        otherwise.
         
        With regard to what constitutes a misstatement in an application, please let the people who handle applications
        do their jobs.  If not, please come to Alabama and assist me in this work.  I promise I'll make room for you. If
        you're working on the apps, and you make a decision, would you like me to support you in your reasonable
        decisions or let this group decide if you acted rightly?  Do you get my point?  Those of us who are building
        this project, for better or worse, do have a better view of what is happening.  Until that can be made more
        transparent, which we are working very hard to do, I think a bit of deference in the task might be a reasonable
        thing to expect. 
         
        Who, besides Brooks, are we missing?  You said we are missing a couple. Who are the couple you think are
        missing? 
         
        One final word - I'm sorry if you rubbed the bottle and for whatever reason you didn't think I came out of it
        fast enough.  Some genies do hobble a bit, and we aren't bashful that we're slow - but we do try to be careful.
         
        -Bill Freeman
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Viktor Zimmermann [mailto:sekretariat@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:56 PM
        To: gaykingdom@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [gaykingdom] Missing Members of this group


        Hello my follow citizens of the GLK,

        as you possibly have already realized, we are missing a couple of our
        group members. E.g. Jaix Broox seems not to be listed on the member's
        area, and indeed he informed me that he was banned from this group. I
        asked Bill yesterday to comment the topic in a private mail, an answer
        still missing. I'm sure, Bill or other moderator will have a good
        explanation for such activities and maybe rethink their decision. If
        controversal discussion is not welcome at this board, please say it
        properly, change the group settings to "messages can be posted only by
        group owner and moderators" and we will continue our discussions on
        the political discussion forum. But why ban unconvenient members and
        prevent them from voting? What kind of justice is this? If Jaix put
        wrong adress or wrong name on his application, you can ban him and I
        will never talk about this topic again. But if his only mistake is
        giving a "000-000-00000" for the telephone number, he must not be
        excluded from elections. Besides, we should handle the personal data
        of our applicants VERY carefully and never make them public without
        their consent. 

        Those of you who are interested what Jaix thinks about this subject,
        should look onto the GLK's political discussion forum:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/glkpolitics

        Regards,

        Vicky





      • Viktor Zimmermann
        Bill, I posted a public message today, because I haven t received any private answer from you to this subject - wherever it got lost. I am VERY sorry, this was
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill,

          I posted a public message today, because I haven't received any
          private answer from you to this subject - wherever it got lost. I am
          VERY sorry, this was not intended then to go THIS way. Jaix was banned
          without any notification to others and he asked me for help. I sent
          separate mails to Ron and to you with request to take care of this
          subject, and on receiving no answers I decided to post a message on
          the board. The private mail I have written to you included a sentence
          that I beg you to explain your view of the matter, before I post some
          wild accusations on the message board. This is the common procedure
          and I am sorry I made wrong conclusions upon receiving no answer. I
          should have asked once mor for safety, my failure. I would appreciate
          you to send me your mail once again, so I can make an opinion.

          The only reason why I adressed you personally in my post was because
          you are the owner of the group, so who else should I blame? I'm sorry
          I hit the wrong one.

          As you made it clear, that baning of Jaix was NOT YOUR initiative, I
          OPEN-HEARTED APOLOGIZE FOR PUTTING YOU INTO WRONG LIGHT.

          My post was not intended to make you personally responsible of
          censoreship, but make sure that members are treated equally and their
          rights are respected. Therefore the moderator responsible for that
          action should feel adressed by my questions, they are not meant to be
          offending.

          As to missing members: I do not know each of them by the name, but
          overnight (night here in Germany) we went from 311 to 302 members, and
          taking the case of Jaix into account I was alarmed. If all of them
          were spammers or did withdrow by theit own wills, everything is fine
          and no one is angry to anyone.

          Again, do not feel offended, my intensions were good and I appreciate
          your work very much, even if I have different opinion at a lot of
          subjects. As to my program, everyone who joins the Responsible
          Developement Party is welcomed to discuss the form and content of the
          party general program, as well my personal program which is still
          appointed as being preliminary in the hope, people will make
          reasonable suggestions to topics which they believe to be important.
          There is also place for other candidates to present their programs and
          views on the same conditions.

          Regards,

          Vicky

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progressors_glk

          --- In gaykingdom@yahoogroups.com, "William J. Freeman" <wjf@b...>
          wrote:
          > Hi Vicky,
          >
          > When did you post your email to me of yesterday, VIcky? I'm not
          asking to
          > humiliate or ridicule, but I'd have
          > liked to think I'd have a couple days before having to deal with any
          public
          > chastisements from the people we
          > are trying to serve. Perhaps I expect too much.
          >
          > I did respond to your message this morning, about 6am my time when I
          > received it, to your private email. I
          > replied directly to you, and copied the person who removed Brooks,
          and
          > suggested you speak with that
          > moderator. When I get home, I'll resend that email again - but I
          will
          > verify with the other people I copied
          > that they got their copy of the original email.
          >
          > It might serve you to be a bit slower to draw unfounded conclusions
          in the
          > future, and to be more certain of the
          > facts before making public statements that aren't true. If I am
          mistaken, I
          > apologize, but I was not at
          > all involved in censuring Brooks. I'd appreciate your public apology
          to the
          > extent that you have publicly stated
          > otherwise.
          >
          > With regard to what constitutes a misstatement in an application,
          please let
          > the people who handle applications
          > do their jobs. If not, please come to Alabama and assist me in this
          work.
          > I promise I'll make room for you. If
          > you're working on the apps, and you make a decision, would you like
          me to
          > support you in your reasonable
          > decisions or let this group decide if you acted rightly? Do you get
          my
          > point? Those of us who are building
          > this project, for better or worse, do have a better view of what is
          > happening. Until that can be made more
          > transparent, which we are working very hard to do, I think a bit of
          > deference in the task might be a reasonable
          > thing to expect.
          >
          > Who, besides Brooks, are we missing? You said we are missing a
          couple. Who
          > are the couple you think are
          > missing?
          >
          > One final word - I'm sorry if you rubbed the bottle and for whatever
          reason
          > you didn't think I came out of it
          > fast enough. Some genies do hobble a bit, and we aren't bashful
          that we're
          > slow - but we do try to be careful.
          >
          > -Bill Freeman
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Viktor Zimmermann [mailto:sekretariat@v...]
          > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 2:56 PM
          > To: gaykingdom@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [gaykingdom] Missing Members of this group
          >
          >
          >
          > Hello my follow citizens of the GLK,
          >
          > as you possibly have already realized, we are missing a couple of
          our
          > group members. E.g. Jaix Broox seems not to be listed on the
          member's
          > area, and indeed he informed me that he was banned from this group.
          I
          > asked Bill yesterday to comment the topic in a private mail, an
          answer
          > still missing. I'm sure, Bill or other moderator will have a good
          > explanation for such activities and maybe rethink their decision. If
          > controversal discussion is not welcome at this board, please say it
          > properly, change the group settings to "messages can be posted only
          by
          > group owner and moderators" and we will continue our discussions on
          > the political discussion forum. But why ban unconvenient members and
          > prevent them from voting? What kind of justice is this? If Jaix put
          > wrong adress or wrong name on his application, you can ban him and I
          > will never talk about this topic again. But if his only mistake is
          > giving a "000-000-00000" for the telephone number, he must not be
          > excluded from elections. Besides, we should handle the personal data
          > of our applicants VERY carefully and never make them public without
          > their consent.
          >
          > Those of you who are interested what Jaix thinks about this subject,
          > should look onto the GLK's political discussion forum:
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/glkpolitics
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Vicky
          >
        • K MT
          Victor, and all others concerned: First, the number of members in the Group varies from day to day. Moderators get messages notifying us of subscriptions and
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Victor, and all others concerned:
             
            First, the number of members in the Group varies from day to day. Moderators get messages notifying us of subscriptions and unsubscribtions, oftentimes several of both in any given hour. Lately, we have been receiving any number of unsubscription emails that state their author is disgusted by the tenor of discussion here, or is simply receving too much mail from the Group, and so, wants nothing more to do with us.
             
            The one person has been manually removed from the Group (or 'booted," as you put it): Jaix Brooks. I removed  him. I did so without consulting the other members of the Privy Council. He rejoined under a new name, and I removed him a second time. I informed the PC of my actions after the fact.
             
            This is why I took that step: All of us watched as Mr. Brooks sent message after message. At the outset, he voiced legitimate, if abrasive, opinions. Soon enough, however, we saw his ire directed at the person of the Emperor, and the persons of the Privy Council. As things progressed, Mr. Brooks felt the need to couch his criticisms in scatalogical terms, characterizing the work of the PC as the contents of an outdoor toilet, as well as cow excrement.
             
            It was, and remains, my judgement that Mr. Brooks' comments were designed to pointlessly incite and to provoke. Anyone who has been around a message board for any length of time knows that sort of poster. 
             
            If there are those here who truly believe that Mr. Brooks' comments were relevant to the discussion here, and that his voice needs to be heard, make your opinions known here-- I shall recuse myself from the matter, and leave it up to the whole of the Privy Council to decide whether to restore Mr. Brooks access.
             
            Sincerely,
            Kyle Thorne, LP 
             
             



            ______________________________

            Esse Quam Videri

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • Viktor Zimmermann
            Kyle, I have read your statement and the mail, which Bill sent me now, very carefully and I am ready to give you right as you did. As I haven t had access to
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Kyle,

              I have read your statement and the mail, which Bill sent me now, very
              carefully and I am ready to give you right as you did. As I haven't
              had access to the very post you mention, it was impossible to me to
              take that reasons into account, especially as Jaix was baned without
              an open notification.

              I see your point and respect your decision as being in your competence
              and meanwhile knowing you to be a considerate person.

              As Bill agrees with me that baning of a person from this forum does
              not concern the legal procedure of the citizenship request, I think
              that Jaix Brooks rights will be safe when he fullfills the formal
              criteria as any one else.

              Thank you both for taking time to explain your motivation,

              Vicky

              --- In gaykingdom@yahoogroups.com, K MT <kyleovision@y...> wrote:
              > [...]
              > The one person has been manually removed from the Group (or 'booted,
              " as you put it): Jaix Brooks. I removed him. I did so without
              consulting the other members of the Privy Council. He rejoined under a
              new name, and I removed him a second time. I informed the PC of my
              actions after the fact.
              > [...]
              > As things progressed, Mr. Brooks felt the need to couch his
              criticisms in scatalogical terms, characterizing the work of the PC as
              the contents of an outdoor toilet, as well as cow excrement.
              > [...]
              > Sincerely,
              > Kyle Thorne, LP
              >
            • Jack Blue
              ... Good Lord, no! I for one am mortally tired of Jaix and am glad he s gone. Thank you! Jack Blue ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                > If there are those here who truly believe that Mr.
                > Brooks' comments were relevant to the discussion
                > here, and that his voice needs to be heard, make
                > your opinions known here-- I shall recuse myself
                > from the matter, and leave it up to the whole of the
                > Privy Council to decide whether to restore Mr.
                > Brooks access.
                >
                > Sincerely,
                > Kyle Thorne, LP


                Good Lord, no! I for one am mortally tired of Jaix
                and am glad he's gone. Thank you!

                Jack Blue
                > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                > protection around
                > http://mail.yahoo.com




                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
                http://my.yahoo.com
              • Alfred
                I am seriously considering asking for removal from the GLK group. I have noticed a distinct flavor about it that is causing me to wonder why I was eager to
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 31, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am seriously considering asking for removal from the GLK group. I
                  have noticed a distinct flavor about it that is causing me to wonder
                  why I was eager to join it in the first place. It pains me because I
                  understand the amount of frustration the leaders of the group must be
                  under, but I have to wonder if it is that bad, why reamin in a
                  position that would cause such personal stress in the first place?
                  Did anyone twist anyone else's arm, or what? If you are not in an
                  emotional or financial position to take up such an undertaking then
                  why the hell not admit it and go on about your business?

                  Sure, the leaders are doing a wonderful thing if what they are about
                  is what I have believed it to be. On the other hand, banning people
                  within such a short time of starting such a group doesn't bode well
                  for the future of the group or of their endeavours. I am seriously
                  thinking that the only thing about this group that was initially
                  attractive is the pie in the sky, uptopian dream we all probably
                  share of a queer motherland. In the real world, I have met just as
                  many off putting queers and dykes as I have straights, but I
                  certainly wouldn't want to live in a world without them.

                  Sitting here wondering if I will be banned for posting such musings
                  or heresy, depnding on how you look at it.

                  Unless someone knows something I don't about Yahoo message boards or
                  groups, it doesn't cost anything to post messages. For those who
                  don't care for messages from others, why not SKIP their entrees and
                  let it go at that? It's quite plain who the poster is prior to
                  opening a message, is it not?

                  Something sure smells rotten in Denmark. Relevant or not, the banned
                  poster harmed no one, and short of being a nuisance to some, he may
                  very well have ended up being a very strong supporter of the cause.
                  Be that as it may, it's not my decision to make.

                  Will mull over this whole thing with a nights sleep. If I'm not
                  banned by morning, will carefully consider my own affiliation with
                  this group.










                  --- In gaykingdom@yahoogroups.com, Jack Blue <marthyjane1880@y...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > > If there are those here who truly believe that Mr.
                  > > Brooks' comments were relevant to the discussion
                  > > here, and that his voice needs to be heard, make
                  > > your opinions known here-- I shall recuse myself
                  > > from the matter, and leave it up to the whole of the
                  > > Privy Council to decide whether to restore Mr.
                  > > Brooks access.
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > Kyle Thorne, LP
                  >
                  >
                  > Good Lord, no! I for one am mortally tired of Jaix
                  > and am glad he's gone. Thank you!
                  >
                  > Jack Blue
                  > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                  > > protection around
                  > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
                  > http://my.yahoo.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.