I am on vacation this week, and am on-line much less than at home, so it has taken me a while to catch up with news. But here it is:
The person who signed on to this board with the name Keiva, and who became AphonicRants, et. al., threatened to file a lawsuit against at least me, and possibly our beloved Anu. He has now been unbanned. Anu felt there was no choice. I shall miss you all.
As a previously neutral member in this matter, I will now publically say, in defense of one of the kindest women I have ever known, that Kenneth Spector, you are a despicable coward! Though I see it as entirely impossible to start a lawsuit based upon the banning of someone from a personal website, the fact that you would even threaten to do so is unthinkable. I know you've considered me a friend, and I once did too, but you have hurt too many people, and you now know how I feel about it.
As with anything, there is always more than meets the eye, Jackie. Too bad you haven't been available today to see that although there was controversy, it has calmed down. YOU are the one who is causing it this time.
Keiva, if what Jackie says is inaccurate, then please tell us all what exactly you did to "convince" Jackie and Anu, who knew fully the pain you have caused, to unban you.
Kenneth Spector is an embarrassment to all men. A coward and hypocrite who hides behind threats of lawsuits like a belligerent little child, a nasty individual who nobody wants to play with – he hides behind threats and forces himself on individuals like a rapist.
It's nearing midnight here, and I'm heading off to bed. I'd suggest that what is being said here is hardly "for the good of the board", and that perhaps it would be well to pause and take a deep breath.
No Angel, the controversy is caused by Kenneth. You are wrong. You are biased and it shows.
Kenneth was banned and used threats to force his way back unto the Board.
In the two years since it's creation a banning has never happend. New members have always been welcomed, people always join in the fun, spats were quickly fixed, gotten over and forgotten. We were a happy group.
Since he joined there has been only strife and disagreement. Are you so blind that you do not see that the whole is being destroyed by the one?
Jackie is not the trouble, she was his savior on so many occasions you cannot know, yet he chooses to spit on her.
You are wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself.
My point was simply that the controversy of the day had calmed down. I have nothing to be ashamed of by pointing to the fact that this thread is causing strife on the board, and that Jackie started the thread.
congratulations, Ken. your nuking of the board is now complete. I hope that you and your little band of admirers will be very happy here amongst yourselves.
Mushroom cloud forming on the horizon. ALL THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BLINDED BY THE LIGHT, PLEASE MAKE AN ORDERLY RETREAT. THIS IS NOT A TEST. I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A TEST.
I beg you all to explain to me just why Ken is a pariah. I have seen many of you call him names, but I haven't seen him call you names. Just what gives? I have been torn apart by this stuff in the past, when some of it turned against me, but will not be tripped up by it again. You are all highly intelligent people, but, from my admittedly limited parspective, you sound as though emotion, not reason, is running your lives.
Like most of you, I think that the sun rises in Kentucky primarily because Jackie is there. Nevertheless, I cannot condemn Ken for wanting to remain here, and appealing directly to Anu. It appears that some meeting of minds has been reached by the two of them, yet you all accuse him of coercion by way of threatening suit. What legal standing, what grounds, would he have against Anu, Jackie, or the board? Against those who slander, yes, but not against the rest.
If I am wrong, please dispassionately show me my error. I may only have a 40 Watt bulb burning in this room full of 100 Watt people, so perhaps one of you brighter ones can illuminate the roots of this internecene warfare. I do not wish to take sides; rather, I wish to rejoin this group to its purpose, so that no sides exist. Of course, some of us will be drawn to certain others, and that's natural and good, yet must we hate certain others? Can tolerence not be a part of AWAD?
Jackie, I'm sorry to see that it has come to this... and for all your efforts in making this place sustainable for ALL - including Keiva. I know that your decisions along the way have been tremendously difficult for you, and this is a horrible ending. I feel for you.
Unfortunately, I find this all a little disturbing - the fact that anyone would even threaten a law suit in this type of environment makes me cringe. What a way to destroy a perfectly wonderful (yet acceptibly fallible) environment.
I don't think I want to be here any more. That threat lurking in the background is always going to make me feel uncomfortable about what I say here, and in what context it is taken. I do not wish to have that hanging over my head in any way, shape or form. I'm going to take my leave of this place... For those of you who may miss me, I'm sorry. For those who don't care, enjoy what is here while it lasts. Anyone who wishes to stay in contact with me, please PM me (as I will check in there for a week or so) and I'll give you details.
Sayonara, Adieu, Auf Wiedersehn, but probably not see you later!
What a horribly sad thing to go to bed sensing strife was at hand, and worse to awaken to so much ill will and confusion.
What did Keiva write or say to Anu? What kind of legal words were used? Was there any kind of threat at all? Those are the questions that will circle my brain all day long. I posted on a music board for about two years and posts were deleted and administrators could stop posters from posting, and that was that. I stayed out of the fray because I detested flaming so much. But to hear that a threat of legal action of any kind has been used goes beyond my comprehension.
Long ago, someone wrote, "Why can't we just all get along?" and suggested that we stop attacks, defenses altogether. What wisdom that was, and it wasn't heeded. Bill all along had been writing, "Words. Lets talk about words." And he meant so in the purest sense.
Well, we've had words. And we've had them, too.
Jackie, if you have been threatened in any way, your sorrow is my sorrow and I bear it with you. I will write to you privately through email if this place is to be no more a place where we can meet happily.
But I will pray that we will all come through this and meet again here some day without fear of any kind of threat. I have enjoyed to the greatest degree the writing, the various turns of mind and phrase, and getting to know the personalities behind the merry pens that have written here.
With great sadness and regret that this day has come, Theresa
P.S. And I, too, will not post on board again until the day comes that hev, Jackie, consuelo, tsuwm and the rest may post in the spirit of this place that has been blasted away. Angel: Things had not quieted down. PMs were flying last night. We were being informed that Keiva had been reinstated to the board by Anu, and all were wondering why Jackie's administrative decision had been overruled. Public bulletin boards may permanently keep members from posting who participate in postings that cause strife. Administrators have the right to delete posts and posters. We have wondered last night why this action, free to other boards, was not the case here. Jackie exercised that right, but Keiva reappeared. Naturally, people here wondered what had occurred. Jackie informed us, plain and simple. She did not go into details. But it appears some kind of legal threat was made, no matter how small. Some kind of threat. And it is that word threat itself that holds a great deal of power. We do not come here to write with fear of any kind of legal threat, no matter how small. I am extremely confused that you thought things were calming down. In no way were they if my PM box is any example of what people were writing about last night. Your own perception in this case is completely inaccurate, and I write this with no anger. I just want to fill you in on what you may not have known.
how terribly sad that our entire garden of blossoms can be choked by one pervasive weed. i can't imagine any human being wanting so desperately to be in a place where he is so clearly scorned by all but a handful of followers.
How did this thing get its appendage in the doorway? Are there no rules against filing frivolous lawsuits in Illinois, or Ohio, or Kentucky or wherever this lawsuit is being threatened? Did the thing get its appendage in some loophole because there was no agreement that had to be accepted upon joining the board? Perhaps the best action is to dismantle the board and reform it with an agreement stating that participation is contingent on the permission of the administrator.
I had not a PM or email yesterday, except one from Jackie early in the day before Keiva and Anu spoke. I honestly thought things had blown over.
I find Jackie's actions here counter productive. Making her announcement, as she has, is what has started the open sniping, yet again. The only thing Keiva had done during the day was post good word posts. There was no announcement that he was returning. Nothing. But the fact is, Jackie chose to start this thread.
This is my opinion on the matter. It is and always has been your right to accept that or to ignore it. Just as it has always been your right to accept or to ignore anything that appears on this board.
Let's talk about the word ignore. To ignore is to act as though something or someone doesn't exist, not to bring it to full attention.
Continue posting, and if a post by myself or Keiva or another offends you, then ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist and go on about your business. Let's not tear this board apart because you don't agree with the words of another.
Let's have clear statements. If Jackie leaves the Board, I also will leave. Much as I have enjoyed it in the past, I could not enjoy it if she is no longer Administrator with whatever authority she needs to curb abuses. I suggest all who feel as I do to make a clear statement to that effect.
No, Angel, i do not think Jackie's actions are counter productive.
if she is to be adminstrator, then her decisions must be acepted.. if Anu choses, with out giving reason why, to undo her decision then she is a straw man.. an administator in name only..
as for there being no strife, no upset, no discord.. no there wasn't publicly.. it was private. and why did no one include you? because of the perception that you think Ken was treated unfairly, and were not of like mind.
could it be we are all wrong? sure.. 20, 30 people can be wrong.. its possible. but i know, Ken's presence here make me feel threatened. He hasn't quite threatened me, he has just lied to me. but he has threatened my friends.. and to be honest, i don't want to wait around til the day he threatens me.
the old saying is "on the internet, no one knows you are a dog." well, its true, at first, but after a while, a persons character becomes evident.. and ken has demonstrated himself to me as being very, very smart, very knowledgeble, and also, very combative, competitive, and vindictive. Maybe he doesn't appear this way to you.
I just know, i don't want to associate with combative, competitive, vindictive people. i have a choice to make. i can stay here and be afraid or i can leave. there is a big world of words out there. there are many site devoted to this passtime. and many of those sites have administrators who are not straw men, they ban, and keep banned, people who are people like ken. i will spend my time at those sites.
Faldage: reform it [the board] with an agreement stating that ...
Actually, F, I indeed suggested to Anu that it might be well to adopt sign-in procedures like those used by MSN, under which one must agree to certain terms in order to sign up for a screen-name. Anu seemed to think that a wise suggestion.
Well - it has come to this. I made my opinion clear regarding Mr Spector when he published on the public board a number of Private Mails (PMs - that's what they mean - would you like to start a thread on the meaning of "Private", Angel?) Other, public posts that were offensive he deleted, after they had had their effect. (For the "good of the board", of course.)
That he has not personally attacked me is not to the point. He has made this board untenable, very subtly and deviously, mostly in private mails which other, decent members of this board have respected as "Private." Some have been shared, on a confidential basis, with me. I have no reason to believe that they were invented by the people who shared them with me - there were a few too many, of the same vain, to have been readily made up in order to provide false evidence.
I stand by my friends on this board - who are of long-standing, not power-crazy Johnny-Come-Latelies.
(apologies to all of you who have joined in the past six months who are also decent people - my regrets to you that you came too late to catch this board at it's highly imperfect prime.)
I'm off - those I know and like know how to contact me.
[big sigh] If all the people who made this place the joyous addiction/enthusiasm it was for so long are going to disappear, I really don't see any point in staying.
I'm gone, too, at least for now. All the friends I have made here, and I'm grateful there are scores of you, know where we are and how to contact each other. So all was not in vain.
I think it is quite clear that you, Ken, do not understand what is "for the good of the board" as your words and "threatened lawsuit" just destroyed it. (Something for Anu to contemplate in a "counter-suit".)
(Anu, I think it is appropriate that you change the word "associates" in your disclaimer... a bit too vague)
GoodBye, all that are leaving.
Edit : Since new information has risen to the surface, I'll be here...somewhere
In the past I have avoided to the greatest extent the politics on this board. I did once express the shame I felt when someone was castigated for suggesting that people in her area might want to sign up for her class. Other than that I've pretty much kept my mouth shut. Why?
On another board some years ago there was a person who espoused the killing of mental defectives and the involuntary starving of quadriplegics. I made the mistake of saying to him, "Hitler woulda loved it." And I got bounced from the board because I "called this guy a Nazi." I don't miss that board (it wasn't word related, more social), but it made me aware of how what seemed like innocent words can get you in trouble. I promised myself I'd avoid such things.
But I will miss this board if it falls apart as it appears to be doing. I want AWADtalk to continue.
I want it so much that I hereby pledge $1,000 US towards the legal defense of Jackie or Anu if they decide to ban Keiva and are then subject to lawsuit.
A thousand bucks buys enough legal service to stop a frivolous lawsuit dead in its tracks, in my opinion. And, though I have not consulted the lawyer I sleep with (and will probably not do so) I am certain that a lawsuit to force the unbanning of a person from a group like this would be frivolous in nature and might well subject the plaintiff or his attorney to the close scrutiny of the local bar association.
TEd, if I understand you to be saying you that no valid legal action would lie for the act of simply banning a person from a private group such as this one, then I fully agree with you.
I hereby match your pledge, toward the defense of any such action.
Wordsmith in his post "Why" makes it very clear that he was yielding only to unspoken threat of lawsuit.
"I un-banned Keiva only after consulting Jackie and both of us agreed there was no other option. Sorry to know that some are disappointed, but we do not have time or resources to fight a lawsuit."
forked tongue? Not precisely, Dr. Bill. I had said that I would help defray legal costs to defend against a lawsuit requiring the unbanning of an individual.
I'm getting the feeling there may have been discussion about libel. If that's the case, the statement about "no such lawsuit" is technically correct. This is akin to the literal truth of saying that the oral favors I got from "that woman" weren't sex, where "sex" is defined or assumed to be vaginal intercourse only.
I wonder whether we would ever get simple yes or no answers to the questions, "Have you ever threatened either explicitly or implicitly to file a lawsuit or any other form of legal proceeding in this matter? If so, have you ever said or implied that you would refrain from or desist from filing such a lawsuit if the person or persons to be named as respondents would reverse their position and unban you from the AWADtalk board?"
Now, let me run of to my BCLD (Bill Clinton Legal Dictionary) to see if I can find what the definition of "is" is. While I'm there I'm going to see if there's a definition of a Full Lewinsky.
I came here almost exactly 2 years ago as a young, somewhat naïve high school student with a passion for language and the beautiful literature that it created. While my intent was to further educate myself, my dad told me to get a social life. Over the past two years, I think I've sufficiently done both. In many ways I feel the same as I did back then, but I can tell that these passings of late have aged me considerably. When this whole affair began I foresaw such an ending as we are facing now, and hoped that it wouldn't be so, but I now have the wisdom to understand that both of my original goals are now futile. The light-hearted intellectual atmosphere is now gone and so are my friends, so I see no motive in making my presence here anymore.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
