Howdy, mav! Good to see ya back!

Your Happy Epeolatrist!

yes, dear aunty mav.. i just said that to get Jackie's dander up.-- everyone know, it Dear Mr. Bingley for me!its wonderful to have you back.

I leave it to others to judge whether Max's reference to me was mature comment or was a preevish throw-in.

Ding!

Ding!

Dong!

Just goes to show you, folks, that you don't need swearing to be abusive. Ken, why don't you give it a rest. We are so tired of you always pointing your finger, jumping up and down and yelling "See...Seee...They're picking on me again", when, in fact, you will edit your posts to look like you have said nothing abrasive, you will take what other people say out of context and point to it as bullying,...I could go on. It really is a shame because you have been a great poster until you decided you must also be God of the Board. BTW, haremgirls, I used to be his friend too, but I have had enough of his rudeness and bullying. I am not the only one that feels this way. What I will do is quote you, Ken.

I am not saying he is wrong, nor am I saying he is right. I simply feel that this Board is not the place to be voicing these thoughts or to vent so much.
I think that one of the reasons that this Board thrives with so many divergent personalities is that we have, by and large, decided to keep our pet hates to ourselves, unless they are word-related. I hope that everybody will see the advantages of continuing such a practice.

Hi, Connie!

Actually, I think that language was my quotation of Max, so let's give him the credit.

And Connie, I think you'll find I've been reasonably consistent about objecting to rude language, whether it is directed at me or at others. If you would wish the responses to be fewer, perhaps you should wish the rudenesses to be fewer. Indeed, if you were to look at some of the more extreme recent threads you will find that I let quite a bit go without response. [cites available by PM if you wish.]

[Edit, 4 minutes later: Connie, would you please be so good as to PM me an example of my supposed "rudeness and bullying" on this board?]

On February 21, 2002, Keiva informed me that he was going to "nuke" the board and it was not open to discussion. I guess that is what he is doing now. I am very disappointed in you, Ken.

Did I, CP? If so, why did I do nothing of the sort for over a month?

February 21, 2002
And I quote:

Ken says:
4) nuke is pending.
Connie says:
I ask you please not to.
Ken says:
5) that's warning.
This is not offered to you for discussion. I will do whatever seems to me right.
Ken says:
nothing will be done precippitously or imminently.

Is that citation enough? Or do you want more?

I think that with your last quoted sentence you've proven MY point, Connie, not yours. I had hoped to prod you into taking an active role as a peacemaker, but the hope was unavailing.

Oh connie, look at this I had hoped to prod you into taking an active role as a peacemaker, but the hope was unavailing.

Sound to me, like some one held a gun to your head, said do as i say, or it will all be your fault. But hey that's him being nice. after all, this person decide they knew best, and as self appointed judge jury and exicutioner, the want you to be one of the hang men.

guess you and are lucky, we only got nice message from this person. I am glad you keep yours, unfortunately, i trash mail from some people, unopened. and i did a clean out a few weeks ago, and deleted the old posts as well.

any one is entitled to hold any opinion of other posters. but some new members, might want to ask themselves, why is it, that 30 or so regular posters, who can't agree on anything else, all manage to agree that one person is a disruptive influence.

it could be all 30 of us are wrong, and the 10 or so newer poster are right, but, at one point, i had the same opinion as the new posters. and no one on this board sent me warnings, or tried to poison my opinion, (in fact, the other has occured, some tried to convince me to give the guy one more chance.) I did sent several PM, when upset, that could be considered attempts at poisoning someone views. that person called me on, i stopped, and apologied, and we now have an OK relationship.

I think that with your last quoted sentence you've proven MY point, Connie, not yours.

...and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing

might ask themselves why is it, that 30 or so regular posters all manage to agree that one person is a disruptive influence.

-- or might ask themselves why it is that said regular members are unwilling or unable to cite factual support for their views.
-- or might ask themselves what the views would be of previous members who, having received nastiness*, are not longer with us or are posting far less than before.

Have we a selected sample, Helen, one from which some members have driven out or cowed the voices that might disagree with you? That's a factual question, on which you and I may reach differing conclusions -- but would you agree that it's a question that merits mature consideration?

PS: dear Helen, would that we had as many as 30 regular posters.

would that we had as many as 30 regular posters.

This didn't take any more than 5 minutes:

1 myself
2 Jackie
3 tsuwm
4 Max Q
5 CK
6 Faldage
7 AnnaS
8 of troy
9 wow
10 wwh
11 RubarbCommando
12 jmh
13 belM
14 Bingley
15 W'ON
16 Bean
17 maverick
18 consuelo
19 Ted Remington
20 caradea
21 hev
22 musick
23 Sparteye
24 stales
25 The Fallable Fiend
26 Wordwind
27 Flatlander
28 belligerentyouth
29 Fiberbabe
30 GallantTed

and that's not even complete.

What the hell is it with you and "factual support"? Try to follow this sequence of events: You post something. It pisses me off.

Bean, I simply am asking what it is that I said that is in anyway improper, and ought reasonably to "piss you off".

Surely you don't believe that when you (or anyone else) calls me (or anyone else) names, I am not entitled to disagree, provided I disagree politely? I would think that's that's an elementary principle of rational discussion -- please correct me if I'm wrong on that -- and I simply ask you where IYHO I violated it.

What do you think we have, a little Keiva-diary listing all the times you've annoyed us?
Bean, if you have a good reason for being annoyed -- as opposed to personal animus -- then how difficult could it be to LIU?

[Edit: Jazzo, am sending you a PM.]

Cheers, mate.

Thanks for the warm welcome Max, and for all who have pm'd - hope I have nearly replied to all now, but if not I'll do a complete public display of the private correspondence at the weekend ;)

The strange aberrations over unopenable threads continues with other variations thrown in as well – can it really be cookies in a new Windows XP installation?! Ugh. Oh, btw, it’s interesting how different the appearance of this site is on this posh little TFT monitor – colo(u)r rendition seems quite markedly changed, but hey, it’s probably still some cranky corners of this mountain of new software I am struggling to come to terms with!

Since, as you note, I seem to have stepped back in time to another lawyer-inspired flame war, can I just share the thought with everyone that like a cocktail party, the only way out is to ignore the guest you find offensive. Or have you all struggled to do that and it *still goes on and on, through the thousands of posts I have not yet read!?

Welcome back Mav. Hope your flak jacket, helmet and gas mask are in good order. There's shrapnel and a foul smell in I&A these days ...

welcome back, mav! amazing about the unopenable threads ~ perhaps you should search the treeware for reference to an autorunning IMG* filter... and then send me the applicable .exe and .dlls so that i can install it once again enjoy the board.

re your cocktail party reference, just put it into this light:

pretend the "guest" in question has peed in the punchbowl.




*supply your own acronym; there're plenty that fit

Connie, a quiet reply to you. I wouldn't bring this up, but for the fact that mav brought it up in his "fastuous git" thread.

You'll recall that on February 19 a rather heavy barrage of f-bombs rained upon my head (spammer thread). By your own statement, the conversation you quote was two days later; the later cannot be the cause or justification of the earlier. Non post hoc, ergo non proper hoc.

In that context, what you quote is pretty clear. I was understandable hurt and offended by the f-bombs, but I had the good sense to talk out my anger with a purported friend, instead of putting it on the board. Wouldn't you say that's a remarkably restrained attitude -- and that it contrasts with those who did vent their anger on the board?

[Aside: Connie, don't you recall that we had agreed months previously, in our conversations, that all we talked about -- your hurts, quite as much as mine -- would be strictly confidential?]

Let go of my hair, you are hurting my neck. And get your face out of my face. I don't care how quietly you say you are replying, your reply would have better been sent by PM and you know it. Jackie, here's another thread it seems needs a lock on it. Sorry to subject you to this, folks.

i love ya, connie =)

[clap e]

Connie, you know full well that I have sent you several notes, to which you refused to reply. It is grossly misleading to berate me for not communicating with you by PM.

And since you made your charge publicly (in red, no less), indeed without preceding it by PM, how can you object that I want the same public that heard you to hear my response? Is your notion that you are entitled to speak, but I am not entitled to respond?

A bit more temperate please, gal.

Post deleted by me. I sent it off to Connie directly.

I'm sorry I answered in this thread. I wanted to console a friend and I responded incorrectly. Not incorrectly as to the content of my response, but incorrectly because I did not consider the fact that it would generate a response from sombody I have publicly said I did not wish to deal with anymore.

Please excuse me everybody.

bel, I'd ask that you read a bit more carefully.

First, you are ignoring all of my comment other than the white "aside". That is not the meat of the matter.

But as to that side point: I've been quite clear on that my position is that communications are not automatically privileged, merely because the sender wants them to be. That does not bar the recipient from agreeing to confidentiality -- and when the recipient has made that agreement, he or she durn well ought to honor it.

Indeed, bel, I as a lawyer could be severely censured if I broke a confidentiality agreement. I take such things seriously, as part of my professional obligations, and I do not think they should be trivialized.

Connie, your words were strong and heartening - good on you "gal" ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Whatever is said, the dog returns to his sick. Some might think this is a sign not just of abusive behaviour but of serious mental illness.

I will repeat publicly what I have already said to the administrator privately: the only issue is how many people will desert this board due to the malicious and foul pollution in the cocktail, before the inevitable ban on the perpetrator is put into effect.

Maverick, I see lots of colorful words in your post, but I am unable to find a single factual claim or reasoned argument to which to respond.

On what ground to you think I should be "banned"? Can you point to anything I have done in this discussion other than simply respond, temperately, to what Connie et al. had to say? Is your notion that responses and responders with which you disagree should be censored or banned?

Edit: mav, have you not been a strong opponent of censorship, as I recall (though I did not yet LIU), when your own remarks were challenged?

what exactly is s/h/it® & clones wanting to achieve here?

I do wish to
say that I joined this board because Keiva highly recommended it, and because he spoke highly of you all.
Keiva is a passionate individual - and it seems he may have simply had his buttons pushed beyond his limit.

Really? Well this should open your eyes. I have been staying away from the board for a while for various reasons but an email received this morning awakened me to the latest problems on the board. As much as I abhor and protest against the publication of personal messages and email I have decided to publish, in full, a complete, unabridged and unsolicited PM I received from Keiva after a particularly nasty incident last August. I have never PM'd Keiva nor have I ever responded to him and yet he comes up with the following flaming words of his own accord. That, my dears, is a true sign of an irrational mind and one which is, if only in my humble opinion, in need of some serious mental help. Clearly he was intent only on destroying the board from day 1 and he has been touting for potential apprentices ever since. He seems, clearly, to have found some over the past few months.

All emphasis is as it was in the original PM.

Quote begins:

Rubrick, don't leave just yet.
I'm newer than you -- and I agree with you in spades -- and I intend to give them hell!

Work with me -- or at least, watch, grin, and see what develops.

Please send me a PM, to let me know you got this before you departed into the mists.

End quote.

Nobody was pushing his buttons back in late August when he sent me this.

I come here for words, fun and interaction with a knowledgeable, intelligent international community. I certainly didn't come here to bash others on the board but if you want to call me a Keiva-basher, then so be it. However, by supplying what Mr. Keiva values so highly, I think the facts speak for themselves.

FYI, I never perceive anyone as being a clone of anyone else on the board. We may all be influenced by others but I believe the individuality still remains. However, I must say that I, amongst many, have had quite enough of the distructive methods of Keiva and do not wish to view his hurtful, spiteful, belligerent words on this forum again.

Let's stop this now, please.

It is only fair
Well, I had asked that the going back and forth be stopped, and I see that the least-restrictive method has not worked. As I wrote to someone earlier today, my style has always been to make suggestions, thus giving people the power to decide on their own what to do. Like most doctors try (I think) to do with prescriptions, I want to start with the lightest, least-invasive technique first, and only get more serious if that fails. I am still very reluctant to take steps than only an administrator can take, so I will ask once again that this be stopped.
I will, however, respond, since I am making a post anyway. As I posted before, I will do my best to do what Anu has asked me to do: return this board to the kind and gentle place it used to be. And if, in that attempt, I am unfair, then so be it. I do indeed take this job very seriously, and will carry it out to the best of my ability despite the rather high personal cost. Anu has indicated that he trusts my judgment in this matter.

Quotes on this board, in the past, have been taken out of context

I'm newer than you -- and I agree with you in spades -- and I intend to give them hell!

Work with me -- or at least, watch, grin, and see what develops.

The context is very clear and I have not misquoted. What more facts do you need?!

By now everyone must know that you have banned Keiva from this site

FYI I did not know that Keiva was banned as, I explain again, I have been away from the board. However, I now jump for joy and I'll drink a celebratory pint knowing that someone as hurtful, spiteful, low-down and conniving as him can hurt no-one on this board anymore. The pain, discord, suffering and acrimony he has caused is finally a thing of the past and we can go back to discussing words in harmony. Keiva has had his say and there is no need for him to reply to my post with his smarmy double-talk. My feelings for him are well expressed and any more words from him will just concrete these feelings further. You may be a friend of his but the feeling is not mutual. Stand up for him all you want but you will not change my opinion so why waste your energy? I do not speak for anyone on this board but myself but I feel that there is almost mutual consent amongst us about that person. Good riddance to him.

That's all I have to say. Don't bother replying to me or PM'ing as I really couldn't be bothered replying, let alone reading, anymore on the subject.

HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE! HE'S GONE!

May I humbly suggest that prolonging this post is not in the best interests of the Board.