SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 100

Monday, August 8 - 11:40am

Link

Edit

Joe-
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm sorry about not responding in a prompt manner, but have been out of town for the weekend and enjoying life.

You said:

Jody asked "If they are trying to post at SOLO isn't it implied that they 'want' to post here?". The reason I created this policy was because people want to have their cake and eat it. Clearly they all want to keep posting. But once they say they're leaving, there's no intention to be constructive or even civil. They post in order to keep the spotlight on themselves, to try to convince everyone else to leave, or to discredit SOLO, Lindsay, or myself. In other words, they want to leave, but they want to make it into the most dramatic event they can, hopefully doing as much damage as they can in the process.

Joe I understand the reason for you having certain policies(though I think they should probably be stated somewhere other than embedded in a random forum discussion), but I still think the application of this policy toward Barbara is wrong. I never saw her here trying to "have her cake and eat it", "having no intention to be constructive or even civil", or "trying to keep the spotlight on herself". What she was trying to do was respond to posts on a thread where she was still in the center of things. Whether or not I think her decision was/was not rash, she was never uncivil and I believe she always had the best intentions.

Yes, this is your site- your property, and you have the right to do with it what you wish. That also entails the right to fail at this venture. This is an incredible site you have put together and an incredible group of people(even if they don't always get along) and I think what is the best thing to do is not always going to be the categorical implementation of obscure policy. SOLO is a valuable organization. Barbara Branden is a valuable individual and a valuable member to SOLO.

I also want to add that I never spoke for Barbara. The only communication I had with her was the email she sent trying to explain why my questions(directed at James) were not being answered. My posting of her comments were an indication of my frustration: not hers. I initiated the post out of my concerns, not as a mouth-piece for her. I have no idea what her feelings on the topic are. I can only hope she will forgive me for taking public what she sent to me in private.

Brant-
Thank you for your comments regarding this issue.

Post 101

Monday, August 8 - 11:30pm

Link

Edit

Jody,

Barbara Branden is a valuable individual and a valuable member to SOLO.

Maybe this is where we're talking past each other. You seem to think that Barbara hasn't left SOLO, since you use the present tense above. If you believe she hasn't left, I can see why you might think it's wrong to block her posts. And I can see why you'd want an exception to our policy, since you think it might drive her away, or we're somehow forcing her to leave. Only if you believe she hasn't left.

I, on the other hand, saw her write several times that she was leaving. Once she said "I'm gone". Since at any point she could change her mind, I don't see any reason to doubt that she meant it. So I don't think the policy is unfair. It's not driving her away. She was already leaving.

We have some other disagreements, such as whether trying to post repeatedly after leaving is wanting to have her cake and eat it, or whether accusing someone of alcoholism is 'civil'. Those aren't small disagreements, but I don't think that's the major point of contention. I think the big difference is our views of whether Barbara meant it or not.

Brant, I think the false impression was created by Barbara saying she was leaving, and then continuing to post. I don't think I'm under any obligation to allow her posts for the sake of correcting that false impression.

Post 102

Thursday, August 11 - 12:13pm

Link

Edit

Ash:

You are a rock star, and definitely too cool for school! I'm YOUR #1 fan! By my stars and garters, I swear this to be true! There is a drinking date in our future, Disco Queen!

Michael, Kat and Ed:

I really, really like you guys. You absolutely DO NOT have to agree with me for us to get along! My favorite professor in college used to tell me, and I quote, that I am "full of shit." I wish we lived closer so we could bbq, hang out, argue about stuff, and you'd discover what I wish I could successfully convey over the net (evidently I cannot and that new scowling photo doesn't help...)--I'm actually very, very, very, nice. Ask Kat or Andrew Bates...

Robert Malcom:

I ~really~ like your goddamned-out-of-your-mind sense of humor. You sometimes post these oblique tongue in cheek posts that I find to be clever and strange and funny. But that's all I really know about you, other than you have somehow ~avoided~ commenting on whether you're a fan or not...

Jeff, Scott, probably Joe Maurone, and a host of other characters:

We would probably get along great face to face. I can really be a turd when posting sometimes, and about 2x a year, I have to make a concious effort at benevolence, and to actually take the boomerang test: how would I react if my own words were directed back at me. I fail too often. Sorry if I am too big a jackass.

Post 103

Thursday, August 11 - 10:40pm

Link

Edit

Scott wrote:

I'm actually very, very, very, nice. Ask Kat or Andrew Bates...

Now that's BS Scott and you know it. You're generous, hospitable, funny and have a keen sense of how to ogle hotties without letting the woman dining with you know you're doing it. You're not nice - that's so TOC - you're great fun.

Look out Ash. Soak up the pressure Meghan.

Post 104

Friday, August 12 - 1:13pm

Link

Edit

Well, if Ramblin' Robert is an example of what TOC is about, then I could probably use a dose.

I swear to goodness, I get more girl-crazy every year--was it the Greek beer, or what? It was wall to wall hot chicks in that joint!

Post 105

Friday, August 12 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

Anyway, Joe, the matter is moot.

--Brant