Posted by Lou PIlder on July 12, 2013, at 15:55:22
In reply to Re: the big picture, posted by Dr. Bob on July 11, 2013, at 9:50:14
> > Is there some reason you can't or won't just come out and say you aren't willing to moderate any more?
> >
> > gardenergirl
>
> > Are you saying that you don't intend to do anything with posts like the ones that have been brought to your attention?
> >
> > If you say that you think those rules are fine under the existing rules, we can decide what to do.
> >
> > If you say they may not be but you have no intention of enforcing existing rules (and also have no intention of clarifying the new ones), then we can decide what to do.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Sorry about being cryptic. I know I get that way sometimes.
>
> I'm willing to moderate.
>
> When I'm notified of posts, I'm enforcing existing rules and responding either on the board or to the posters who notified me. One exception is that I think right now it may be good for this community as a whole, and for me, to leave some of Lou's notifications outstanding.
>
> --
>
> > > Perhaps something related to legal advice or action of some sort?
> >
> > This is what I am thinking.
> >
> > - Scott
>
> > What seems to baffle us is why would someone with consummate power to make and change the rules ever be stuck?
> >
> > Toph
>
> > You sound a bit peeved, now. Did the mirror stung a little bit?
> >
> > gardenergirl
>
> 10der asked before what I meant by "the old model". Another aspect of it was relying on the power to define and enforce boundaries for acceptable behavior. That was how the administration made this a refuge.
>
> It's tempting to turn to power and, I suppose, fear. As a response and as an explanation: if what I'm doing doesn't make sense, maybe someone else is more powerful or making me feel afraid.
>
> A mirror is an alternative to power (or maybe a different kind of power). I confess I've tried a mirror, with the hope that it might sting a little.
>
> --
>
> > > Do you ever find yourself between a rock and a hard place? What do you do then?
> >
> > All the time.
> > I go underground, surrender.
> > It's a battle you can't fight.
> > There's no winning.
>
> > If I can't solve a problem, I just accept it, and make a decision in my best interest.... Hopefully
> > Like for instance,
> > Not reading Lou's posts
> > Not because I care all that much, I do, a little, but there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
> >
> > sleepygirl2
>
> > OMgosh, you rock, gg!!
> >
> > This whole post is *precisely* what I've been wanting to say for days/weeks.
> >
> > Why I couldn't be so clear beats me, but it doesn't matter who does it, and now you have captured the essence - thank you, thank you!
> >
> > 10derheart
>
> > Thanks. One of Dinah's recent posts helped these thoughts come together for me. Still a good team. :)
> >
> > gg
>
> That's what I'm thinking, too. There's no winning. But maybe surrender isn't the only other choice.
>
> 1. I can make a decision in my best interest, or the best interest of Babble.
>
> 2. And if there are others with me between that rock and that hard place, maybe together we can learn ways to cope and find the energy to persevere.
>
> BobFriends,
It is written her,
[...I am enforcing existing rules...one exception...it may be good for this community as a whole to leave {some} of Lou's posts outstanding...].
Be advised, my friends, that this has historical parallels. The danger here to readers I am prevented from posting here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr Hsiung.
You see, the posts that Mr Hsiung will leave outstanding are not specified as to which type of post will be allowed to remain outstanding. He does say that it {will be} good for this community as a whole for him to do that. Now that could mean that there is some precedent that Mr Hsiung is relying on to state such a claim that it {will be} good. Now the historical record shows what has happened when there are two standards in a community for Mr Hsiung states that he will enforce the rules {except} in Lou's case for {some} of his notifications.
Now we do not know which posts belong in the set of {some} of Lou's notifications. And we do not know what the magnitude of what {some} could mean. Could it be that just a few notifications are not going to be responded to? Could it mean that 99% of the notifications from me are not going to be responded to? And what about the years of outstanding notifications from me? And what about the outstanding notifications from when he posted this? And what good could it be for this community to leave {any} notification outstanding? And how could a mother trying to make a more-informed decision as to drug their child or not in collaboration with a psychiatrist/doctor make the best decision if there are posts that if my notification was acted on helped the parent make the best decision? And how many years must a notification exist, before a notification is honored? And how many times can a statement stand, before it is said to be bad? The answer, my friends, is that Mr Hsiung says it may be good for this community as a whole, for Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and it may be good for the community to see my posts not responded to, which could lead some readers to think what is allowed to stand is supportive since it is not acted on. I wonder what type of mind a person could have here that wants to be in concert with Mr Hsiung in this not responding to my posts here. You see, the argument that it {will be} good for the community as a whole is the same argument to justify infanticide, it is the same argument to justify genocide, it is the same argument to justify slavery, it is the same argument to justify segregation, it is the same argument to justify discrimination. It is nothing new, my friends, it is an old argument, and I can't accept it, for I have seen what two standards can do to people in a community that allows it to be fostered.
Lou
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:1046456
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130702/msgs/1047079.html