[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Bogus



>From: Stuart Pittman <stoo@CAE.COM>
>Subject: Bogus
>
>Sherrif Kevin in VT re:

Nope. Only one sheriff in this town, and his name is Paul.  
Nice tally of some of my recent quotes.  Seems you're keeping a list?  
Taken out of contents they seem to paint a different picture than the
original intent (the "bitch slap" comment was using Kevin mc's own words,
and was an invitation to talk politics off list.  "Bitch slap" = political
opinion).  But, I'm sure you are aware of that.

>Kevin, take your own advice and "chill". 

Yes, it's good advice for us all.

>I know there's not much snow this winter 

We're getting our share.  3 feet of freshie at Jay just last week.

>but maybe you can find another alternative instead of swaggering around
with 
>and elephant gun.  

I'm neither swaggering nor have an elephant gun.

>Are you not a believer in free speech?

Absolutely.  I'm also a believer in the value of peer pressure, in being a
motivation to try and get folk to get along, and also in educating new
arrivals on the various non-discussed side effects of participating on a
list like this.  No need making Paul the heavy all the time.

>If those rules are meant to be followed then they require a drastic
>re-write.
>They exist but are never adhered to. 

Well since Paul has established the rules, it's probably not my place to
comment on them.
But, I disagree with the above statement.

>I recall a regulation stating the limit
>of posts a subscriber can make while the majority of digests that I receive

>amusingly contain about 60% of posts from the same person. 

Hmmmm, this seems strangely familiar.  Haven't I heard this complaint
repeatedly on another list regarding a specific person??  Hmmmmmmmmm, how
ironic.

>Now, according to you, the rules apply because you personally think it's
necessary. 

Well, I've never stated that.  You certainly are jumping to some conclusions
here.  But, you're also not totally wrong.  Society definitely needs rules.
Hmmm, is that why society *has* rules??
Regarding this list (yes, a social microcosm), I believe Paul is perfectly
justified in setting some perimeters to try and make this list an enjoyable
place for all, not just the few who at times like to come in and troll
around.  And there have been trolls.  And, there *have* been  folk banned
from igtc, granted not in quite some time and not many, but... (If I'm wrong
about that, than I've been misinformed).    And!, I understand fully the
long standing philosophical differences between the lists regarding rules.
Hmmm, again with the irony. 

>Below are 
>*your own words* when discussing list relevancy in posts:
>>"Who set these rules???  Where is this written???  And further more, who
>>cares?"

My, aren't you keeping a close eye on me.  Took offense at something I wrote
about you recently?  BUT, I seem to recall that the above words were *NOT*
pertaining to the rules that Paul has set for this list.  
So, nice misrepresentation by you.  
If they were about this list, I'm a moron because I know that Paul "set
these <list> rules".  While I don't have the time to re-do your research,
I'd be mighty interested to hear the real truth regarding what the above
statements were pertaining to.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't regarding
music or something related to music.  Feel free to share off-list, but if
you must try and prove your point here, I can't stop you.

>The hypocrisy can smack a person in the face.

It can, when it exists. In this case, it doesn't.
 
>Chill out, dude. Smoke some bowls...

Again, good advise for us all.

>"Don't enter the cage waving chairs"

And if you do, make sure you're not distorting the truth to serve your own
self interests.


A message to the list (if you're still reading. Couldn't blame you if you
weren't):
 
I am motivated to get this list back to where it once was.  IGTC has always
been one of the safest lists to participate in.  A true joy to be a member
of, and setting the paces to the approval of a hundred faces.  Since 9/11
there have been several "senior" Who fans who refuse to participate due to
the type of back-biting, name calling, insults leveling, off topic
discussions that we have seen lately.  I find this a shame, and am frankly
very saddened by this.  While I *am* motivated, I realize very clearly that
it is not my place to be a referee or sheriff. I don't want to be that, at
all. But, with that said, *I* for one would rather hear a complaint about me
from my fellow listers, than hear it from the list owner.
I have been trying to educate on-list some of the new folk who have joined
us.  I, for one, never received such an education and as a result found
myself in an awkward situation once (Dan in Texas, do you still read???)
when I personally met someone at a pre-show gathering who I had had stiff
political "words" with.  I, due to my newness, wasn't aware of the *whole*
picture.  The whole picture is that yes, you may be in a different part of
the country or world now, but you also may not be at some point.
Are we *really* so safe on the grid?  I'm not so sure.  We all participate
here with a large degree of trust in each other.  It wouldn't be difficult
at all for someone to harm us if motivated. Again, a shame but a reality.

Since writing the statements that Stoo has so dutifully researched, I've had
the pleasant opportunity to discuss all of this with one of the "new" people
off-list (I was approached).  There was genuine understanding of my
motivations, and appreciation of the information.  And, I am looking forward
to hopefully sharing some Who-time with said person this summer.

Humbly, Kevin in VT