| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Rich
Commander-in-Chief
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 07 2005 : 10:07:45 AM
|
For far too long I have allowed a certain member to run amok on these message boards. Gave him far too much rope.
This is not one man's private playground. The rest of the posters are not to be his toys.
I have cleaned up most of his mess - though quoted passages remain - and banned him from using the board.
His arrogance, condescending attitude, slurs, & libelous behavior contribute little to intelligent debate & discussion.
I apologize for allowing it to go on for so long. It will not happen again.
|
Rich/Forum Administrator |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 09 2005 : 9:05:04 PM
|
I, for one, will miss Warlords informative and very credible posts. His enthusiasm and eagerness toward formulating a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this battle were exemplified by his dedication toward "truth." He utilized facts rather than personal theories with no merit.
Disgusted by the subtle but,nonetheless,devious and unfounded accusations of a particularly antagonist he, perhaps, over reacted; albeit understandably so.
It is my opinion that Warlord is the product of a culture wherein true men possess lofty standards that may not be infringed upon or challenged. To do so invites a wrathful and furious response. I belong to that same genre. In other words, no "man" calls another "man" a liar unless it is done face to face. For some, the word liar is as offensive as any adjective used by Warlord!
The personal, unsubstantiated, callous, and demeaning allegations proffered by one individual for over a year ultimately culminated in Warlords cacophonous responses. These unprovoked and unsubstantiated outrages by this individual were met by a passivity that, to this day, I do not comprehend. The outrageousness of this individual's comments created an arena that facilitated Warlord's unacceptable usage of certain verbiage.
Yes I will miss him, am I the only one to do so?
Did Warlord exceed a social boundary in his responses? Yes! Was he the only member to do? A resounding No! Should not the other contributor to this sad state of affairs receive a similar Justice? |
  |
|
|
Rich
Commander-in-Chief
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 12:37:02 PM
|
You know, Joe, I agree with you ... to a point. This offender's posts could often be interesting and knowledgeable. He had the potential to add something positive to these forums. That is one reason I let it go for so long.
I had hoped that maybe peer pressure, or his own sense of right & wrong, might eventually stay the course. It didn't.
I have to disagree, though, about it being about a "particular antagonist". As I went through the posts - with the original intention of simply deleting certain offending comments, it readily became apparent that this person seemed to rather enjoy bullying other posters - plural - and putting them down. He was extremely sarcastic, belligerent, and crude, often obscene. It had to stop. Many people wrote to me of this ... others said they could no longer post here being of the hostile atmosphere.
Hey, you do not have to be a researcher or accomplished historian to post here. You merely have to be interested in the topics at hand. Many have become intimidated by the atmosphere. That is not the purpose of this board ... to include only "intellectuals." No, he was not the only one, but Warlord was certainly, in my opinion, far and away the worst & most persistent offender.
That was not the step I would want to have made, but it became a matter of no other sensible choice. For the record, to this point, I have not received a single E-mail stating that I made the wrong choice. Every E-mail to date has been supportive of that decision. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 04 2005 : 11:12:14 AM
|
Wouldn't it be nice that every time we met someone, we didn't like, we could send them to another 'space' until they understood the 'rules and expectations' of our 'space?' Is not one of the problems with 'exiling' something or someone from the status quo environment, silence?
Silence, more often than not, offers no clues or solutions or possibilities for solutions. This site appears to be concerned with gleaning and recognizing possible solutions to predicaments that befell the 7th at the LBH through participation in forum discussion. All participants have been invited no matter their level of expertise and that, hopefully, attracts 'all walks of life' who want to share their voice on the subject even though they may not have a flare for using a good 'flow of words' in stating their interested aspects in the subject.
I don't condone Warlord's 'attacking face' he used in rebutting an opinion and the manner in which he could offend a poster in flagrant discussion. My first experiences with him raised my eyebrows as I groped to understand the site and its rules and tolerations. No person should ever be shown flagrant disrespect in these forums. Such behavior should be penalized, I feel, by censure for a 'board majority' approved specified amount of time, i.e. a week, a month, or whatever. The specifics of what 'flagrant disrespect' entails must be spelled out in detail also, i.e. cussing, obvious inuendos, racial and prejudicial slurs, etc. An easy venue to envision? yes. An easy venue to monitor and run? no.
You obviously have done a great job allowing latitude of personality and expertise to mix and reside in this 'community.' However, the banning of Warlord has the appearance, and I mean this respectfully, of a 'few' voices intimidating your decision of removal. His sacrifice may have silenced a few of the 'tattletalers' and 'winers' and given them more latitude for their opinions, but it has cost the site the loss of an interesting individual, a provocative and informed 'voice,' an avenue of enlightning perspectives, and another source of opinion that a site like this needs to invigorate and entice participation.
Severe and flagrant condescending behavior must be addressed. Ramifications of non-appliance must be clear. An unwillingness to abide, after being personally asked by you, should then result in banishment. If this wasn't the case, it is too bad for the site.
In raising my kids, and when they got to that certain age, certain rules had to always remain in place. My kids were extremely honorable and respectful and still are, but all kids have their temptations as they grope their way through life and especially when they are seniors in high school. When they seemed to be getting near that 'trapped' feeling, great discussion moments were spent making sure we were all on the same 'page' and in agreement on certain home rules. It was understood, hence, that establishing their own rules would constitute their living under their own roof and all the advantages and disadvantages that accompany such independence. No drawn out fights or rude and uncomfortable moments were needed to establish this line of communication. It is about communication as this site is.
The loss of a single voice is never without cost or sacrifice, evident in the 'silence' of many
other 'voices' on this site. I would hope that 'silencing' future 'voices' is not the way of this board; I hope that keeping the 'line of communication' open to its last breath is the optimistic approach of the future. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
No More!
