|
3166. jexster - 10/9/2008 7:19:42 PM HELP
Would someone delete msg num 37656 in American Politics???
I posted a WaPo video twice by mistake and the second one seems to have frozen the thread
Sorry 3167. judithathome - 10/9/2008 7:50:19 PM Jex, Magos is gone for the day...I can call her later, though. 3168. jexster - 10/9/2008 8:09:31 PM Better you than me..I've a bone to pick with Mags who dared to interrupt my Tuesday debate watch..didn't you?
Can you post to AP JAH? How about you Jen?
CAT FIGHT! 3169. magoseph - 10/10/2008 12:05:15 AM Jex, e-mail Wabbit at viwabbit@yahoo.com. 3170. wabbit - 10/11/2008 10:16:55 PM By the time I saw this, the thread had scrolled past the point of having a problem (although it actually wasn't a problem for me, the second video just kept loading, but nothing froze). Still, thanks for the heads-up, I deleted the duplicate post. It would have given me a headache when I next archived posts. 3171. wonkers2 - 12/13/2008 9:50:55 PM VK and others have observed that now there is less serious discussion and opinion posted on The Mote than previously. It occurs to me that increasing the permitted number of words in a single post on all threads or on certain threads might encourage more serious discussion. I've run up against the per post word limit several times and had to break my comment into two or three posts. On other occasions I've just not bothered to post something that I wanted to cut and paste from another source (a w2 letter to the editor, for example). Right now I have a long one on a bit of auto industry history that I was going to post until I realized it was too long. ??? [This is not intended as a complaint but rather a suggestion. I don't know what the thinking was/is behind the per post word limit.] 3172. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 12:11:15 AM Is it true that Jexter has been banned? If so, I would like to know by whom this decision was made and the reasoning behind it. My impression is that there are plenty of participants who disagree? Wabbit????...Anybody else???... If Jexter has been banned I hereby object strongly. 3173. David Ehrenstein - 1/6/2009 1:04:42 AM Me too. WTF?????
Where's Jex? Let him roam free! 3174. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 2:25:52 AM I agree. And I didn't see any announcement on The Mote? I wonder what gives? Is wabbit another Sister Aloysius Beauvier? Where are you Wabbit? Come out of your hole! 3175. arkymalarky - 1/6/2009 2:46:29 AM MsNo and I are moderators. Get down off your soapbox and email him if you want to know where he is. 3176. arkymalarky - 1/6/2009 2:50:33 AM If Wabbit or either of us makes such a move you'll figure it out a lot faster if you just check with Jex. 3177. wabbit - 1/6/2009 3:09:53 AM That decision was made by me. We've been through this over and over and over. Enough already. I explained my rational well over a month ago, as you well know, and I said then there would be no announcement. You don't like it? Too bad. This forum is more than Jexster and he does not get to gloat about running people out of the forum. Miss that, did you? Again, too bad. He's been given every opportunity and he has consistently continued to display no sense of community or regard for this place. Feel free to help him set up a blog where he can post what he wants and "roam free", but he's done here.
This place has been created and maintained by volunteer effort from the start. People have been asked many times to help out, and nobody wants to do it because it's a thankless task. I blame myself for allowing Jexster to get away with being a troll for years, and since it was my fault, it is also my responsibility. And now it's a done deal.
I've explained this until I'm blue in the face. Complain all you want, but I will not explain it again. 3178. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 3:26:45 AM Bye, Bye! I couldn't disagree more. I gave you credit for a lot more than you deserve. 3179. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 3:31:02 AM You have acted in a very petty, intolerant and dictatorial way, contrary to the wishes of a significant number of participants. Are you familiar with the word consensus. I didn't detect any consensus beyond the continual crybaby VK who whines a lot and contributes little. I beg you to reconsider this very disappointing and counter-productive decision. The politics thread has been much less interesting lately thanks to your decision. 3180. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/6/2009 3:38:02 AM Who did he run out and gloat over? 3181. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 4:00:51 AM Okay, the decision was made by you, but not announced so far as I could tell scrolling and reading back through the Inferno. You complained at length vociferously about Jexter, but so far as I can tell you never announced that you were cutting him off. That was pretty sneaky IMHO on your part. You left no doubt about your irritation with Jexter, but if you ever said you were expelling him from the Mote, despite the many people who came to his defense, I was not able to find it. Most dictatorial and undemocratic. Not a good way to encourage commaraderie and good feelings among a group of people who I have come to view as my friends. You are making a big mistake in my opinion which will not enhance the future of this little forum. You have banned an active long time participant out of your own pique and that of several former (JJ)and infrequent (VK and Jenerator) participants. And in doing so you have made my favorite thread, Politics, much less interesting. You may not give a rat's ass about what's happening in Gaza or Washington, or Minnesota, aside from the Vikings, but others of us do. And Jex was a source of plenty of interesting information and political commentary. Jenerator and JJ didn't like it because the are right wingers politically and VK for his own nitpicking reasons. I have participated in a fair number of forums and in every case there are wide variations in the quality of the posts and in the opinions expressed, but everybody seems to live with this. I've never seen anyone banished from participating although I don't doubt that it happens occasionally. From what I gather you are in the driver's seat, capable of doing whatever you want even to the point of taking done the site, but you should be able to see that what you want is not in all cases the same as what other people want and that failing to take into account the wishes of others does not benefit the future of our little group. 3182. vonKreedon - 1/6/2009 4:44:27 AM Volume if not the same as quality and indeed can be a bar to quality. Linking is not the same thing as thinking. Combining a large volume of linking combined with infantile insulting may be interesting to a few here, but it may also be the reason that there are few here.
3183. wonkers2 - 1/6/2009 5:16:54 AM That is very true. But I suggest you should scroll past the links if you already have all the information you need on a particular subject. I often do that but just as often I click on them and sometimes find pearls and sometimes turds. You never can tell. I don't think its much of a burden on anyone to scroll past a link. They don't take up much time or space. I frequently post links in lieu of making the argument in my own words or by paraphrasing the particlar piece by Paul Krugman, or someone else whose views I respect. I find it hard to understand why you find that offensive. I agree with you on "infantile insults." They don't add to our sense of mutual respect. However, the rants or flames have been much less prevalent here than on losts of other forums, e.g. Slate, Huffington Post and my local newspaper. There is apparently something about the Internet that breeds insulting commentary. I try to point my nasty insults at political figures rather than fellow Moties for the most part, unless I find their comments totally unacceptable. My current objection is twofold: 1. We need greater participation, not less. We will reduce, not increase our participation by banning current participants and 2. I object to wabbit's unannounced decision to X Jex. It didn't appear to me at the time that she lost her temper at Jex and when she and you and I and others were discussing the issue, that there was a consensus on a solution to the problems/issues or whatever you want to call them. I don't recall anyone BUT wabbit suggesting that Jex be banned from the Mote. It strikes me that what she did was out of pique and a personal power trip which was not in the interest of future of The Mote whose days appear to me may well be numbered. That's a shame because I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of the forum, both from individuals with whom I usually agree and from those with whom I nearly always disagree. However, I have never supported that anyone be banished from the forum. 3184. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/6/2009 7:00:29 AM Jexster pushes boundaries and steps on toes--it's in his nature-- but I have no trouble tolerating it because I find him interesting Vk, Jexster has been gone for a while now and you've contributed nothing but boilerplate and disapproval. You're like some lurking albatross who swoops down to criticize at every opportunity. Links are ways of saying: Check this out! And they keep people informed.
I'm also vexed because I still can't seem to discover what jexster did this time to merit permanent banishment, but it's certainly wabbit's prerogative to do so. As for needing volunteers, I've been around a long time and i've never been asked to help with a thread.
This boat is sinking and and it's sad, but maybe inevitable. At this point we all seem to know what to expect from everyone else and that can get dreary. The ennui is beyond palpable and it's getting a lot harder to even care what happens here.
3185. magoseph - 1/6/2009 9:32:28 AM Like Alistair here Message # 2027 in thread 147, I thought that Jexster would be back after the inauguration.
|
