Quote:


Half the time people do intend to leave, the biggest mistake they make is sticking round to see whats said, but i've seen worse. i've seen people fake their own death online.

Quote:


My comment was more concerning the comments place on the forum not the comments themselves or the incidents surrounding them.

Quote:


People do argue, I see it all the time, most of the time its stupid, petty and plain boring, which is why I prefer debate and to stick more to the middle rather than one side or another. Personally I prefer debate to argument, argument is pointless since it always ends up going round and round in circles.

TBH I think what I would have preferred to see from the original post would have been a more constructive and useful assesment of Linn's medium abilities rather than the verbal assasination, given the topic of the post it would have been more useful to the original poster as well.

Quote:


I feel i owe it to those, who i respect to reply to them, it's the only reason im sticking around on these last few threads and not departing now.

Quote:


I did state useful facts in my post, such things as - the type of bunce i got was 'are you having problems with a female member of the family' etc.

oh, yeah..how one we are and how glorious it feels.
i personally decided i definitely prefer the venom of a snake to the venom of a flower and i think it is worse to present people venomous flowers than to sleep with snakes..i really can be with chumley and fight all day if necessary than to be in the mercy of....some.

Rob,

That is a good point, but I fear you are wasting your breath.  Allan has already stated earlier that since this is a private commercial site, the participants, even such as you and I who contribute actively to the threads and try to help others on the board are "owed nothing," by the moderators or Bruce.

Although we consider this a community, statements like the above, though legally true, serve us notice about the nature of things here.  I see myself as being quite capable of moderating in an unbiased way.  I know that I would publically chime in on the thread, ask that offensive comments be removed, fire a warning shot as it were, and let all see it as it came.  If my input out in the open were ignored, then I would make my cuts, and put up a post explaining briefly what happened.  That is me.  I also would be the first to admit if my judgement were incorrect.

I don't think that we will have much of an impact on this issue with Allan.  I would like to find a similar website to explore consciousness and the afterlife on, though I would miss some of the participants here. 

For now, things continue on, and Ryanparis' thread denigrating women has been left, untouched, in this off topic forum, while Spitfire's "goodbye chaps," thread was deleted by Allan.  Go figure.


Matthew

Hi Rob Roy AND DocM Iagree with everything you have both written Love and god bless juditha

Or check out the forums i just created.
http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=spitfirev2

Hi All,

I have to disagree. Not with the comments, but with the reaction, perhaps fuelled further by Allen's self-justifying comments.

There does seem to be a little hypocrisy evident. If a post denigrating women is allowed, but one that retorts a critical overview of a person's mediumistic calibre is denied public access by an act of censure, one may feel vindicated in crying 'foul'.

What makes a good forum is 'moderation' by a 'moderator'. That is, a person is charged with the responsibility of applying a consistent balance of judgement and fairness, but above all, a wisdom that perceives the effects of their judgement before the judgement is made. A moderator's decision does not affect whom they moderate against, alone, it affects all members.
It is impossible for a moderator, by the very nature of their responsibility, to single out a individual for exceptional attention. When they advise a individual for some transgression, we all take note as if we ourselves, were that individual. The advice (or warning) pertains to everyone at the same time; and by that knowledge, each member (the moderator hopes) regulates themself to act in accordance to the terms and conditions at the 'sign-up'.

However, going off the 'tyrranny of the majority's' comments appearing on this thread, it does seem that the moderator in question has acted unfairly, even though they thought they were acting within the terms of his/her remit. He /she has failed in consistency. Therein lies the imbalance. The application of censure stands out as 'exceptional', and is a grave error of judgement. This is not to suggest that Spitfire was treated exceptionally, but that the moderator has acted exceptionally; and that is beyond the terms of their remit. What is the way forward?

Compromise! The parties involved all played their part. Acknowledgement of this helps the 'hand of friendship' to bridge the gap of indignance and pride. To err is to be human. To forgive, is to be really humane. Not simply towards others, but more importantly, to oneself.

Regards All