It's supposed to be where we vent. I for one am not willing to give moderators a pass on behavior I don't approve of. Running off valuable posters by abusing moderator status is not something that should be condoned. Robert and the other moderators are free to lock me out if they are as offended by my freedom of speech as they were of Gary's.
While I'll concede Robert did not intend to speak as moderator, his initial words did not convey that and there is no evidence Gary ever read his clarification on flame. Do you really think it's unreasonable as much as Gary has complained about failure to moderate based on habitablezone basic principles for him to get offended at being told to shutup by a supposed moderator over something he felt was a reasonable statement? That certainly comes across as arbitrary and unevenhanded to me. Robert's initial comment to Gary came across to me as Robert will be hands off if he doesn't care about a topic but he will come down hard on anyone that peaks his personal ire.
Unfortunately Robert has not totally backed away from this either laughing off SDAI's application of a standard he set for RL which he refuses to apply to himself. He may not have intended to speak as moderator, but as he told RL a moderator should be aware of his unique status in his personal comments. For the most part RL has exceeded my expectations in trying to meet that standard trying hard to differentiate between RL the poster and ModBob, but Robert failed miserably in this case.
Regards,
Mark
Flame » in reply to JFC can't we just get along....
Uh Frank This Is Flame
The whole thread (148 posts)
- JFC can't we just get along....
- Apparently not (n/t)
- The thread is now locked
- Thank you.
- Uh Frank This Is Flame
- Uh Mark
- Wow The Liberals Took A Poll And Voted Against The Conservative Position
- Point by point
- MA Wins Again
- re: MA Wins Again
- There You Go Again
- Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason
- Aye, there's the rub
- Hello
- I say again: Put up, or shut up.
- Sort of A good Point
- That being the case
- On the WMD Issue
- In The Interest Of Time - Blood For Oil (n/t)
- re: That being the case
- That being the case
- Sort of A good Point
- I say again: Put up, or shut up.
- Well said (n/t)
- Hello
- re: Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason
- Aye, there's the rub
- re: There You Go Again
- Criticism of Bush's war policy = treason
- There You Go Again
- re: MA Wins Again
- MA Wins Again
- "3) Providing aid and comfort to the enemy has nothing to do with treason and no reasonable person would think otherwise."
- Do you speak for all conservatives?
- Hell No
- around and around and around and around
- re: "Wow The Liberals Took A Poll And Voted Against The Conservative Position "
- OK It Is The Conservative Position
- OK It Is _A_ Conservative Position
- The Summary You Ignored
- Restriction of Speech
- Yes You've Got It Wrong
- As, apparently do you
- Why Do You People Ignore Half Of What I've Posted To Make Your Points?
- Wow
- Battle Fatigue?
- Scarred, battered, but unbowed
- Robert did not make a mistake, you did in misunderstanding him.
- We Both Did According To This
- That would be the apology and pledge I referred to. I could not have made my post much simpler. (n/t)
- We Both Did According To This
- Battle Fatigue?
- You people?
- Wow
- Why Do You People Ignore Half Of What I've Posted To Make Your Points?
- As, apparently do you
- Yes You've Got It Wrong
- And Ignored Again (n/t)
- Restriction of Speech
- I see The Plea For Consistency Once Again Falls On Deaf Ears
- re: OK It Is _A_ Conservative Position
- The Summary You Ignored
- OK It Is _A_ Conservative Position
- OK It Is The Conservative Position
- Hell No
- Delete Post Or Modify Name
- Point by point
- Wow The Liberals Took A Poll And Voted Against The Conservative Position
- This Is Flame
- Picking at scabs
- Uh Mark
- It isn't serious, is it FrankC -
- Is this one about me? (n/t)
