I believe moderator Tom Scully has left a distinct impression, whether intentional or unintentional, that I have done something abusive to him in my posts.
I would like it on record that this post by Tom Scully;"Mr. Parker, Mr. Farley, and Mr. Cinque, the man posted that this thread must be "free from abuse," if it was to stay open.
When I made one last attempt to keep it within that spirit, your responses were to abuse me, and or to blame others for the way
you chose to post.
Evan Burton, on 06 June 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:
I considered closing the thread but feel that there are lots of issues that members still wish to discuss... free from abuse. I'm therefore leaving it open. If, however, it degenerates into invective then I will close it immediately.
Please do not start a new thread to "discuss" this topic. I will close it."
Is actually in response to this message I wrote today;"Yeah, I think you are missing something.
Shall I tell you how I "take your statements" seeing as how we are now dishing our opinions out? I take your statements as someone who is still smarting over receiving feedback that you didn't like.
I "take your statements" like I have recently taken all of your others; with a pinch of salt mainly due to the fact they come from someone who seems to have derived an unhealthy sense of identity from your role as a moderator.
A moderator; someone who is asked to ensure that the forum rules are followed and to help diffuse emotional reactions between members.
Instead of simply applying the rules you feel it necessary to bait members who you have taken exception to. You, Sir, are as bad as any other member here in trying to stir things up. "Who do you think you are?", you write. Are you using this phrase because in a recent post I informed you that it was a sure fire way to receive an emotional response from a fellow human being? It would be best if you kept your opinions to yourself regarding me from now on because not only am I not interested in them, I'm sure the rest of members are not that interested either. Just do your job and "free speech" any offending passages from my post (but as I'm sure you aware there aren't any). Alternatively you can "disappear" them should you feel necessary as I see you now have Pat on board in utilising your "free speech framework."
You even felt it necessary a few weeks ago to question the motives of Jerry Dealey. A man who let Ralph Cinque have five months of "free speech" over at JFK Lancer. A full four months, three weeks and one day longer than you have let him have here. I guess their "free speech within a framework of rules" is more free than the one you have defined for yourself and try to push on others?
I would request that you now go back and remove the offending comments from your post, especially the quotes you attribute to me in your final paragraph that are not mine.
I would also reiterate Greg's post and ask for evidence of your allegation against me please? Your overall post does not require me to apply "meaning" to you questioning my motives and the motives of my posts. Are you familiar with the rule that you are quick to highlight of others? Or is your "free speech framework of rules" different to ours?
Which was in response to this that Scully posted;"Lee Farley, on 07 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:
.....About a month ago I was "debating" with Ralph Cinque over on Lancer. Not so much concerning his opinions and conclusions (many of which are so ill-conceived and bizzare that it's somewhat demeaning to reply to many of them), but more about his approach in dipping his toe into the forums that have people as members who have hundreds of years worth of collective research experience and knowledge about the case. I told him if he didn't change direction he would be crushed under the weight of a tornado of criticism. I was right. Ralph was, yet again, wrong.
Well Ralph being Ralph simply dropped it. It appears that he is only interested in pursuing things that will bring him negative attention rather than things that might open up new avenues of investigation.
We call it beating a dead horse. As Evan recently posted in another thread....:
(Insert name of member with riding crop in hand) - you are better than this; show it by not retaliating to jibes, nor taking advantage of someone's situation. ....
Unless I'm missing something in your meaning, I take your statements as chest pounding over the result achieved from the effort you and others put in to make your predictions come true. You had the choice to ignore that which you disagreed with. You made a different choice. You launch your "I told you so!" Your "It is all that other guy's fault, I warned him, but he didn't listen, and now look at him!"
Just who do you think you are? You ought to consider how you come off, to those of us watching from the cheap seats."
I suppose being baited, as I have explained to Moderator Scully before, with emotive questions such as "Who do you think you are?" and having quotes invented and attributed to me, I simply have to sit and take? If I ask for an apology and respond with some of my own opinions concerning his style of moderating then is it then acceptable that I am then accused of abusing him? There is no abuse in anything I have written to him today and would ask the more level headed moderators, the ones who don't close threads as some sort of punishment to the whole membership, to look at my post to Mr. Scully and identify for me the abuse. If I don't believe there is any abuse in the post and Scully thinks there is then I would like some independent advice for future posts. I obviously don't know what I don't know.
Is Mr. Scully allowed to question my motives? Is he allowed to invent quotes and attribute them to me? If I question this behaviour and provide feedback regarding his inability to diffuse situations - is this then defined as me abusing him? Is he allowed to claim I (along with others) achieved "results" through efforts I made in what happened to Ralph? Really? Can he just make garbage like this up?
It looks like it is me that is now "missing something." I find Scully's moderating behaviour to get more and more bizarre by the week. I'm obviously not the only one thinking this. I would like to say thanks to Pat, Kathy, Don, David and Evan in the way you have, in a quite level-headed manner, moderated and managed some incredibly difficult situations over the last few weeks. You have not stirred it up, avoided applying your personal opinions to heated conversations, and simply and quietly applied the rules and moved on. It would appear that Mr. Scully instead holds grudges against individual members.
I don't know what "abuse" Ralph Cinque has been posting because he's being moderated and no-one sees the alleged abuse but there is certainly no "abuse" in either Greg's or my own posts in reply to Scully's posts today. There may be things Tom Scully doesn't like written in them - but hey, that's a different matter. He didn't like me saying that I didn't read his posts because of the way in which he presents and structures them - well, he only went and took that as a personal attack. It's becoming apparent that anything this geezer doesn't like is quickly defined as an attack or as abuse.
If these are desirable behaviours of a moderator then God help us. Can he not see what is written in his own posts, and the way that they read to someone other than the person who wrote them? Can he not see that what he accuses other of, he is guilty of himself?
I think he needs to get a grip and reread some of his recent non-brain dump posts. Or ask someone he knows to read them. As far as I can see, he currently represents a microcosm of the things he purports to be against. He's like a moderating tyrant, IMO.
Edited by Lee Farley, 07 June 2012 - 10:12 PM.