Thomas Graves Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) What it comes down to, IMO, is that this is, and always has been, John's Forum. "...it would benefit all of to know whether we have special privileges or not." Dear Martin, Yes! Yes! Yes! And, specifically, it would benefit us letting us know who can say, for example, "Your mother wears army boots!" but can't say, "In an infantry platoon!" Sincerely, --Tommy Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffin Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) John, I understand fully that this is your forum, and I thank you for your efforts in providing it. I realize that it is a privilege to be a member and that none of us has a right of membership. That being said, I was very surprised and disheartened to learn that you had decided to delete Jim DiEugenio’s and Tom Scully’s forum memberships. I appreciate your desire for civil discourse on the forum. That being said, if rule IV was applied evenly, across the board, to all members of this forum, I’d bet that fully half of the membership would be shown the door. Jim and Tom should not be singled out or used as examples of a new, more vigilant standard of rule enforcement. In the interest of fairness, I hope that you will please reconsider your decision to delete Jim’s and Tom’s memberships. If you felt that they had run afoul of rule IV, shouldn’t they have at least received a fair warning before being banned? Thank you in advance for your consideration. Edited June 9, 2013 by Michael Griffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Wow. Norman's post disappeared pretty quick. Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Congratulations, John. I support your decision. Don't you hate "me too" posts? But me too on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) Wow. Norman's post disappeared pretty quick. Dear Martin, Yeah, and his use of profanity in it probably hastened its demise. Sincerely, --Tommy BTW, I say good for John and the moderators (minus Mr. Scully, of course). Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) Dear Martin, Yes! Yes! Yes! And, specifically, it would benefit us letting us know who can say, for example, "Your mother wears army boots!" but can't say, "In an infantry platoon!" Sincerely, --Tommy But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry! Edited June 9, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Wow. Norman's post disappeared pretty quick. Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why. It was hidden by a moderator for an ad hominen on David von Pein. Gary: Thanks for the explanation. Such transparency on your part is vital if the EF is to retain its reputation. Were it not for Martin's post, I'd have never known Norman posted something, and were it not for yours, I would not have known why it disappeared. There is no informed consent from those who are not properly informed. Thanks again. I do join Martin Hay, however, in requesting details as to precisely what infraction(s) led to the expulsion of two worthy members. Failing that, an explanation of why other members are allowed to remain despite having committed the same infractions or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry! Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy PS Please do not consider this a personal attack! And note-- I used no profanity! Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry! Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site. "You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry! Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site. "You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........." Good Lord, I just looked it up. It seems "sergeant" is the only correct way of spelling the word and I've been spelling it "sargeant" for years. How embarrassing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 Thomas, Robert can we leave the IM chat out of what many feel is an important topic even if you don't. Mr. Loughran My apologies, I just felt we were all taking ourselves a bit too seriously here. I will refrain from further frivolous comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 (edited) But...my mother IS a drill sargeant in the infantry! Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site. "You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........." dear Gary, I consider it very important, actually. Free speech and privileges and even-handedness and all that. Especially since it appears Jimmy D. may have already been reinstated. I don't know if he has posting privileges but he is visible lurking on this thread right now. I guess he misses us! Hi Jimbo!!! Sincerely, --Tommy Edited June 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Butler Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 As another mod I agree with Gary above....We found out about this action on John's part when he posted us a link to his "decision" thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 As another mod I agree with Gary above....We found out about this action on John's part when he posted us a link to his "decision" thread David, Well, I guess that means we shouldn't tar and feather you and/or Gary. Darn! LOL Sincerely, --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 My hope is that this sends a message, and that in time Jim and Tom are allowed to return to the forum, and do so... . Pat, what message is being sent in the process which selected Tom and Jim's membership for deletion? The message is that it's John's Forum, and that he is only willing to put up with so much. So DON'T PUSH THE ENVELOPE. Several years back, John got into a fray with Tim Gratz. I supported Tim on the specific point in question (John had misquoted Tim about something), but supported John for ousting Tim anyhow. So why support John? Because this is JOHN'S forum, which is akin to his LIVING ROOM. That's how I see it. We are guests in John's living room, having a discussion. If we ask him for entry into his home, in order to talk to his other guests, and get out of hand, and abuse one of HIS other guests, well, then, we shouldn't be surprised when we're shown the door...ESPECIALLY if the guest was a friend of John's, invited by John into his home to discuss his work. It's that simple to me. We're his guests. And should act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now