Good day again Poison Ivy

I think you have misunderstood a statement that I made and I feel the
need to clarify it for you and the rest of the group to make sure
that it doesn't get taken the way you read it.

I am not saying nor implying that your feelings do not matter. I
think everyone's feelings matter. But first of all you are
responsible for your feelings not anyone else. You choose whether you
feel something or not.

What I said was "And not to sound callous but frankly, it doesn't
matter that it didn't bother you." This is not to imply that your
feelings do not matter, but instead that if it did not bother you to
see what was going on, and it did bother 100 other people, those 100
other people who are bothered by what they saw, that it does trouble,
they deserve just as must recognition of their feelings as anyone
else. Whether we like to admit it or not we live in a society where
majority rules, and in this case the 100s of people that were
disturbed by it, vs. the few that saw no problem with the constant
arguing and berating that was going on here called for action and
received it.

Again I am not attempting to sound callous but I would rather have 1
or 10 people leave because they were too paranoid about being
moderated (which to me is silly, I mean you won't be moderated as
long as you don't personally attack or flame someone, so why not just
be nice and not get moderated?) Than to see 100's of people leaving
the list because of what was going on.

Your feelings definitely matter or I would not take the time to
respond to them, just when weighted against the feelings of the rest
of the group, our actions remain the same.

I bid you well,
pandora{HIB} "Pandy" of Team Chaos

*SMIRKS*

> DENNIS: Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.
> ARTHUR: Shut up!
> PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.
> DENNIS (calling): Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
> Help, help, I'm being repressed!
> ARTHUR (aware that people are now coming out and watching): Bloody
> peasant!
> ARTHUR pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off.
> DENNIS: Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.
> ARTHUR: Come on, Patsy.
> They ride off.
> DENNIS (in the background as we PULL OUT): Did you see him repressing
> me, then? That's what I've been on about ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*ROFL*

> As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
> And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Believe it or not, you do.... well, to me at least.... *smiles*


> As if I mattered, Poison Ivy

RayvenMom

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Pandora,

I know you are having an open discussion directed to Poison Ivy's comments and concerns, but I was just wondering about that number of people who you claim have complained about posts on the list. Personal responsibility to filter for themselves aside, if 100 people (or maybe "100s"; I'm not really clear on how many people have complained to moderators) out of roughly 1454 seem upset, then that is a paltry number. That leaves 1354 who either filter, delete, shrug off the banter, don't bother to read the posts, or just don't seem to care. I'm a little confused about how you've concluded that 100 or so people are the majority that should rule, and why the moderators would react to please the minority.

This all seems to me like much ado about nothing. I've read a few comments here and there about some posts being flames, but I have yet to see a good (or bad) flame war here. I have seen few things I would even categorize as "flames" here. I think of flames as really caustic, insulting, inflamatory, degrading, irrate, hostile, etc. (but often quite clever and darkly amusing), remarks generally aimed at other posters to make them feel incredibly stupid or inferior, and lacking knowledge on a subject. Maybe some of those 100 complainants should seek out some groups known for flames and see what a real flame war is like. But maybe I am just hardened. It's not that I advocate a flame war or hostile atmosphere here, but I don't think there is one. Disagreement and heated discussion do not constitute a flame war. Yes, I appreciate the good people for their kindness and gentility. But I get really uncomfortable with censorship, too, to appease those whose comfort zone has been a little compromised. I'm all for monitoring and deleting porn and very vulgar posts, but my standards of what's acceptible discussion may not be anything like yours. I think that the laissez-faire approach *does* work fine most of the time and for most of us. I could be wrong, but I really don't see what all the fuss has been about. I like it when we are free to speak and disagree. If being for that makes me a 1 in 10, my view may be skewed. I certainly wouldn't just stop reading and posting because you *might* moderate my opinions or the way I express them right into oblivion. I just have this real uneasy feeling that the majority of whom you profess to protect the interests is just a vocal (and whiny) minority. JMNSHO.

Mary (RI)
----- Original Message -----
From: pandora{HIB}
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: I'm being repressed!


Good day again Poison Ivy -

I think you have misunderstood a statement that I made and I feel the
need to clarify it for you and the rest of the group to make sure
that it doesn't get taken the way you read it.

I am not saying nor implying that your feelings do not matter. I
think everyone's feelings matter. But first of all you are
responsible for your feelings not anyone else. You choose whether you
feel something or not.

What I said was. "And not to sound callous but frankly, it doesn't
matter that it didn't bother you." This is not to imply that your
feelings do not matter, but instead that if it did not bother you to
see what was going on, and it did bother 100 other people, those 100
other people who are bothered by what they saw, that it does trouble,
they deserve just as must recognition of their feelings as anyone
else. Whether we like to admit it or not we live in a society where
majority rules, and in this case the 100s of people that were
disturbed by it, vs. the few that saw no problem with the constant
arguing and berating that was going on here called for action and
received it.

Again I am not attempting to sound callous but I would rather have 1
or 10 people leave because they were too paranoid about being
moderated (which to me is silly, I mean you won't be moderated as
long as you don't personally attack or flame someone, so why not just
be nice and not get moderated?) Than to see 100's of people leaving
the list because of what was going on.

Your feelings definitely matter or I would not take the time to
respond to them, just when weighted against the feelings of the rest
of the group, our actions remain the same.

I bid you well,
pandora{HIB} - "Pandy" of Team Chaos



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/29/03

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good Day Mary,

First of all Mary let me start by saying that I did not decide to
moderate the list, the Owner did I am merely one of the moderators
who agree with his actions. Because you have directed your questions
to me I am going to respond, but since I have said the same thing
repeatedly I am going to keep this rather short.

1. You are not being "censored"
2. You are not being "moderated"
3. You will only be moderated if you post something that is
considered a flame/personal attack, or to my understanding beat a
dead horse. So lets say for example we have a topic up for debate
that has gotten to heated and the comments are turning into personal
attacks. The recent database argument for example. If a moderator
declares the topic closed, then the list will be expected to not
continue to instigate arguments by insisting on debating the topic.
4. Nothing has changes in regards to the privilege of the
moderators we always had all the abilities to make it so your posts
had to be approved first, to silence you, or to remove you from the
list. Randy's (The list Owner's) approach was a kinder gentler
laissez-faire approach. It did not work. Too many people
complained and frankly Mary you may not think that receiving 25
emails a day from different people represents the majority of the
list but I'm a businesswoman. If I get 25 complaints from my
customers about an employee in a day, she is going to be talked to
and something is going to be done about it. I don't care if 1500
people were happy with her, the 25 she offended is unacceptable and
in my opinion such is the case here as well.
5. My personal opinion, since you have offered yours, is if you
or anyone else for that matter is upset with the fact that moderators
are actually moderating and that we will not tolerate instigating,
flaming and insulting remarks then perhaps this board is no longer
the place for you. I don't mean that to sound callous but my stance
on Randy's decision and the moderator's positions in the last few
days will not change bottom line, this is the way the Owner and
moderators are going to be doing things for a while. If this is not
acceptable to you then you personally have several choices you can
make. Those choices are all completely up to you, but debating and
continuing a discussion on it is moot issue at this point.
6. I think if you take a look at the types of posts that I have
interceded in since I have been a moderator you will see that the
sort of thing I find unacceptable is pretty blatantly insulting to
someone.
7. I believe the same to be true of the other moderators as well.
8. I am tired of listening to the complaints about being
moderated and being "censored" honestly stop complaining about
something that hasn't happened, the day you are moderated or censored
you can start screaming about it.

I bid you well,
pandora{HIB} "Pandy" of Team Chaos

Just for the record that last post which showed up as a post from
Iron`Bear but was signed from me -- was actually from me...

Boy am I having issues tonight -- did I mention I am really sick?

I think I need to take a break!
But oh well that sort of stuff happens when you live with someone and
share a computer....

I'm a goofball sometimes, just ask anyone that has ever been
letterboxing with me!

pandora{HIB} - "Pandy" of Team Chaos

> if 100 people (or maybe "100s"; I'm not really clear on how many
> people have complained to moderators) out of roughly 1454 seem
> upset, then that is a paltry number.

Just counting those people that vocally complain about a certain
issue isn't going to give an accurate count about what percentage of
the sample population feels that way. Any good business owner knows
that for every person that does complain, there's as many as a dozen
that feel the same way but say or do nothing to correct it. They'll
just go somewhere else eventually.

There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a regular
basis. (Heaven forbid if they do! That's a lot of posts to wade
through if every member posts just once per day!) A lot of those
people might not even follow the board and are a member in name
only. There's more than one talk list that I'm a member of that I
haven't visited for months. So it's probably an artificially high
number to begin with.

In addition, the population on this board would be skewed towards
those that do enjoy conflicts since those that don't are more likely
to pick up and leave. So even if the majority of people on this
board are okay with no moderating at all, the letterboxing population
as a whole might not be--which is pricisely who the talk list is for:
All letterboxers. Not just those that enjoy the conflict.

Ironically, now that the boards are "moderated", it's likely to drive
off those that don't like moderation of any sort. Over time, it'll
likely stack the talk list with lots of people who prefer the
moderating. There's not really a solution that will make EVERYONE
happy--at least I haven't thought of any and neither has anyone else--
but the owner and moderators of this board are trying to make the
talk list appeal to the masses as a whole in the fairest way possible
with the least amount of moderation possible. And as the instigator
of more than one "heated discussion", I applaud their efforts. If a
post of mine is deleted for the sake of making this board a bit
better, well, I'll get over it. =)

-- Ryan

You've got it right, Ryan. So, let's move on everyone . . .
Bob / 'Cock o' the Trail'

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"
wrote:
>
> Just counting those people that vocally complain about a certain
> issue isn't going to give an accurate count about what percentage
of the sample population feels that way.

>> snip >>

> There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a regular
> basis. (Heaven forbid if they do! That's a lot of posts to wade
> through if every member posts just once per day!)
>
> In addition, the population on this board would be skewed towards
> those that do enjoy conflicts since those that don't are more
likely to pick up and leave. So even if the majority of people on
this board are okay with no moderating at all, the letterboxing
population as a whole might not be--which is pricisely who the talk
list is for: All letterboxers. Not just those that enjoy the
conflict.
>
> Ironically, now that the boards are "moderated", it's likely to
drive off those that don't like moderation of any sort. Over time,
it'll likely stack the talk list with lots of people who prefer the
moderating. There's not really a solution that will make EVERYONE
happy--at least I haven't thought of any and neither has anyone else--
> but the owner and moderators of this board are trying to make the
> talk list appeal to the masses as a whole in the fairest way
possible
> with the least amount of moderation possible. And as the
instigator
> of more than one "heated discussion", I applaud their efforts. If
a
> post of mine is deleted for the sake of making this board a bit
> better, well, I'll get over it. =)
>
> -- Ryan

You really believe there are actually 1454 members! How naive.
Psychomommy

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"
wrote:
> There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a regular
> basis.

Good day.

It is not a matter of naivety Psychomommy it is a simple solution to
see how many "members" are on this list. When you go to the actual
Letterboxing yahoo group webpage, and log into the Home front page it
becomes blatantly clear how many people are subscribed to this list
in one form or another. It clearly says on the right hand side
under "Group Info":


Group Info
Members: 1449
Founded: Oct 11, 1998
Language: English


So is it truly being nave to think that there are that many members?
Hardly the case, what it actually is; is using some basic computer
skills and logic. Ryan wrote to the board based on the facts given to
him, he read what has been provided to him, thought on it and made a
determination based on the information read, perhaps some can follow
suit.


Iron`Bear




--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "psycomommy2003"
wrote:
> You really believe there are actually 1454 members! How naive.
> Psychomommy
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"
> wrote:
> > There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a
regular
> > basis.

Now that's Funny !!

Brian
TeamGreenDragon

> Me too! Can we please declare this a dead subject & move on since the
> moderators position is not going to change?

We can, and do. I'll personally ban the next person who posts on the
subject. I'm fed up with playing kindergarten cop around here, and
asking the volunteer moderators to waste time on what should be a
non-issue. Grow up people. Moderation only applies to those who wish
to be uncivil. If that applies to you, you have no rights, except to
get lost. Goodby.

The feedback I'm getting is that people want moderation to work. They
want the list to be a fun place to play letterboxing. When pests come
into a society, most members of that society are willing to temporarily
suspends freedoms until the pests are dealt with. Once the pests are
vanquished, things return to the way they were. Remember, I ahhor moderation
as much as the next person, and resent the pests who have forced it on
the list.

Concerns about moderation should be sent to me directly. Not the list,
not the moderators. They are all burnt out on it. I'll ban anyone who
violates this rule.

The subject is off topic. Call it martial law if you want. Either
the pests will be silent, or be gone.

TIA

My goodness! What is your deal?
How do you know what Ryan thought and determined to write?
My post was meant in jest. It appears to me, you as a moderator,
have taken this bit of authority above and beyond. Like a rookie cop
with a badge. I certainly hope you are not judge and jury.
I did say actual members as in REAL members. Many have left the
active list, but are still registered as members. There are quite a
few that have aliases. Not just one alias but a few per member.
Being a target in the past from some evil people, I welcome some
moderation. But if you are going to dissect everyones post for what
you deem out of order, than that makes me wonder.
Should I worry about my response to yours?
No, there are more important things in life to make me bite my
nails.
Psychomommy

p.s. In reference to your simple solution remark, I can read and I
use more than basic computer skills every day.


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Iron`Bear Taleon"
wrote:
> Good day.
>
> It is not a matter of naivety Psychomommy it is a simple solution
to
> see how many "members" are on this list. When you go to the actual
> Letterboxing yahoo group webpage, and log into the Home front page
it
> becomes blatantly clear how many people are subscribed to this list
> in one form or another. It clearly says on the right hand side
> under "Group Info":
>
>
> Group Info
> Members: 1449
> Founded: Oct 11, 1998
> Language: English
>
>
> So is it truly being nave to think that there are that many
members?
> Hardly the case, what it actually is; is using some basic computer
> skills and logic. Ryan wrote to the board based on the facts given
to
> him, he read what has been provided to him, thought on it and made
a
> determination based on the information read, perhaps some can
follow
> suit.
>
>
> Iron`Bear
>
>
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "psycomommy2003"
> wrote:
> > You really believe there are actually 1454 members! How naive.
> > Psychomommy
> >
> > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"
> > wrote:
> > > There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a
> regular
> > > basis.

Well, I can't wait to see if this constitutes beating a dead horse.
I had no idea that this list was being moderated, I don't check in
often enough I guess.

This is indeed, as someone said earlier, much ado about nothing and
yet a glimpse of the flaws and blessings of human nature. I have
seen similar degeneration in other e-mail groups. It is a testament
to the truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The "owners"
of some forum decide that things have become unmanageable and,
because they can, begin editing, deleting or otherwise screening
what is allowed on "their site" inevitably leading to new splinter
groups and subgroups etc. It is no different in any group, society
or nation, i.e. "When in the course of human events..."

I am always amazed at how willing people are to rush to the "aid" of
the authority figure there by gaining their own position of
authority. This will to power often seems to overtake objective
reason and you are left with a corrupt system of cronyism and
favoritism. (What a unique and blessed quirk it was that the
founding fathers either thought themselves fallible or were
supremely confident in their philosophy that they were enlightened
enough to ensure the right of the masses to free expression of
ideas.)

It is astounding to me even given this apparent flaw of human nature
that this dynamic applies even on such a microscopic level as this
group, and that a group of what I assume are adults can't maintain a
level of civility in their interactions as to continue to peruse the
common interest that was the impetus for the group. But I must
remind myself that the computer age has allowed us to act in an
uncivil manner with out fear of tarnishing ones reputation. All the
interaction that occurs in this type of forum is in the minds eye,
there is no face-to-face interaction that seems to provide a check
on uncivil and ill-mannered behavior. One can easily act rudely and
then click off their computer as well as any consequences of their
behavior. What is it about looking someone in the eye that tempers
human behavior, and what is it about the human condition that leads
to such a lust for power? How odd that these 2 opposing forces are
so strong in the human animal.

When any more than a few of us come together there is an inevitable
struggle for domination over the others, but then we must face the
contradiction inherent in that situation. We lust for power over the
very people we need for that power to mean anything.

We know that we can accomplish great things by working together and
build great societies but we still lust for absolute power over all
that that cooperation has built. Empathy is the uniquely human
characteristic that allows us to realize the benefit of cooperation
and it is the lower animal instinct to dominate that we must temper
with empathy. This legacy of our animalistic past is the opposing
force that prevents us from seeing the benefits of cooperation. It
is empathy that grants us that window through which we can see that
by helping others we help ourselves and that none will benefit from
dominating the rest. It is in all our best interests to cooperate
and work together toward the same purpose but alas let to our own
devices, time and again, we succumb to the lust for power.

> thought on it and made a determination based on the information
> read, perhaps some can follow suit.

I'm not sure it's very wise to suggest that some people can "follow
suit" when it comes to me. ;o)

-- Ryan

Good evening.

I am not Moderator, so your comments don't have any validity, so I
will not be commenting on them save one thing. I believe you when you
say that you use more than the basic computer skills everyday, and
you could of used them before assuming that I am Moderator I suppose
by looking up my name on the members list, but apparently you chose
not too.

I bid you well.

Iron`Bear Taleon NOT a Moderator.




--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "psycomommy2003"
wrote:
> My goodness! What is your deal?
> How do you know what Ryan thought and determined to write?
> My post was meant in jest. It appears to me, you as a moderator,
> have taken this bit of authority above and beyond. Like a rookie
cop
> with a badge. I certainly hope you are not judge and jury.
> I did say actual members as in REAL members. Many have left the
> active list, but are still registered as members. There are quite a
> few that have aliases. Not just one alias but a few per member.
> Being a target in the past from some evil people, I welcome some
> moderation. But if you are going to dissect everyones post for what
> you deem out of order, than that makes me wonder.
> Should I worry about my response to yours?
> No, there are more important things in life to make me bite my
> nails.
> Psychomommy
>
> p.s. In reference to your simple solution remark, I can read and
I
> use more than basic computer skills every day.
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Iron`Bear Taleon"
> wrote:
> > Good day.
> >
> > It is not a matter of naivety Psychomommy it is a simple solution
> to
> > see how many "members" are on this list. When you go to the
actual
> > Letterboxing yahoo group webpage, and log into the Home front
page
> it
> > becomes blatantly clear how many people are subscribed to this
list
> > in one form or another. It clearly says on the right hand side
> > under "Group Info":
> >
> >
> > Group Info
> > Members: 1449
> > Founded: Oct 11, 1998
> > Language: English
> >
> >
> > So is it truly being nave to think that there are that many
> members?
> > Hardly the case, what it actually is; is using some basic
computer
> > skills and logic. Ryan wrote to the board based on the facts
given
> to
> > him, he read what has been provided to him, thought on it and
made
> a
> > determination based on the information read, perhaps some can
> follow
> > suit.
> >
> >
> > Iron`Bear
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "psycomommy2003"
> > wrote:
> > > You really believe there are actually 1454 members! How naive.
> > > Psychomommy
> > >
> > > --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "rscarpen"

> > > wrote:
> > > > There clearly aren't 1454 people posting to this board on a
> > regular
> > > > basis.

> 1. You are not being "censored"
> 2. You are not being "moderated"

you forgot one thing

nobody cares how clever everyone else is quoting
movies, and having their little fight for
independence.

we're very new to this list, but some of the members
are making a foul taste in my mouth.

though it's nice to see all the self-proclaimed email
martyrs out there unsubbing in an ostentatious
fireball of glory

good.... less weak links.

does anyone even letterbox here, or do they just like
to start fights? god.

-kat

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/