From: K. Paul Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice
Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:27 PM
In article <email@example.com> you wrote:
: YU ZIR wrote in message <14246-35941FDAfirstname.lastname@example.org>...
: In Fred's case I speculate, (since it happened to me), the milk went
: sour early on in the interchanges with SRB, and particularly with Bill
This seems plausible. I've never seen any outright obnoxious, hostile
behavior from any other moderator. But have yet to see anything
*but* that from this one.
In my case, my attempts to ameliorate the hostility that I sensed
: from Bill H were, as I perceived it, rebuffed by him.
Amen again, and worse, his aggressiveness escalated despite my
not mirroring it.
No problem for
: me. My response was simple and effective: to walk away from SRB and
: post on ARB.
Simple, yes. Effective, no, since ARB is read by one percent the number
who have access to SRB.
: My personal impression of SRB is that it is in the hands of cadre
: loyalists who can be adequately defended on the technical letter of the
Not Bill H. in the case of throwing away a post and never writing
to the author, nor in the case of refusing an explanation when
one was requested.
but who really do as much as they can get away with to discourage
: those of us who make cogent arguments they don't like.
Sounds absolutely true. The cogency of my argument was just too
much for him, in light of his earlier denial that any such passage
as the one I was discussing could possibly exist.
: That would
: cause me discomfort if an organization I belong to did that.
: If you're comfortable with SRB, support it. Just don't cross
Which doesn't even mean confronting them, or being unpleasant,
or attacking the Faith. All it means is politely, cogently,
and informatively raising an issue they don't want raised.