Where'd Melin go?

Ok, so my apology and clarification wasn’t good enough for you… you just want to reveal me as the angry, senseless or inept individual that you evidently see me as. (oh well)
BTW: Had you listened to the people that are so angry about this, you would know that, the main issue is not the firing.

I don’t need to know if you are “staff”. I have never responded to ANYONE here based on who they are. I actually try to understand what they are attempting to say. I know that is not a common practice here and it is becoming increasingly clear that I am now considered someone to take offense at, by some of you. That is really too bad, but I’ll try to cope. Besides, I will soon be joining Quadell, Papabear and the many others that have left in protest.

FTR: the other boards I was referring to was his reference to the AOL SD board. I’m sorry, if I don’t know all that history (as I have stated elsewhere, and as my profile shows, I am relatively new here.

Ed’s first explanation of why he fired Melin was because she had argued “publicly” with another staff member.

You know, I don’t think anything I’ve written in response to your posts so far would give any reasonable person that impression, Lew. But now that you mention it. . .

Well, that’s nice to know, but I was posting this for the benefit of others who have indicated elsewhere on the board that “full disclosure” would be nice. I can direct you to specific posts, if you haven’t seen them.

The door swings quickly, so. . .

One of us must have mis-read something. I’m fairly certain we’re not going to agree on who it was. And it doesn’t really matter. You can go on being angry, I’ll go on being amused. . .

Rich

I rest my case.

BTW, for anyone else that doesn’t know what I mean by Ed’s original explanation…It is in his 8/3/99 posting in “Repost:…”

Police (without moving): Yes, yes, we go!
General: These pirates slay.
Police: Yes, yes, we go!
General: Then do not stay.
Police: We go, we go.
General: Then why all this delay?
Police: All right! We go, we go!
Yes, forward on the foew!
Ho! ho! ho! ho!
We go, we go, we go!
Tarantara-ra-ra!
General: Then forward on the foe!
All: Yes! forward!
Police: Yes! forward!
General: Yes! but you don’t go
Police: We go, we go, we go!
All: At last they really go! Tarantara-ra-ra!

From Pirates of Penzance, by Gilbert and Sullivan.

Rich says:

Look at me, look at me everybody…I’m STAFF…aren’t I special!!

Fuck you Rich and the Deceased Equine that you rode in on.

You guys would love for this situation to fade away but its going to take a lot longer than you’d like. Obviously, most of the STAFF still does not “get it”.

toodles,


Contestant #3

Contestant #3, you’re just so. . . clever. I thought you meant something else when you said you liked to eat dead animals.

But yeah, you’re right, I’m special. And you’re not.

Rich

Dream on carrot boy…


Contestant #3

[[Look at me, look at me everybody…I’m STAFF…aren’t I special!! ]] C3
Seeing as that sort of attention-craving is the primary field-mark of trollicus spaceballus, that vapid accusation is really a riot.

I posted to this board last week commenting on how you give up your freedom when you post to the SDMB. I see that it was “edited” out, LOL, and not put on the board. I guess Tuba and Ed do not want any views that they feel sheds truth on the proceedings on this board. Nothing has changed.

I’ll bet mine was not the only post “censored” out.

JOHN the Cyberian54

For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Hey, John, you might want to learn how to use the MB before you toss around accusations.

There are two pages to this thread. Your post took place on page 2. Of course, if you can’t figure that out, I’m not sure you’ll ever see this message explaining it, but what the heck. At least this way people who can figure it out will know your accusation was untrue.

The message you posted is still right here on page 2. If you manage to see this message, just page up a few times and you’ll see it, posted 8-10-99 at 6:48 AM. Lew and Drain Bead even responded to your message.

Hey David,

Don’t you think that you could have responded with a little less acrimony? Oh I’m sorry, what was I thinking? A moderator that operates with a “moderate” demeanor? nah!!


Contestant #3

David was responding to an accusation of “censorship.”

Way to go JillGat, you get an A+ for the day for rationalizing David’s rudeness!!

That’s the SDMB way of doing things…who cares about right and wrong as long as the moderators publically stick up for one another…


Contestant #3

Been said already. Viscount Melbourne, one of Queen Victoria’s Prime Ministers, said to his cabinet: “It doesn’t matter what stand we take on this issue, as long as we all take the same stand together.”

Seriously, though, Con – Read Cyb’s post, which (falsely) accuses David of deleting posts. Re-read David’s response. You really think that was out of line?

And the answer is: no, Con#3 has not conscious thought, he only says the most inflammatory thing he can, because he’s such a [ CENSORED by CKDextHavn, Administrator]

No, YOU re-read it. His post said nothing about David. Didn’t even mentioned David by name…

I think that I’m going to track down the section in the book of nettiquette that refers to the proper and expected behavior of a moderator.

Apparently, you and your cronies:

a. Haven’t read it

b. Read it but forgot it

c. Read it, but figure that you are above it

d. Couldn’t really give a damm because your
SDMB power has gone to your heads

You guys really set a great example out here you know?


Contestant #3

Oooops. I apologize, I had read Cyb’s accusation on a prior visit, and so didn’t reread it, I only looked at David’s response coming fresh from the Great Debates forum. So I was incorrect when I said that Cyb had accused David falsely; I should have said that Cyb accused Tuba and Ed falsely (and, by extensions, all moderators).

David replied.

You thought David’s reply was immoderate. I think you’re full of yourself. If a Moderator said “Good morning” to you, you would think it was sarcastic or insulting.

Oh, boy, was THAT ugly!

Guys, this Board is the sole property of The Chicago Reader, Inc., and since they are a private entity not affiliated in any way with any government agency, they can delete anyone’s post at any time, delete any threads they care to because it’s THEIR property, NOT yours. It says so in the copyright notice in the bottom of every page of every thread. I get the feeling that some of you haven’t read it. It also means they have the right to ban anyone because posting is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. You post with THEIR permission and if you don’t agree with it, go start a message board of your own.

Deleting and/or editing posts or entire threads does not violate the First Amendment because that Amendment applies ONLY to the government and NOT the private sector.

Thanks, Melin, for providing me the link to this thread, though I may not have used it the way you wanted me to. Sorry you were suspended, but I’m still not sure exactly what happened.


>< DARWIN >
__L___L

I didn’t want you to “use” it at all. I’m sorry to see it back up in “live” space. You asked for information upon which to make your own determinations, and I sent it to you.

I’m not getting drawn back into this debate. Again, I am sorry that you saw fit to post on this thread and revive it.

-Melin

I’m just not doing at all well lately, am I? Still, I think I made valid points in the rest of my post. This will be the last I say about the matter on this board, in email or anywhere else.


>< DARWIN >
__L___L