modcat5

Who are the moderators?

Only our hairdressers and spouses know for sure.

Restored the thread. Apologies for the interruption.

Egad.

Guys, if you KNOW we're reviewing the thread for its appropriateness and you KNOW why, is there a reason you had to resurrect the possibly offending material here?

Anyway, this thread's gonna vanish and the other will be restored.

Moderators are reviewing that thread. Dooj is correct: names were being spelled out and unflattering comments made about people who are not members of GSC and are not on the BOD. Nothing's been decided permanently.

Now that's odd for you to say since if anyone were to look at some of the full names brandied around here the same concern doesn't seem to be an issue. Nor do the rules of the forum specifically state that posting full names is prohibited -- unless there are a set of rules posted somewhere that I haven't seen.

Now can we drop it or would you like to have the last word?

Larry,

WordWolf is right.

The general policy of this board is that we do not use full names of people unless they were or are on the board of trustees/directors.

There have been some exceptions: usually people who were, by their participation, unusually high profile. Examples include John Lynn, John Schoenheit, Walter Cummins, Chris Geer, Ralph Dubofsky, Vince Finnegan, Donna Martindale, John Linder, Claudette Royale and a bunch of the musicians.

But once you start having to explain who the person is, our practice has been to obscure the name (they may not want their association with TWI known to the general public performing a google search).

Thus, you might mention Bob Stanley, but if you were to mention anyone else in Acts 29, you would blur the name (B*b S*****y).

When in doubt, obscure the name unless it's a member of the BOT/BOD.

[Note: Other mods, please correct me if I've misrepresented the policy].

So moved.

I know this isn't what you were thinking about, but it is a true statement if x is a negative number.

Touche.

If you can count your take home pay in negative numbers, however...

You think this is a valid mathematical statement:

0.9x > x

Chatty,

I was just about to move this to About the Way and I stopped for two reasons.

1. Paw is active in this thread and can move it if he wants to.

2. You "voted" to keep it here and not move it to About the Way.

I can ask Paw privately about the first item. But why not move it to About the Way? It seems to fit there better than here.

(P.S. I don't know who the poster is and haven't been able to hear the link).

modcat5

As Mike pointed out, his participation on this thread is not derailing it at all.

If you're re-evaluating something, you're either going to conclude that it was valuable or that it wasn't. Some people go to one extreme (none of it is valuable), some moderate (some is valuable, some isn't). Mike goes to the other extreme. To him, all of it is valuable and holy, divine, what have you.

This thread will only be about Mike if everyone makes it about Mike.

Whether it's funny or not is a matter of taste. It is, however, in the appropriate forum.

And yes, I will delete any post you place here that continues to be disrespectful and rude. I've done it once. Don't test me again.

By the way, I started your "being politically correct in amerika" thread back in politics so you can have your discussion on the issue of bias in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anyone interested in that serious discussion can go there.

No, I did not accuse you of inciting incendiary remarks.

I accurately stated that you posted an incendiary link to spark a serious discussion, a link that's just fine for its humorous content, but not appropriate for a serious discussion. That matter is settled. As stated before, get over it.

Whether I was a product of the Way Corps or not is none of your business. I am not going to be polite with you any longer. You've accused me of censorship and made personal judgments about me, and now you're on this "were you Way Corps" trip that has nothing to do with your rudeness. Knock it off. Now.

Bumpy,

Your last post to me descended into a personal attack. Please check the forum rules before posting in the future.

Another post like that will be promptly deleted without warning.

I happen to have a wonderful sense of humor, and do not have to prove it to you.

Second, if you want to start a discussion about media bias in coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm sure plenty of people would love to discuss that in the political forum. Posting, for serious discussion, and incendiary diatribe that inflames prejudices and stereotypes is not the way to do it.

I have a low tolerance for racism and anti-Semitism. As a joke, the you tube clip you posted is amusing. As something to spark serious discussion, it's not.

...if I told you that coverage of the Palestinian conflict was reported very differently in Europe than in the United States, would you understand that?

I, for one, do not appreciate the insult you just leveled at the posters on our political forum. You owe them all an apology for your ignorance.

Duly noted. You can appeal my decision to the other moderators by reporting my post. But please be aware that I have already alerted them and ask them to review my decision and overturn it if they see fit.

Censorship would have been deleting the post. I moved it to where I thought it was more appropriate. Management reserves the right to move threads to a more appropriate forum. More people have access to and visit this forum than the political forum. Censoring something by making it more accessible to more people would be, well, just plain silly.

This thread has been moved here from the Politics and Tacks forum.

Hopefully, the people who've logged in for the first time in the past couple of says will see this:

This particular section of Greasespot is here so you can ask a few basic questions, get the lay of the land, etc. Feel free to check in, ask away, etc.

Thanks.

FYI: After some consultation with Pawtucket, I made a few edits to posts that appeared earlier in this thread (p.16 and 17, for those interested). I limited my edits to conversations about and specific responses to behaviors that were attributed to Elizabeth during her marriage to John. Some of the dialogue remains intact, such as the fact that such personal information was divulged in the first place.

Some things to consider: A marriage dissolved here. How and why that marriage dissolved is not the subject of this thread and is not appropriate for a public message board. Whether STFI's leadership, acting in that capacity, contributed to the dissolution of that marriage is fair game for discussion. Because the marriage in question involved a top member of STFI leadership, those two separate "compartments" are bound to intersect. To the extent the moderators are able to keep them separate, we will. When we cannot, we will assess each post on individual merits and make the best judgment we can, imperfect though we are.

I appreciate everyone's understanding and apologize to those whose posts were edited. My goal was to restore as much as possible, and if the end result is a little awkward, I accept responsibility for that.

Lou Diamond Phillips

La Bamba

Esai Morales

For those who openly wondered: the thread's posts were hidden for a short time as moderators discussed whether to let it be. Thanks for understanding.

The letter is addressed to you with no expectation of privacy, right? Seems it's yours to do with as you please.

The thread was deleted at oldies' request. It's not uncommon to delete threads at the request of the person who started it, particularly if it's a duplicate topic.