WordWolf

Just about everything kids have taken an interest in- that wasn't an interest of the parents- has been identified as THE thing that will lead to their moral decline and downfall. Movies, television, comic books, video games, collectible card games, D&D, the list goes on and on. So far, each generation that was supposedly at risk of becoming depraved has managed anyway. "In times like these, it's important to remember that there have always been times like these."

I don't see a "poll" attached to this topic...

From a legal standpoint, I agree there is no obligation whatsoever for JAL to answer to ANY level of inquiry, or participate in ANY level of discussion- unless he's served a subpoena on it. From a moral standpoint, I think the complete isolation from dissent is quite telling. JAL won't answer objections IN HIS OWN GROUP in anything except a closed-door meeting, a "need-to-know" basis. If I were in his group, and supporting it with my money, I would consider myself to have a "need-to-know"-especially when doctrine-and dogma- is being pushed and dissent is not allowed. If JAL was dialoguing to a degree with his own group, I'd easily say "he's too busy to chat with us- but if you want to know what he says to specific complaints openly, check out their own messageboard." I see a moral obligation-for RESPONSIBLE Christians- to be SERVANTS to their congregations and not LORDS OVER their congregations- and to encourage polite, open, honest conversations rather than silence discussion categorically. JAL's UNIVERSAL responses of "buy my book, buy my tape, and read my website" and "if that doesn't address your issue, let's meet SECRETLY" don't strike me as how Jesus wants his disciples to conduct themselves. He met openly and preached, and he told his disciples that what he told them aside, they were to shout from the housetops. The disciples only got quieter when they were getting ARRESTED for speaking up. Furthermore, both the Gospels and the Epistles show an incredible degree of TRANSPARENCY. A leader's getting out of hand? Peter's foibles were laid out in technicolor. A leader breaks the law? We all know about Judas. Sexual immorality becoming an issue in a local church? We read Paul address the Corinthians about this. JAL doesn't have to communicate with us HERE to be fair- but he needs to communicate openly with SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. As it is, he considers himself ABOVE the possibility of error- he's shut off all healthy communication and avenues for finding out he's drifted off the mark. No PUBLIC communication is permitted- and all PRIVATE communication becomes one-sided, with JAL turning each into a COMMERCIAL. He's not legally obligated to do otherwise, but a MATURE Christian, a Christian WORTHY OF RESPECT wouldn't stop his ears up.

Sounds familiar. I hope I'm not just imagining I saw this at some point...

We disagree. I've noted that plenty of GSC'ers ONLY have experience at the GSC, which is why they are unfamiliar with things like sockpuppeting and so on, and complain the policies here are draconian when they're incredibly liberal. It's easy for someone with no experience with trolls- who are eager to always believe the best of others-to honestly be unaware when someone is trying to make a fool of them. I'm extrapolating based on the posts in this thread. Based on not only what was said, but WHEN it was said,I think it fits the evidence nicely. And I don't remember calling either of you "little pawns". That's belittling speech, and I think you have the best of intentions and are being deceived anyway- or, more to the point, BECAUSE you have the best of intentions. However, yes, I think your posts are reflecting what he wants you to say. And-to belabor the point some more- that is according to me. To a manipulator, it doesn't matter how much you disagree with him-just so long as you eventually do what he wants. Even if you disagreed with 95% percent of what he said, if, in the end, you posted what he wanted you to post, he gets exactly what he wants. And I'd like to note here that you're the one who's bringing up "revelation" here. Where did "possession" or "devil spirits" enter into the discussion? Oh, that's right-you just brought them up-and put those words in my mouth. If you're jumping that far to conclusions on what I posted-and can easily see what I did and didn't say- how much might you be misjudging what Bumpy said? I'd consider the possibility you MIGHT not be right in this-you have more to lose than I do, and I certainly entertained the idea I'm reading all this wrong... You're supposing that a guy who's had NO difficulties posting, linking, and emailing so far was telling you the unvarnished truth when he suddenly lost the ability to do them. I'm supposing he's NOT telling you the unvarnished truth. And yet-if he played on your emotions, suddenly seemed HELPLESS and CLUELESS and a VICTIM-which I'm getting on parts of this thread- then you volunteered to jump in....but it was his idea and you were tricked into it. I interpret what happened differently than you. Intelligent people can be deceived- and are every day. Dismissing the possibility that one CAN be deceived is usually the first step in BEING deceived. And he's been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be dishonorable and rude CONSISTENTLY long before now. Even considering he MIGHT be a liar fits right in to what I consider to be his well-established behavior to date. And you'll notice that a number of people said the same thing- without me prompting them. I disagree that offering a few decent posts invalidates the vast majority of posts where he wasted everyone's time- even though they can be used to try to claim he wasn't REALLY trying to waste everyone's time. And if other people have an insightful discussion AROUND him, I no more give him the credit for that than I give vpw credit that we had some quality people enter the corps and survive it remaining as quality people. Actually, YOU suggested it, pg-6, post 105, 7/7, 1:09pm Eastern.[/b]"I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly." My reply to THAT was "Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?" I replied to YOUR suggestion- "he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site"-your words, not mine. Actually, I quoted Jonny and the staff back and forth with each other, as a recap. Jonny said (per Bumpy) that what Paw was saying was "completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication." Paw replied "He is lying to you." I quoted both in their contexts, and added very little. THAT was what you replied to. It was HARDLY a "spirited attack". It was in REPLYING TO YOU (which, supposedly was in reply to the "spirited attack" but was almost entirely a recap of who said what and when) that I said anything that could REASONABLY be viewed as any kind of "attack" or "shot." (My recap post was at 4:26am, your "reply to the spirited attack" was at 7:31am, and my reply to YOU was at 10:11am- and that was the first spirited ANYTHING I posted. If you replied to my 10:11am post's content at 7:31am, that is a very good trick.) ========================== I also noticed you're insisting on converting something I DID say about Bumpy into something I DIDN'T say about him. What I SAID: "I see Bumpy as a person whose social worth is so minor that his sole means of garnering attention revolves around either annoying people, or getting sympathy and pretending he didn't mean to go around taking shots at people, and pretending to be surprised when it blows up in his face." What you HEARD: "What is the point of calling him a worthless liar" I freely admitted to calling him a liar-for I believe there's strong evidence to support that- but posted a correction to the "worthless" comment. I spoke about his "social worth", and you said I addressed his "worth"- as if his social interactions are the sum total of his life. You repeated it, too: "WW called him a basically worthless liar" So, I clarified. First, I specified my grounds for calling him a liar. Then I addressed the other part: "Did I call him "basically worthless"? Not yet I haven't. I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time, or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here. So I did. To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions. To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions." Now, I can see someone disagreeing with me as to whether he's really added nothing to discussions- that's a value judgement, and those are open to interpretation. But I spoke about what I considered to be a lack of SOCIAL worth, and was told I said someone's ENTIRETY was worthless. I said nothing of the kind, and I thought I made that crystal clear with my followup. After I did that, you replied: "'m not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either" Well, I think we should wait until WW actually CALLS HIM THAT to address whether WW has said something wrong. Taking something WW did NOT say- and REPUDIATED- and chastising him for saying it ANYWAY is silly. Going to take me to task for condeming the Bible, too? It makes as much sense.... I noticed you're determined to claim I said it, though.... "Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"? I never said his "worth" revolved around anything. I didn't address a whole person-just their conduct in the social category. You're determined to transform that into a statement I neither made, nor endorsed- in fact, I said I have no way of knowing his TOTAL worth and what he does offline, which, for all I know, could be quite philanthropic. (I wouldn't put money on it, but I have no way of knowing he does NOT.) I was straightforward about that. But, according to you, I said the OPPOSITE. You're misreading me-is it POSSIBLE I'm not the ONLY one you're misreading? After all, I'm not trying to trick you in any way. If someone IS, you may misread them further than you're rewriting my comments. ================ Meanwhile, Bumpy-who you claim is acting at least PARTIALLY reasonable and NOT being a troll- is also sending nasty emails to Paw. (Unless you're ALSO calling Paw a liar.) I honestly think you're trying to do the right thing and treat everyone fairly. I honestly think you've been fooled- and refuse to entertain the notion that someone can fool an intelligent adult like that. From what I see, you honestly think you're defending a semi-innocent person from unwarranted allegations, implications and attacks, and think I should just refrain from comment if I see him doing what I consider is negative- or I should come around to your way of thinking because mine is flawed in some way. It seems we're at an impasse. Can we agree that further exchanges on this would be a waste of time? Can we "agree to disagree" and move along? I say we can. What do you say? Can we drop it here, or need this continue for reasons unclear to me?

Correct! Some people may note that "the Ataris" covered this song- but they changed the line I quoted, so that would have been an incorrect artist. (Normally, any artist who did the song counts.)

Sorry- wrong artist, wrong song.

"Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac"

If he believed this site was contentious and hateful, he should have used the brains that God gave him and go to another site rather than spew vitriol all over it. (Which he's STILL doing- by sending nasty emails to Paw, and using posters here as his proxies. Actually, first I quoted the posts, and they mostly support the idea that he was using "untruths" with the 2 of you.Then you felt the need to jump in and defend him-almost certainly part of that's due to him crying to you privately over injustices. He's sold you and Jonny the same sob story. So, through 2 posters, he's still posting here. Therefore, he can take his lumps for it. If the evidence supports someone having been caught lying, I am free to say so- they are lying. Therefore, I feel no guilt over calling Bumpy A LIAR. Did I call him a liar? Yes- but I left it up to the individuals before he had you jump in. Once he ESCALATED matters, I saw no reason to just let it go. (That's why I didn't comment at all until he had someone else make a federal case and start a thread because he reaped what his bad behavior sowed.) Did I call him "basically worthless"? Not yet I haven't. I have no way of knowing if he gives generously to support widows and orphans in his spare time, or anything else. I can only judge the social behavior he's demonstrated here. So I did. To say the least, it added nothing to the discussions. To say the most, each usage of his keyboard detracted from legitimate discussions. Actually, he arrived at this site and has been consistent in wasting everyone's time, interrupting serious discussions, and otherwise behaving boorishly. When his behavior is already that poor, what difference does a LATER LABEL make? You're making excuses for his poor behavior. He's a grown man, and can take responsibility for what he posts- and the consequences of his actions. Or is there going to be some spirited defense of his using a sock-puppet online, based on his labelling the site as "naughty" or something?

Norah Jones, "Sunrise." It's too easy when the song title is in the lyrics posted.....

Paw's email address is public, unlike mine. It's stayed the same the entire time Bumpy's been here, and hasn't changed this week (that I know of.) If Bumpy somehow lost the address, was somehow unable to find it again, and WANTED it, it would be simple for him to say "please find me Paw's email address" instead of "I'VE BEEN BANNED WITHOUT WARNING OR EXPLANATION FROM GREASESPOT!!!1111!!!!" (which, BTW, I don't believe for a moment.) Furthermore, I don't see Bumpy actually saying OUTRIGHT "I don't have Paw's email address". I see an EQUIVOCATION- Jonny IMPLYING Bumpy doesn't have it ("How can he email you if he doesn't have your email address?"), and in my experience, people who make a point of equivocation (I'm not thinking of Jonny here, I'm thinking of Bumpy) are people who are deliberately attempting to deceive- to get people to think they're saying one thing, but provide "plausible deniability" later that they said it, since they only IMPLIED it and later will pretend they never meant it at all. So, I think Bumpy lied outright to Jonny (and probably to you), and also lied by IMPLICATION (using technically true words to lead the listener to a false conclusion.) This is of course my opinion. From what I'm getting, Bumpy's emailed Paw in the past, and didn't email him NOW until he was recommended to-almost as if he forgot he could, or forgot to send one. Forgive me for concluding Bumpy played both of you, and knew d* well how to contact Paw the entire time. (I hate it when people "cry wolf.") I thought it was obvious Jim was on staff-his posts that I've seen usually speak as staff, and often as the website's technician. I am not staff. A number of years ago, I told Paw outright that if he ever considered me for staff, I'd make a lousy choice, and gave the reasons. I was heading off any future consideration of that, since I felt being on staff would compromise my own ability to post my conscience unfettered. I have been staff on a number of OTHER boards, both as a moderator and as an admin, so I can empathize with the staff here, even when I don't agree with them (which isn't often.) I do think some people lack either experience on other messageboards, or experience STAFFING other messageboards, and thus are unable to contextualize the GSC experience properly. In other words, if they tried other boards enough, they'd be amazed we posters get away with so much on the GSC, and that the staff tolerates MUCH more than the staff of other boards. On the other hand, so long as I had no moderator or admin duties, I could technically be staff for the WEBSITE, but that's not what we're addressing-we're talking about the MESSAGEBOARD. I for one question whether there's any substance at all. Bumpy's posts reflect a distinct lack of substance,and I think all the Bumpy-speak is meant to HIDE that, allowing him to interrupt actual discussions and get some people to think he may actually have something to offer the site other than a negative example. I don't see either of them that way, as well. I see Jonny, in this instance, as being tricked by a deceiving person, and being used by them. I see Bumpy as a person whose social worth is so minor that his sole means of garnering attention revolves around either annoying people, or getting sympathy and pretending he didn't mean to go around taking shots at people, and pretending to be surprised when it blows up in his face. STANDARD internet rules would have turfed Bumpy on his behind long ago. The GSC is AMAZINGLY lenient and tolerant towards posters. That about sums it up.

For those who missed it, I thought I'd do a recap. I think the main positions may have gotten a little obscured. "He is wanting to know why because there was no word" Stated reason. Bumpy claimed he was given no reason for his suspension. Jonny chose to make a thread about it instead of just asking the staff with a pm or email or other method. Staff reply: PAWTUCKET: Has he considered emailing me? I don't see how emailing you would rectify anything. In fact, why would you start a thread instead of sending me a PM? " if he doesn't have your e-mail address?" "Why assume that his e-mailing me was his attempt to rectify anything?" " He is a friend" Staff reply: PAWTUCKET: And why are you making it a public thread instead of PMing me? Bumpy has emailed me numerous times, he knows my email address. ======== Bumpy told Jonny that he doesn't have Paw's email address. Paw told Johnny that Bumpy has emailed him plenty of times and knows his email address. Either one of them is lying (or Johnny's lying about Bumpy), or both (or all 3) are lying. All of them CAN'T be correct because the 2 positions contradict directly. Staff reply: PAWTUCKET: Linda, are you asking me to publicly state what someone did to get suspended? I will not publicly embarrass someone like that. And that is where Lingo was headed in my opinion. I wouldn't do it to Jonny when he got suspended. I sent an email to Bumpy which he could have responded to, but hasn't. In public, a simple question gets blown out of proportion. And suddenly, with this thread, I have volumes to answer based on assumptions. Nothing has changed philosophically with GS, but someone like Bumpy is putting those thoughts in threads and people start believing them. I'll do another post to cover that. PAWTUCKET: Opinions have not been suppressed. (snip) We are not suppressing or controlling anyone, that is in your mind. PAWTUCKET: Rhino, I'm not going to try to track down Bumpy. But I used the email in his profile, if that isn't correct not much I can do. he may remember calling someone something that exterminators search for. Not the first time he's done it Staff response: Staff response: PAWTUCKET: I'm not going to display it. Bumpy seems to enjoy having fun making digs at me -- I did the same thing for him with that notice. And he has been suspended numerous times for the exact same thing. We are not going to hold a public trial. And the fact that he has been in contact with me, this thread is now moot. And that email was sent days ago, by the way, Jonny. Bumpy really has you at his disposal. "Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication." "offered him no information as to why he was kicked out." PAWTUCKET: Jonny, Bumpy DOES know why. He is lying to you. He is doing very typical trollish things. Add confusion to the whole thing and you are buying into it. If you are so irritated with the management here, then leave. I can't please everyone. Is there a reason that Jonny, lacking access to all the information necessary to make an informed decision, is calling multiple staffers liars? So, there's what Jonny said that Bumpy said. I, for one, believe Bumpy said each of those to Jonny. There's what the staff replied-which refuted what Bumpy told Jonny. There's Jonny calling the staff liars. There's the reason Jonny's willing to believe Bumpy but not the staffers, despite knowing Paw much longer than he's known Bumpy. ======= Please excuse me putting Paw's quotes out of quotation marks. To include ALL the quotes, I had to drop some, and I dropped the ones around Paw's replies.

CORRECT! Thanks for taking time from partying every day to answer that.

Since I'm not staff, and you asked where the non-staff reply, you ended up with me replying. (Which was my point.) If you want the answers that directly address your question, you'll have to contact the staff. Otherwise, it's like posting in the political forum and asking what your local congressman's thinking instead of contacting your local congressman. The subject "came up for discussion here" not because someone wanted an answer-otherwise they'd just CONTACT THE STAFF- but obviously for a different reason, since this is not a way to contact the staff. What was that reason? You'd have to ask them-I just know what it WASN'T. Pretending this IS how you contact the staff is not going to convince most of us that you don't know better. The one thing I CAN say, I spoke on-which is that ANY method to circumvent a suspension becomes "wrong" AUTOMATICALLY, regardless of any other policy, as messageboards go.

If you REALLY want to know what the policy is at the GSC, contact the staff. If you want to pretend you want to know what the policy is at the GSC, but actually just want to start trouble, post that you want to know, and pretend that there's no convenient way to find out. On all messageboards, ANY means to circumvent a suspension are strongly discouraged-and generally earn a permanent ban for the poster under all screen-names forever. Let me know if you need me to explain why- but I think the reasons are obvious.

You may have walked in late on a discussion. We've been discussing this on and off since the original letter back in the late 1980s. Certainly we've been discussing it here for the past decade in one version or another of the GSC. If you think it's immature, short-sighted or lacking common sense to draw conclusions based on personal interactions with someone for 2 decades, and public announcements they've made of their opinions and positions, well, I will disagree. Oldies' posts here seem to reflect a position that conclusions can't be drawn one way or another based on the information at hand. I disagree strongly. Few here would begrudge you the right to review things and make up your own mindon your own time. I freely admit that, certainly at first, that a lot of things that are said here sound ridiculous, and almost don't make sense. They don't match the public image we were sold in twi, and certainly don't sound like things healthy (or even unhealthy) Christians would do. Over time, I've concluded, however, that looking at the WHOLE picture means that the claims here are well-supported, both by what twi said, and what eyewitnesses have said. Perhaps you will come to the same conclusion over time. Perhaps you will not. Either way, I respect your right to come to your OWN conclusions. Actually, sounds like you're agreeing with the rest of us. Based on the information at hand, you concluded, you perhaps got a commercial, but definitely didn't get what you think sound Christian counsel would give you. That's a lot of what the GSC is about. Thanks for posting. ======= Oh, and just something I noted about Bill Gaither's song, "the Family of God".... the lyrics are notably different than the ones twi used. Here's what Gaither wrote: "Chorus I'm so glad I'm a part of the Family of God, I've been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His Blood! Joint heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod, For I'm part of the family, The Family of God You will notice we say "brother and sister" 'round here, It's because we're a family and these are so near; When one has a heartache, we all share the tears, And rejoice in each victory in this family so dear. Chorus I'm so glad I'm a part of the Family of God, I've been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His Blood! Joint heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod, For I'm part of the family, The Family of God From the door of an orphanage to the house of the King, No longer an outcast, a new song I sing; From rags unto riches, from the weak to the strong, I'm not worthy to be here, but PRAISE GOD! I belong! Chorus I'm so glad I'm a part of the Family of God, I've been washed in the fountain, cleansed by His Blood! Joint heirs with Jesus as we travel this sod, For I'm part of the family, The Family of God

I would add that he has no problems dialoging "behind closed doors" where the process is HIDDEN, but refuses to do so where everyone can see- which are signs of dysfunctional processes. I would add that he had demonstrated that when people are willing to communicate with him privately, he uses that communication strictly as an advertising platform for ces/stfi product. That's not how people of God act if they want to earn or keep my respect- that's how people act if they see me as a source of income.

When JAL DID post here, the responses were quite civil. Even though he posted that he was only going to post once and then disregard any responses, directing anyone with questions to either look over his websites or contact him privately... And if you decide to contact him, make sure you give your legal name.... Many people, myself included, are VERY suspicious of the "let's engage in even the most general dialogue in PRIVATE, out of sight of everyone." Suspicion increases when stories begin coming in about what happens when one tries that- JAL gives them an earful of commercial instead of dialoguing, and when commercials hold no interest, JAL suddenly remembers he has to be elsewhere, and rushes off the phone. Forgive me for not viewing that, say, as having anything to do with responses of people like DWBH- who neither advertises anything nor blows off the questions nor views of others. Even vpw said that people don't care what you know until they know that you care- and JAL's made it clear that he only cares about CUSTOMERS for ces/stfi PRODUCT. Me, I was a LOT easier on him when there was even any hope he might come and communicate openly with us. If he's going to play "I'm only going to speak when I control the microphone and all reactions", then I'm giving him the responses I think he's painstakingly earned.

Nicely put. I still think more posters would have a realistic impression of what moderators had to do if THEY had to moderate a board at some point. It's not so hard when there's no disagreements and it's all a mutual admiration society. When that isn't the case, sooner or later someone will "go too far", and staff has to make that determination, and decide what reponses to make. In case I'm unclear, I'm NOT advocating anyone start HERE. That's just inviting trouble. I meant at an easy-to-manage board. Start with the bunny slope before trying to ski down Dead Man's Curve.

Well, ok, since you both insist....although I neither named the song nor any artist who performed it. (Like Manhattan Transfer, say.) "You show us everything you've got, baby, baby that's quite a lot"

Obviously a local....

"Private message." Sending a note to just them on this website. They'll see it the next time they log on. Or in a few minutes if they're logged on when you send it. Go to their profile, then select to "send a pm" or some similar option.

The text of Gordon Sinclair's writing is here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/sinclair.asp A different article by a Romanian is here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/romania.asp#add

There's no established computer etiquette or custom that I am aware of. You may consider it a compliment-someone liked what they read of your posts and made a point to add you to your friendlist. You may choose to do nothing, or add them to yours, or send a pm to them with one polite comment or another. You may consider it a request for dialogue. All of that's optional.

Every other privately-operated board I've ever been on, if you attempt to go around a suspension through any means and are caught, you earn a PERMANENT BAN, NO DISCUSSION. The GSC is FAR too lenient, IMHO, to permit ANYONE to post who pulled that at all. Anyone with experience as a moderator or as admin would require very little explanation. Staff has to act in the best interests of the board-as they interpret those best interests. In other words, either you can give Paw and staff the benefit of the doubt, or you can't. If you can, you can take any questions to him privately, and accept his word as to any replies. That means making a federal case out of every decision is unwarranted, and a colossal waste of the staff's time. Having to stop and compose multiple posts justifying in excruciating detail every decision they make is ridiculous, and this is the first board I'm on that even entertains that. If you can't give Paw and staff the benefit of the doubt, you can do what I do when I don't trust the staff at a board, and just DON'T GO THERE and DON'T POST THERE. There is no inalienable right to post at the GSC in the US Constitution. And there's a right and wrong way to approach the staff at a messageboard. Don't think I haven't disagreed with Paw- but you'll be hard-pressed to find me posting publickly on it-I take it to him privately. I've disagreed with him a number of times, but I also acknowledge that all GSC decisions are, after all, HIS decisions, and just because they aren't the way I would do them doesn't mean they are wrong. You'd have a whole different perspective on this if you'd ever been a moderator or an admin on a reputable messageboard on your own. (I've been moderator AND admin, more than once, on a number of boards.)