Brad,
I missed the original emails in this thread and since all I saw were the bits
that had been cut and pasted, I was wondering if "the activist" had been
named or if his/her identity was widely known. Thought my initial email was
somewhat clear on this, I apologise if it wasn't. From your email I infer that the
"crazed activist" is Darrell (Shimmel? -- inferred from a previous email,
please correct me if I'm wrong) who is known to you personally and who seems to
enjoy his current title ("...as he get's more of a chuckle out of these kinds
of barbs than he get's genuinely upset").
Assuming you're correct (and I have no reason to doubt that you are) I'll
consider my question, as to whether this was a flame or not, resolved -- the
party in question is not offended, so clearly no flame.
Thanks again,
- Dilip
bbrunec296@rogers.com writes:
The moderator replied to Darrells concern with "please no more" and yet we
had 2 (3?) more, and THIS time, Personal "attacks" of a sort come out of
this issue. I know that Darrell is mostly playing devil's advocate with
this issue as he get's more of a chuckle out of these kinds of barbs than he
get's genuinely upset. But it brings into question the value of moderation.
If a general (albeit subtle) statement receives a warning but more pointed
and direct "assaults" slip through, where's the consistency? What's the
standard?IMHO Clint is doing and excellent job in so many other areas of concern to
myself, who likes to play this game, that neither he nor the company really
should have to take any time out of their primary focus to deal with these
types of (trivial) moral dilemnas.Brad Brunet
From: <dilipdavid@aol.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Flame?>threeedgedsword35@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <lgtilley@morespeed.net>
>>wrote:
>>>>My hunch is that part of the problem is (IMHO) PRS.
>>>
>>>Nope. That's exactly what the "crazed activist"
>>>wants everyone to believe
>>>though.
>>
>>How could that not be a flame? I thought this list
>>was moderated to prevent flames. I don't see how
>>"crazed activist" can be considered anything but a
>>flame.
>
>
>I know I missed the original emails, so I'm curious if there was any
>identifier as to who the "crazed activist" is supposed to be? After all,
>if everyone ("activist" included) knows who is being referred to as "the
crazed
>activist," then we should pay some heed to the theory that "if the shoe
fits ..."
>
> - Dilip
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ยทยทยท
----- Original Message -----
>>>At 01:07 12/05/2004, habanero_holt wrote: