My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[christopher3393]

Can you say something about why this matters so much to you? Do you honestly think you are being objective?

 

It reads more to me like being indignant. That you feel betrayed and the forum is now your nemesis. Or it is a rhetorical gesture. Seems out of proportion with what is at stake on a hobby forum, given the genuine evils that exist in this world.

[christopher3393]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

It has been literally years since you addressed me directly in this forum.  I'm quite skeptical of your intentions now.

 

Understandable. As I am of yours. You once insisted that I was part of a conspiratorial shadow moderation of the forum that was intent on imposing a false and deceptive civility. Imo.the conspiratorial flavor continues in some of your recent posts. I don't see anything terribly rational or empirical in it. But if you can  explain I have no problem with good faith responses.

 

You also worked pretty hard to protect Brinkman Ship from what you projected to be my desire to trip him up and get him banned. I think Brink kind of embodied pushing abusive speech to the limit here, without getting banned. He was actually banned when CC discovered that he was a person who had already been banned twice for breaking the rules repeatedly. My impression was an is that all of this and more is not only ok with you, but supported and encouraged. What is a moderator to do with members that don't respect the forum rules, which have been quite lenient overall?

 

I think CC was  very, very tolerant for years. But it has taken its toll over time. IMO, recent changes were more about trying to avoid anything like a purge. He did and does not want to lose the members that have left, but a moderator must insist on some good faith effort to cooperate. And that is at the very least.

 

Good luck to you.

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, Shimei said:

 

 It is evident to me that cowards hide behind anonymity. Everyone should have the right to face their accuser. Not be exempt because the coward serves a publication like the New York Time's purpose. What some call retaliation or retribution may be nothing more than consequences after cross examination. An accusing party might seem right, until being cross examined. That is simply due process. Publications such as the New York Time's IMO ought be charged with obstruction if denying another their rights to face such an accuser. As for those with genuine concerns about safety if they come forward.... imagine that ya might need to exhibit courage or even self-sacrifice while doing the right thing. If there is genuine concern for safety then that does not fall into the lap of the press but law enforcement. 

 

You simply don't understand or don't agree with the law and the precedent behind whistle-blower protection, and the gravity that has led to this. Or maybe you are a Viking? But we don't live by medieval Icelandic code.

 

 This is an audiophile forum for enjoyment, which doesn't include your particular code of conduct.  An old norse drinking hall is only hospitable to a point. Think of yourself as a guest in a house you have wandered into and asked for hospitality.  Good luck in your wanderings, but hospitality will quickly be exhausted with posts like this. If you have been overserved, sleep it off.