Freedomain Radio

And could you tell us why?

Oh sure, that was me - I moved it to the gold+ forum, since everyone she had a problem with in the convo was gold+.

Unfortunately she's not coming back, so there's little point leaving it in the general forum, since if you weren't in on the whole convo, there's nothing much to comment on.

It strikes me as odd that you would move it out of the public boards though. It seems like you merely don't want people to see that chat log.

It seems to me that the point of that thread was to bring what happened to general awareness, not to express a personal grievance (e.g. towards Nathan).

My question, then, is not so much why it was moved, but why it could not stay. Could you address that?
 

Oh sure - because Annie put out a significant criticism of named Board members, and then refused to return to hear their side. That is not behaviour I wish to support.

Stefan Molyneux:

Oh sure - because Annie put out a significant criticism of named Board members, and then refused to return to hear their side. That is not behaviour I wish to support.

I agree with Mixy. I did not interpret Annie's post as an attempt to settle a personal dispute. Her point was to draw attention to a specific type of board behavior which has occurred in the past, and, as the transcript showed, continues to occur now.


 

lost:

Stefan Molyneux:

Oh sure - because Annie put out a significant criticism of named Board members, and then refused to return to hear their side. That is not behaviour I wish to support.

I agree with Mixy. I did not interpret Annie's post as an attempt to settle a personal dispute. Her point was to draw attention to a specific type of board behavior which has occurred in the past, and, as the transcript showed, continues to occur now.


 

If she didn't want to call people out, she could have chosen to edit out the names and still post the conversation.  Calling someone out and then refusing to listen to their side of it is aesthetically displeasing, to say the least.

It's a shame though as I would have liked to see both sides discuss the issue when the anger had died, as I do agree there is often stone-throwing from glass houses here, but I can't complain as I am guilty of the same.  However, I'm working on avoiding it, and hopefully others are too. 

Anne:

I might respond to directly addressed things, but otherwise I do not plan to engage further

She will respond to directly addressed, civil statements.

 

Stef, do you approve of the behavior of everyone in that chat log. I.e., is there any behavior in that chat log you disapprove of?

How about slander or mischaracterization? Are those behaviors you approve of?

Man, I'm out of the loop...  & for once - I'm so glad! 

Mixy:

How about slander or mischaracterization? Are those behaviors you approve of?

I certainly do, Anne had no problem with doing those things in regards to Stef.

Unfortunately, it is indeterminable as to whether my accusation regarding her evasiveness is correct, since she responded with a huffing, passive aggressive door slam on the way out and does not intend to return.  Actions speak louder than words and that particular action alone is enough to add plenty of weight to my case.  If it is true that she is evasive, then attempting to prove it to her with evidence no matter how abundant would be quite futile.

I regret engaging with her at all. RTR has no "back up plan" and since in my experience and observation she is unwilling to RTR.  The most I did was give her fuel and an excuse to leave with.

I can tell you why. I posted a msg not naming any names at all, with my thoughts on the situation, and within 5 minutes got an email stating it was removed and if I wanted to know why, reply. I did, and then got another saying my ip address was removed and I would no longer be able to get on this site. Obviously that was not that hard to overcome, but anyway, the point here is that if I posted a non threatening post with a different mindset, Stef felt it threatened his supremacy, so I was deleted. I still have the original post if you would like to form your own opinion. This too will be gone soon I am sure, then this IP addy will be banned, and I don't care, this is ridiculous one sided brain washing, enjoy it.

Just to try to be clear before I am banned, I was not trying to be any type of problem, just asked a simple question, then never got any explanation as to why it was deleted. Like I said, I still have it all. I would love to learn here and be a part of the question answer thing, but I have to be allowed to ask questions, not just kick me out, is that so wrong?

 

 

Nathan:

Mixy:

How about slander or mischaracterization? Are those behaviors you approve of?

I certainly do, Anne had no problem with doing those things in regards to Stef.

So, because Anne did it, it's an approvable behavior? On those grounds you have no reason to disapprove of Anne's current actions. 

Nathan:

Unfortunately, it is indeterminable as to whether my accusation regarding her evasiveness is correct, since she responded with a huffing, passive aggressive door slam on the way out and does not intend to return.  Actions speak louder than words and that particular action alone is enough to add plenty of weight to my case.  If it is true that she is evasive, then attempting to prove it to her with evidence no matter how abundant would be quite futile.

But the same could be said of you. No matter how much evidence could be gathered against you, trying to prove it "would be quite futile."
 

I don't really know exactly what's up here, but I thought I'd pose a little analogy:

You go into a scientific conference and have a debate.  Things get kind of nasty.  You're still invited to the next conferences, because scientists are generally pretty nice about that kind of thing, and it wasn't completely clear whose fault the nastiness was.  However, before the next conference, you decide to send sections of a tape and transcript of the last conference to the local media outlet, and it gets aired on the news and put into the paper.  When you try to get into the conference a week later, they don't let you in.

 

Now this isn't perfectly analogous, I know, but something that's easy to forget about this message board is how public it is.  Anyone could come look at this stuff, and it really is potentially embarrassing if people are named directly.  Even if Nathan and Stef were absolutely in the wrong (I have no idea, didn't see the convo), I can understand why there would be anger.  I do, however, also understand how easy it is to forget that this is a public forum since the conversation is normally so intimate.  Also, on message boards, there is a sort of detachment from reality, and this sort of a mistake would be easy to make.