Please... some input concerning Hex 55....

[luz]

Yes, for what is worth, I do agree with Trojan also in that it did not feel like a group decision.

I did not want to question that because I thought it would look like I insist on defending some hopeless cause, which is not the case.

I would have called it a group decision if it had happened when everybody was reacting to WF's style and bad advice.

What seemed to happen, imo, was that Jesed pretty much scared Hilary into thinking she could get in trouble with the law if she allowed death threats in her website.

 

[martin]

Yes, strange. Group decision? Which group? Do we have a hidden secret government here?
And I'm not aware that Willowfox was banned for any other reason than her emotional outbursts. It had nothing to do with her interpretation style, as far as I know.

But it may have had to do with Jesed coming up with potential legal risks for the forum, related to wf's supposed 'death threat', as Lightangel indicates.
In fact Hilary did refer to that risk in one of her posts.

 

[Sparhawk]

But it may have had to do with Jesed coming up with potential legal risks for the forum, related to wf's supposed 'death threat', as Lightangel indicates.
In fact Hilary did refer to that risk in one of her posts.

Yup, I'm pretty sure that did it. We live in a litigious society and it shows in the way people with brains--and a little smart at that would help too--react to things. Those without, after a bravado like the one shown here, would just go down South and shoot Jesed in the butt with shells filled with sea salt...

And it was a kind of unspoken consensus measure, as LiSe points out. Furthermore, WF challenged Hilary's decision, post-fact of a temporary cool-off period imposed on her. Hilary IS, after all, the innkeeper. You can't go around, here or anywhere, defying the innkeeper and hope to remain under the roof... Any person in her position has only so much patience.

L

 

[Trojina]

Yes, strange. Group decision? Which group? Do we have a hidden secret government here?
And I'm not aware that Willowfox was banned for any other reason than her emotional outbursts. It had nothing to do with her interpretation style, as far as I know.

But it may have had to do with Jesed coming up with potential legal risks for the forum, related to wf's supposed 'death threat', as Lightangel indicates.
In fact Hilary did refer to that risk in one of her posts.

Yes on reflection that must be the reason. It couldn't possibly be due to unspoken group consensus because unspoken group consensus has never had any impact before.

Besides which if LiSe perceives an unspoken consensus its a very different thing from an actual group decision. Plus where one person sees a consensus another sees none.

 

[luz]

Agree with Trojan

And, furthermore, I refuse to laugh in the face of such gratituous violence, Luis...


View attachment 150 ......... .......... View attachment 151 ..........

 

[Sparhawk]

Yes on reflection that must be the reason. It couldn't possibly be due to unspoken group consensus because unspoken group consensus has never had any impact before.

Besides which if LiSe perceives an unspoken consensus its a very different thing from an actual group decision. Plus where one person sees a consensus another sees none.

Well, yes, all true. In the end, I guess some witches are luckier than others and don't get burned at the stake. I suppose Chris is an example of a "lucky witch". And then, there is the matter of defying the innkeeper. WF was offered a cool-off period, not a outright banning.

L

 

[Sparhawk]

And, furthermore, I refuse to laugh in the face of such gratituous violence, Luis...

Well, if given with love, I may enjoy spankings...

L

 

[martin]

Luis! Stay away from my angel!

 

[martin]

On a much more serious note, I suppose that cool-off period for wf is still in place? She is not banned (forever)? Or did I miss something?

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis! Stay away from my angel!

Never!! And I have an advantage: I can sweet-talk her in Spanish... (which in reality is a double edged sword as she may realize sooner that I'm full of crap... )

L

 

[rosada]

Anyone who didn't get the 'koolaid" connection, you can google "Jonestown Guayana". the top entry will give you the story. The official story is 900 people comitted suicide drinking cynide laced koolaid. (This is why Brad used this story on another thread as an example of folks who weren't real bright.)The unofficial story is they were brainwashed as part of an experiment in mind control run by the C.I.A. The fact that no autopsies were made and soldiers reported many had been shot in the back makes the whole thing suspect.

By the way, I heard Jones speak and wanted to join his group. My husband looked at me as if I were an idiot and said, "The man's an A******". My husband IS a genius, so maybe Brad was right after all.

 

[heylise]

What I meant was, that Hilary does not make decisions out of the blue. She reads what happens here, and reckons with that, or at least gets influenced by how people think about it. If nobody had any problem with WF, she would react differently. But the word group-decision was a bit (big bit) too strong.
To me the shoot remark looked very much like the drop which made the cup run over.

And sorry Trojan for quoting you without your name. I did not want to say "look, she says this, he says that", pointing, just that it had been said. In my eyes there was nothing wrong with saying it, I just wanted to make clear where my reaction came from. The other quote was from Martin.

I still think that responsibility is an important part when one participates in a forum. Not the ones who come here with questions of course. But those who make the forum to what it is. When I come here, I am part of it. If it does not answer to my conscience, I should stay away. I am not responsible for the forum itself, of course, but if I participate, I am responsible for my being here. WF made that rather difficult.

Mhm, maybe I am the only one with such qualms.

LiSe

 

[bruce_g]

I am not responsible for the forum itself, of course, but if I participate, I am responsible for my being here. WF made that rather difficult.
LiSe

That's what I had difficulty with, leaving room for others to interact on a thread. When someone states predictions with absolute certainty, it has the effect of closing the door for any open discussion with the querent or others about it. But what can one do if that's the kind of answer the querent is asking for? And, the more those answers are given, the more of those sorts of querent it attracts; and that changes the entire level or frequency of the forum. To me, it made everything dry, impersonal and boring.

 

[Trojina]

I still think that responsibility is an important part when one participates in a forum. Not the ones who come here with questions of course. But those who make the forum to what it is. When I come here, I am part of it. If it does not answer to my conscience, I should stay away. I am not responsible for the forum itself, of course, but if I participate, I am responsible for my being here. WF made that rather difficult.

Mhm, maybe I am the only one with such qualms.

LiSe

No you aren't the only one with such qualms, I agree with you but have felt alone in that over the past few months. I felt what was happening when Wfox said this or that WOULD happen was unethical and some of us did protest a fair bit when she first showed up.

Frankly I don't think our protest was really even acknowledged, it was made out to be some kind of childish ganging up, a 'witch hunt ' etc which was pretty annoying cos the issue wasn't about Wfox being a bad person
it was about there being some kind of responsibility for telling people a,b or c is going to happen whatever they do, its fate and they had better get used to it.

However that protest was pretty much ignored so thats why I think issues about her predictive style (of which sure there was no intended malice as such) played no part at all in the current ban.

 

[dobro p]

Different websites have different 'protocols' for acceptable behavior. I've been on all sorts of sites and I prefer ones that tolerate just about everything except vicious name-calling and death threats and really nasty pictures. I'm happy with banning people for that, but that's cuz it fits my own preferences. Other people have other preferences. In the end, a site works out what's acceptable and what's unacceptable for it, and people gravitate to the places they feel comfortable. I'm comfortable here cuz it's regulated without being fascist. Perfect, in my view.

 

[beithe]

Doesn't it look as though WF's banning was due to the fact that she apparently posted in the forum after having been ask to take a week off and fairly bluntly stated that she would only ignore jesed not apologize and then carped at bruce_g? Originally it seemed as though she was only given a leave of absence now it seems Hilary is going to have to look into banning from an ISP addy. I went back to the 'jesed' thread today after reading these posts here. I hadn't realized it had gone beyond time off for,well at the least, poor language to an out and out ban.

I know that I am new here but the only issues concerning her readings seemed,to me, concerned with time related predictions. I know I asked her how she came to those conclusions also. It didn't really bother me that she didn't give me an answer, maybe it should of, but it didn't.

It is unfortunate that WF couldn't just cool off but had to come back in for the last word.

beithe

 

[RindaR]

<snip>

I still think that responsibility is an important part when one participates in a forum. Not the ones who come here with questions of course. But those who make the forum to what it is. When I come here, I am part of it. If it does not answer to my conscience, I should stay away. I am not responsible for the forum itself, of course, but if I participate, I am responsible for my being here. WF made that rather difficult.

Mhm, maybe I am the only one with such qualms.

LiSe

Well said, LiSe, You are definitely not the only one with such qualms. It's hard to know just how many people have "voted with their feet" over this issue.

Rinda

 

[rosada]

Yes, and that's a shame rinda, we shouldn't have to "vote with our feet". Even before Hilary had to officially suspend her I announced my intention not to respond to WF's post's for a week. I think this is a fair way for us as individuals to cope with behavior we believe is inappropriate. I didn't just remain silent and thereby give the impression I approved of or agreed with her, but I also didn't have to leave the site myself to be rid of her. And by saying I was only doing this for a week I left an opening incase she or I changed our perspectives. Had we all thusly refused to respond to her outrageousness she would have ceased to be a problem, even if she continued posting. Look at how so many of us deal with Chris. We just scroll past his lists and numbers when we're not interested and add a comment or two when we are. Every so often someone engages him in a shouting match, but for the most part those of us who are familiar with him just ignor the upset and keep moving.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that we are discussing line 18.6 on the Memorization thread just now:
He does not serve kings and princes,
Set himself higher goals.
I see this line as the IC prompting me to consider as I'm tempted to get involved in these absurd situations, "Please, don't you have better things to do?"