Mother Nature has a sense of humour

[mimi]

I was not censored. This thread is no longer in your forum. You have no more control over it..

....eggs ackley!

That's the way I wanted it.

The more freedom to express yourself, the beddah, Kahbuzz!

If this thread had been kept in the Resource, fewer people would have replied or bein' willing to participate, such as mimi.

And just like I promised, I would not delete, doctor the contents of any thread.

I've seen how numerous threads get derailed, trashed, muzzled by overzealous mods, and I don't want to be like that.

So, keep this thread goin', Kahbuzz! Keep it goin'!

You're never going to get it.

How are the 'overzealous mods' who moved threads from the main board, to a 'more appropriate' forum, different than you moving threads to a 'more appropriate' forum?
We'll just call this a hypothetical question, since the answer is simple. There IS no difference. So...as much as you don't want to be like that...you are exactly like that. So either you stop being an overzealous mod, or you quit calling us overzealous mods.

ps...could you please answer my questions from the previous page...k thx.

[J0E]

I still have just a couple questions, Joe.
What ARE "the parameters of censorship within the context of this forum?"
What IS the definition of the "free-for-all" section in your sub-forum?
And what is it about this thread, that made you want to move it to a forum that dealt with sexual content?

Well meemster, I have a good idea what my sub-forum's rules are.
However, I don't feel any obligation to list them, simply cuz none of the other sub-forum mods have been required to list them, nor has the main forum listed them in the detail you've requested of me.

so really, it's an uneven standard. You and kahbuzz want to compel me to do something the others aren't required to.

If you really want me to list mine, the others have to as well.

Fair is fair. After all, we all have to abide by the same objective standard, wouldn't you agree?

[mimi]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

[mimi]

"About the only time I'll intervene is if someone posts way off-topic, say posting about cat pics in a resume thread. Then I'll be inclined to move those posts/threads to the free-for-all-section.

I've tried to make that forum as general, open and all purpose to serve the needs of anyone, to make up their content, without fear of provocation or censorship.

It's intended as a Open Forum. As in life, I prefer not to control others, let them freely express themselves and set the agenda if they like."

[kiebers]

[mimi]

the only time I'll intervene is if someone posts way off-topic, say posting about cat pics in a resume thread

Seems unfair. No regard for cats who are seriously looking for employment.

[kiebers]

Seems fairness is not in his vocabulary. He still deflected and did not answer your questions. I suppose if the subforum moderators jumped off a cliff, he would claim he has a forum not a subforum so he doesn't have to jump. Of course the reality is, he had a full blown forum all along with 34 sub forums that he insisted was a subforum so he could get away with censoring things.

[kiebers]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

I think its one of those secret or double secret things. That way when he doesn't like something someone posted he can just come in and go BAMM

[mimi]

Personally, I have no complaints about Joe's rules...apparently he doesn't have any anyways.
I have a problem with his continual whining about how the main forum mods do things, and how he continually commented how he would do things better....because he's just an open minded....swell guy.

It was all so easy for him to say, since he hadn't had any posters.
As soon as he did...he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
I'm calling him on his hypocrisy, not his rules.

[kiebers]

[J0E]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

Hey mimi/meemster.

It's difficult to address your demands, because you an Kahbuzz keep making different ones, and they aren't universal. You're not speaking with one voice or a set of demands. He did ask me to post sub-forum rules, but you have stated in this post that you are not.

so which request should I fulfill? Yours or his?

Also, the detail for which you request clarification from any mod should be the same for all forums, whether it be mine, Inky's, RDL's, or Superchecker's. This is also true of Kahbuzz requesting that I list the rules of my own sub-forum. Every mod should be required to list their rules/posting guidelines if the other has to. I think that's fair. Why should I be the only one?

The other concern I have, is who's running the Resource? Is it supposed to be me? Or do you and Kiebers want a say in running, or running the whole damn thing? If that's the case, what's the point of me moderating it if you want to set the guidelines?

[J0E]

Personally, I have no complaints about Joe's rules...apparently he doesn't have any anyways.
I have a problem with his continual whining about how the main forum mods do things, and how he continually commented how he would do things better....because he's just an open minded....swell guy.

It was all so easy for him to say, since he hadn't had any posters.
As soon as he did...he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
I'm calling him on his hypocrisy, not his rules.

Hey meemster,

...did this thread disappear? Were its contents altered in any way beginning with the original post?

Ask yourself that.

And even if you feel that there has a been a breach of conduct, it pales by comparison to that which has occured in the main forum or ramble on where entire threads, posts have completely disappeared, never to be seen again. At very least, I've purposely left a paper trail from the very beginning of this thread. I've not attempted to hide anything.

Also, there was one poster, RealWoman, who had the entire contents of her account deleted. All here posts, all her threads, and yet no objections was raised to her actions. IN fact one of the mods accommodated her request and her activities have been condoned. Where are those posts? Is there an archive, a paper trail?

[J0E]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

I think its one of those secret or double secret things. That way when he doesn't like something someone posted he can just come in and go BAMM

Waitaminit....you stated in a previous post that you were not censored.

I was not censored. This thread is no longer in your forum. You have no more control over it. Every post that is made by you, me and anyone else strengthens my point that you are a Hypocrite. Every defense you attempt proves you wrong.
Don't know why you are getting so hot and bothered. Just admit it.

And now you are stating that you are censored.

so which one is it?

Were you or were you not censored, K?

[vaughan couvair]

Personally, I have no complaints about Joe's rules...apparently he doesn't have any anyways.
I have a problem with his continual whining about how the main forum mods do things, and how he continually commented how he would do things better....because he's just an open minded....swell guy.

It was all so easy for him to say, since he hadn't had any posters.
As soon as he did...he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
I'm calling him on his hypocrisy, not his rules.

Hey meemster,

...did this thread disappear? Were its contents altered in any way beginning with the original post?

Ask yourself that.

And even if you feel that there has a been a breach of conduct, it pales by comparison to that which has occured in the main forum or ramble on where entire threads, posts have completely disappeared, never to be seen again. At very least, I've purposely left a paper trail from the very beginning of this thread. I've not attempted to hide anything.

Also, there was one poster, RealWoman, who had the entire contents of her account deleted. All here posts, all her threads, and yet no objections was raised to her actions. IN fact one of the mods accommodated her request and her activities have been condoned. Where are those posts? Is there an archive, a paper trail?

Right, there's a paper trail. It must be true what they say, you've got a head full of air.

[J0E]

Personally, I have no complaints about Joe's rules...apparently he doesn't have any anyways.
I have a problem with his continual whining about how the main forum mods do things, and how he continually commented how he would do things better....because he's just an open minded....swell guy.

It was all so easy for him to say, since he hadn't had any posters.
As soon as he did...he did exactly what he said he wouldn't.
I'm calling him on his hypocrisy, not his rules.

Hey meemster,

...did this thread disappear? Were its contents altered in any way beginning with the original post?

Ask yourself that.

And even if you feel that there has a been a breach of conduct, it pales by comparison to that which has occured in the main forum or ramble on where entire threads, posts have completely disappeared, never to be seen again. At very least, I've purposely left a paper trail from the very beginning of this thread. I've not attempted to hide anything.

Also, there was one poster, RealWoman, who had the entire contents of her account deleted. All here posts, all her threads, and yet no objections was raised to her actions. IN fact one of the mods accommodated her request and her activities have been condoned. Where are those posts? Is there an archive, a paper trail?

Right, there's a paper trail. It must be true what they say, you've got a head full of air.

Whoa! Vaughn! Who are you? A 'new' poster who came offa the street? Or did you post under a different alias before?

[mimi]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

Hey mimi/meemster.

It's difficult to address your demands, because you an Kahbuzz keep making different ones, and they aren't universal. You're not speaking with one voice or a set of demands. He did ask me to post sub-forum rules, but you have stated in this post that you are not.

so which request should I fulfill? Yours or his?

Also, the detail for which you request clarification from any mod should be the same for all forums, whether it be mine, Inky's, RDL's, or Superchecker's. This is also true of Kahbuzz requesting that I list the rules of my own sub-forum. Every mod should be required to list their rules/posting guidelines if the other has to. I think that's fair. Why should I be the only one?

The other concern I have, is who's running the Resource? Is it supposed to be me? Or do you and Kiebers want a say in running, or running the whole damn thing? If that's the case, what's the point of me moderating it if you want to set the guidelines?

Of course it's going to be difficult to address my demands, since I didn't make any.

Kiebs and I are not speaking with one voice...probably because we are not one person. You can answer or not answer anything you like.

You're going to have to calm down if you want to sound rational, though. My comments have nothing to do with Inky, RDL or Superchecker. I have never heard any of them incessantly criticizing the mods and admin of VF, so they have nothing to do with this. I'm addressing you, because you are the one who declared (over and over again) that he could do it better.
I have no designs on running the Resource...can't imagine where you read that into anything....nor do I have any interest in setting your guidelines.

I just wanted you to explain your definition of Free-for-all. You commented that if something was in an inappropriate spot, it might be moved to the Free-for-All...but instead you moved it right out of your forum.
I realize you're too mad to think straight right now...so take some time and calm down.

[J0E]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

Hey mimi/meemster.

It's difficult to address your demands, because you an Kahbuzz keep making different ones, and they aren't universal. You're not speaking with one voice or a set of demands. He did ask me to post sub-forum rules, but you have stated in this post that you are not.

so which request should I fulfill? Yours or his?

Also, the detail for which you request clarification from any mod should be the same for all forums, whether it be mine, Inky's, RDL's, or Superchecker's. This is also true of Kahbuzz requesting that I list the rules of my own sub-forum. Every mod should be required to list their rules/posting guidelines if the other has to. I think that's fair. Why should I be the only one?

The other concern I have, is who's running the Resource? Is it supposed to be me? Or do you and Kiebers want a say in running, or running the whole damn thing? If that's the case, what's the point of me moderating it if you want to set the guidelines?

Of course it's going to be difficult to address my demands, since I didn't make any.

Kiebs and I are not speaking with one voice...probably because we are not one person. You can answer or not answer anything you like.

You're going to have to calm down if you want to sound rational, though. My comments have nothing to do with Inky, RDL or Superchecker. I have never heard any of them incessantly criticizing the mods and admin of VF, so they have nothing to do with this. I'm addressing you, because you are the one who declared (over and over again) that he could do it better.
I have no designs on running the Resource...can't imagine where you read that into anything....nor do I have any interest in setting your guidelines.

I just wanted you to explain your definition of Free-for-all. You commented that if something was in an inappropriate spot, it might be moved to the Free-for-All...but instead you moved it right out of your forum.
I realize you're too mad to think straight right now...so take some time and calm down.

Again, if you want me to explain myself, list my policies, then every other mod has to do it as well.

If that's a requirement, then should be the same for everyone. I would gladly list my policies if every other mod has to.

And again, this contents of this thread were never altered. even if you objected to it being moved, it was never actively censored, nor was anything ever deleted. Compare that to hundreds of threads which were deleted from the main forum without a trace.

Actually, given that this thread no longer reflects its initial theme, I think the outcome justifies its transfer to this sub-forum.

And since it appears to be spiralling out of control, with neither you, me nor kiebers agreeing upon anything, perhaps it should be locked and we all should apply for an adjudication process in a different thread/forum to resolve our differences. Face it, we're going in circles, arguing about the same thing, repeating ourselves, with no resolution.

As in life, often people do not agree on many things. so they either go to court, seek mediation.

[mimi]

Hey meemster,

...did this thread disappear? Were its contents altered in any way beginning with the original post?

Ask yourself that.

It certainly disappeared off your forum.

And even if you feel that there has a been a breach of conduct, it pales by comparison to that which has occured in the main forum

Nobody said there was a breach of conduct....only a contradiction of your own words.

Also, there was one poster, RealWoman, who had the entire contents of her account deleted. All here posts, all her threads, and yet no objections was raised to her actions. IN fact one of the mods accommodated her request and her activities have been condoned. Where are those posts? Is there an archive, a paper trail?

You're throwing out a lot of unnecessary smoke bombs there, Joe. =))) This has nothing to do with RW...and as usual, you are assuming you know something you don't.

[mimi]

Again, if you want me to explain myself, list my policies, then every other mod has to do it as well.

If that's a requirement, then should be the same for everyone. I would gladly list my policies if every other mod has to.

And again, this contents of this thread were never altered. even if you objected to it being moved, it was never actively censored, nor was anything ever deleted. Compare that to hundreds of threads which were deleted from the main forum without a trace.

Actually, given that this thread no longer reflects its initial theme, I think the outcome justifies its transfer to this sub-forum.

And since it appears to be spiralling out of control, with neither you, me nor kiebers agreeing upon anything, perhaps it should be locked and we all should apply for an adjudication process in a different thread/forum to resolve our differences. Face it, we're going in circles, arguing about the same thing, repeating ourselves, with no resolution.

As in life, often people do not agree on many things. so they either go to court, seek mediation.

Can you not READ?

[J0E]

You're throwing out a lot of unnecessary smoke bombs there, Joe. =))) This has nothing to do with RW...and as usual, you are assuming you know something you don't.

No, I'm being rational.

As you are probably aware from your own time in court, any time a case is argued before a judge by two parties who can't agree, the two sides are usually represented by lawyers who present examples to back up their cases.

precedents as well.

It's clear we're so far apart in our assessment of the situation, that we ought to seek some sort of mediation, where at least a compromise can be reached to satisfy all parties affected/involved.

[mimi]

I'm not looking to agree with you....and I don't care if ALL posters think you didn't contradict yourself. You did. And it would be nice to see you admit that.

The minute that thread went in your forum, you put out a request on the main board for Pink Heat to be resurrected...you knew immediately you had to dispose of those 'disgusting vegetables'....and I knew you would.
Just like when you couldn't handle Oscars frankfurter. =))) No doubt in my mind you would have turfed that out of your forum too.

[J0E]

I'm not looking to agree with you....and I don't care if ALL posters think you didn't contradict yourself. You did. And it would be nice to see you admit that.

I don't agree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion. However, it is just an opinion based solely upon speculation, not fact.

The minute that thread went in your forum, you put out a request on the main board for Pink Heat to be resurrected.

There is no need to resurrect the Pink Heat, because it has been acknowledged by this sub-forum mod, and the owner of the entire forum that the Zen Bee is the defacto replacement for the former. And I've since accepted this precedent & no longer see the need to ressurect it.

[J0E]

I do agree with Kiebers and mimi in one respect. I have way too many categories in that sub-forum, and it needs to be slimmed down.

Admittedly, it was hastily put together without careful thought given to its structure.

At the time, evs wanted me to put something up, so I did. But it was in a rush and a hurry.

So when I can find the time, I'll make an attempt to streamline, downsize it.

[mimi]

Yoohoooooo Joe. YOU wanted PH back. Not me. You wanted it to dump the veggies in.
It WAS speculation, based on past history and your fear of vegetables and fruit. You carried it out to become fact. (are you with me still) Please re-read so you can have a better shot at responding somewhere in the ball park of what was said.

[J0E]

Yoohoooooo Joe. YOU wanted PH back.

That's true.

Initially I did.

But when it was explained to me by evs and Inky that Zen Bee is the defacto replacement for PH, then I no longer did.

Actually, quite a number of years ago, I was one of the early proponents of a ''The Glory Hole', even tho the forum owners were opposed to it.

I think, given the overabundance of salacious posts in this forum, they need one, or something which serves the same function and provides a release.

[mimi]

And there it is. You find those veggies salacious. =)))

Actually, quite a number of years ago, I was one of the early proponents of a ''The Glory Hole'

Of that, I have no doubt.

Anyways, Joe....It's apparent that you quite simply do not understand what you read...or lack the capacity to put all the pieces of a sentence together to come up with its meaning...or you're too arrogant to bother, or you are deliberately obtuse in your responses. I suspect it's a little bit of all those things.

[kiebers]

Good lord.

In other words...you can't answer to your own claims.
I don't care if you list them or not. You're the one who brought those issues up. =))))

Request for clarification on what free-for-all means to you, isn't asking you to post your rules. It's just that your handling of your free-for-all section has been a little contradictory.

I think its one of those secret or double secret things. That way when he doesn't like something someone posted he can just come in and go BAMM

Waitaminit....you stated in a previous post that you were not censored.

I was not censored. This thread is no longer in your forum. You have no more control over it. Every post that is made by you, me and anyone else strengthens my point that you are a Hypocrite. Every defense you attempt proves you wrong.
Don't know why you are getting so hot and bothered. Just admit it.

And now you are stating that you are censored.

so which one is it?

Were you or were you not censored, K?

There's that inability to comprehend the written word again. Well it is always there. No where does this say I was censored.

I think its one of those secret or double secret things. That way when he doesn't like something someone posted he can just come in and go BAMM

Your imagination is running wild. Perhaps you are delusional and seeing things that are not there. That must be it. Do I need to start making all the letters bold, purple and large/huge for you to comprehend? Really sad showing your lack of intelligence there SCHMOHWELL.

[mimi]

.

[J0E]

Yoohoooooo Joe. YOU wanted PH back. Not me. You wanted it to dump the veggies in.
It WAS speculation, based on past history and your fear of vegetables and fruit. You carried it out to become fact. (are you with me still) Please re-read so you can have a better shot at responding somewhere in the ball park of what was said.

Again, no proof in your insinuations.

The decision to move the thread was purely editorial - to avoid sub-forum duplication, since the Zen Bee is a more appropriate choice for the subject matter of this thread.

Furthermore, why should the Resource become another Zen Bee or Pink Heat? That has never been the mandate of the Resource. In contrast, the subject material in question better fits the mandate of the Zen Bee. Why should there be two forums covering a topic, when the more suitable one can?

Likewise, this is akin to the editors of two different, but allied publications sharing information and articles. An editor of one recommends an article to another editor. The other editor accepts because he or she sees their is value in that article as being a good fit for his or her publication. As a result, it is a win-win situation. The editor of the first publication recommends an article to his colleague because it is more suitable for another publication; the latter gained an article which could stimulate greater interest and readership than if it had remained with the first. The contents of the article have not been altered. censored, or had any of them deleted. it's the same article, but featured in a different publication.

[mimi]

It's not an insinuation, ya goof. It's exactly what you did.

If you could just answer the question, WHAT DOES FREE-FOR-ALL MEAN !