Dr. Shades, a word with you please?

[_Jersey Girl]

Everyone has been discussing Eric on that now enormous thread, which is now 19 pages, speculating about his behaviour, his motivations, whether he's a low down liar, accusing him of fabricating stories, and on and on it goes.

That's the risk anyone takes when they raise a controversial issue.

I stopped posting on that thread because Eric wasn't saying much, and has always said he'd reveal more later. But no, it didn't stop. His soul was bared to the world - by others - at least as they perceived Eric. Advice dished out in spades, which he didn't ask for. It almost reminds me of Job, "miserable comforters are ye all".

From his very first post about the UBR, Eric asked for help from this community. He didn't ask for advice on the thread. That thread, Ray, was the first really intense, detailed and informational thread that's ever been devoted to the UBR issues. Even though it was a total derailment, the discussions raised all sorts of issues and information.

Eric's anger probably intensified during that thread, possibly motivating him to put up the offending avatar. He wasn't posting, or just responding to inaccurate information if he was. Everyone else was doing the talking for him.

As I stated previously, Eric had that avatar going into the thread. He came ON the thread with the avatar. He'd been posting with it for a while.

Yes folks, 19 pages of it. One "offending avatar" goes up, and the dirt is on him again. Don't you think this guy has already had a hard enough life?

Yes, 19 pages that you apparently chose not to read. He had the av on when he entered the thread, not during the course of it. This thread did NOT initiate discussion of the specific avatar. The discussion about the specific avatar took place right on the thread when crock himself objected to it. If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd have noticed it.

Apparently accuracy isn't important to you, Ray.

Try reading my OP and you'll see the questions posted to Shades. They are as follows:

So, is the using of a photo pulled from someone's blog or whatever, kosher or not kosher? What about blog entries? And how would that impact posting entries from SHIELDS?

Will you figure this out and get back to us?

What does the community think about it?

That Eric chose to use the av in question isn't my problem. That's his problem. I initiated this thread to hash out whether or not it was covered in board rules, and whether or not it was okay to do.

Do you think this thread was the first that Shades heard about it? Think again, for in one of his first posts on this thread, he said he'd been pressured by people to remove the avatar.

I was NOT one of those persons who pressured him.

I had seen the avatar and said nothing publicly until crock himself noticed it and objected.

That I begin a thread with the title "a word with you please" is not a basis for you to charge me with malicious intent. My intent was quite the opposite, so kiss my ass, Ray.

[_Jersey Girl]

Was it necessary to start a thread? Why? What will change, any more than PMing Shades and resolving it privately?

What? Why don't you read the whole OP before you shoot off your mouth? I started the thread to see what people (and admin) think of the use of avatars of posters that have been pulled from other places such as blogs or blog entries.

Read the OP.

Read Shades OWN posts, he stated clearly that people had been "pressuring" him to remove the AV. Why didn't I PM Shades? Because, I assumed that after one of Shades moderators already noted the AV on the thread, that Shades already knew about it.

I had no intention of asking Shades to remove the AV. I was fairly certain as per the above, that that was being taken care of, in some form or fashion, by Liz and Shades.

My intention here was to generate discussion as stated in the OP about where to draw the line.

You could read the OP.

You could read the posts on this thread.

You could read the 19 page thread where Liz began challenging the use of the AV.

You can continue to blather in ignorance while attempting to disparage my character.


Your call.

[_rcrocket]

Bob, of course, is exempt from this. He is sane. He should have taken this up privately with Eric, if he had the balls to do so.

Not possible. I had to disable my PM account because of the PMs I was getting.

I'd say let's drop the subject and invite Mr. GoodK back; he can post my image all he wants.

It is pretty interesting, being on this board. I am called all sorts of names. I don't go off the deep end at every turn.

[_Ray A]

That's the risk anyone takes when they raise a controversial issue.

And viewpoints opposing yours must be expected.

From his very first post about the UBR, Eric asked for help from this community. He didn't ask for advice on the thread. That thread, Ray, was the first really intense, detailed and informational thread that's ever been devoted to the UBR issues. Even though it was a total derailment, the discussions raised all sorts of issues and information.

I am aware of that. And your “expertise” should never be the final word. “Experts” who have been wrong is legion. Don’t tell us what’s “possible’ or “not possible” from your experience only! You have posted on this like some kind of “know-it-all”, and tried to tell others what’s “not possible” because of “the bureaucracy”. You have antagonized and intimidated Eric with your bureaucratic comments as a “know it all”, as if nothing else is possible!

Yes, 19 pages that you apparently chose not to read. He had the av on when he entered the thread, not during the course of it. This thread did NOT initiate discussion of the specific avatar. The discussion about the specific avatar took place right on the thread when crock himself objected to it. If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd have noticed it.

Apparently accuracy isn't important to you, Ray.

What garbage are you talking? I have been following that thread, but not commenting, and marg made the most sense on that thread. My criticisms were not directed at her.

That Eric chose to use the av in question isn't my problem. That's his problem. I initiated this thread to hash out whether or not it was covered in board rules, and whether or not it was okay to do.

Do you think this thread was the first that Shades heard about it? Think again, for in one of his first posts on this thread, he said he'd been pressured by people to remove the avatar.

I was NOT one of those persons who pressured him.

I had seen the avatar and said nothing publicly until crock himself noticed it and objected.

That I begin a thread with the title "a word with you please" is not a basis for you to charge me with malicious intent. My intent was quite the opposite, so kiss my ass, Ray.

You can deny it all you want, but it was maliciously posted. You invited posters to criticise Eric with your own preamble:

What does the community think about it?

I think it's at least bad form. Maybe we should hash this out.

Eric was the first offender? Really? What does “the community” think about it? You sound like Hermann Goring. What does “the Nazi Party think about it?” “Should we punish the offender?” As if he hasn’t been punished enough already with innuendo and insinuations.

And as for the “kiss my ass” comment, as I’ve already said before, if you represent Christianity, in your judgments and your commentary, and your “compassion” – atheism looks like a much more attractive alternative to me. Your braggadocio and pompous assery on this board, while proclaiming yourself a “Christian”, but really a nosey busybody is really something to behold. All you come here for is to build your insatiable ego – at the expense of others. The KNOW-IT-All. You know what’s “possible”, and nothing beyond your “parameter” is possible.

In short, my advice is to get your head out of your ass, because it’s in neck-deep.

[_Ray A]

My intention here was to generate discussion as stated in the OP about where to draw the line.

Your intention was to oppose Eric because he wasn't listening to your "advice". He didn't want a bar of your opinion because he could see you were hostile to him. If you really wanted him to take this to heart, all you had to do was email him. But being your usual bombastic self, you preferred to parade on the board, telling us "what's possible" and "what's not possible".

[_Yoda]

So Eric is the "bad boy". He does one of the "most offensive" things ever done on this board. Bob has been lecturing anonymous cowards for how long now? With this conclusion:

If Bob had posted a picture of another poster's wife or kids without permission I would have reacted the same way.

[_Yoda]

One "offending avatar" goes up, and the dirt is on him again. Don't you think this guy has already had a hard enough life?

Ray--Question--Do you feel that Eric should have received special treatment based on his prior abuse? Do you feel that Eric should not have to follow the same rules as everyone else is expected to follow on the site? Frankly, I think that taking such an attitude is rather patronizing. Eric is, after all, an adult, and a capable young man. He has established a career as a writer, and seems fairly educated in spite of everything he has been through. Surely he is capable of following simple rules of Internet decorum on a message board.

Also....he obviously posted the picture in the avatar to antagonize Bob. It was a deliberate act. He knew what he was doing. And he was treated as an adult. I treated him no differently than I would have treated any other poster who posted an unauthorized picture of another's family member. I asked him to remove it.

[_harmony]

Although I don't often agree with marg, she is right on this one.

Well, I agree with half your statement, Ray. I don't often agree with marg either. But she's not right on this one. If GoodK can't stand the heat, then it's best for him to either turn on the AC or stay away from the source of the heat. He chose to run. It's not my fault he couldn't deal with someone pointing out the holes in his story.

All you've done, harmony, is display your ego. And now that Eric is gone, you must feel very victorious and vindicated.

Actually, I don't feel anything at all, except unsurprised that GoodK couldn't deal with his own issues. There's nothing in his track record that would ever give the impression that he was at all capable of dealing with his issues so it's no surprise that he reacted the way he did.

Your attack on me is interesting though. I didn't see you jumping up and down in a tantrum when I had a hand in driving Juliann away from Z by holding her feet to the fire over her lies... or the many times that Daniel's left in a snit over something I said... or do you only get defensive when it's a widdle boy who won't take the responsibility for his own actions that leaves in a snit? I'd welcome GoodK back in a flash. And then I'd bring up a discussion about the age when a person can be expected to take responsibility for their own actions. Is it 8... or is it 15?

No one gets a free pass on this board, Ray.

Rules are rules. GoodK was asked nicely. He chose to give Liz, who has always been nice to him, the virtual finger. Why didn't you defend her? Oh right. Because if GoodK was dishing it, then she somehow deserved his rudeness. No one here deserves GoodK's rudeness, Ray. Liz certainly doesn't.

[_harmony]

But being your usual bombastic self, you preferred to parade on the board, telling us "what's possible" and "what's not possible".

Don't bother to speak for the whole board, Ray. There is nothing you can say about "us", since you are only one of "us" and don't speak for anyone else.

I found Jersey's posts on that thread both informative and interesting, and I found her delivery both entertaining and generally non-combative. She and marg both posted tons of information, and if they didn't agree, they were both adults about it when interacting with each other. The only name calling marg indulged in was with me, and I have no problem with her inability to control her emotions when dealing with me. Heat generally begets heat and no one needs to protect me. And I don't recall Jersey indulging in much heat at all.

And personally, I like Jersey's bombastic self. Even when she's being bombastic with me, which has been known to happen on occasion.

[_Alter Idem]

I'm not sure about Shade's determination that it's okay to post an email and not okay to post a PM, but alright. It's his board and he sets the rules--so it doesn't have to make sense to me or anyone else, it just needs to be honored by Board users.

The same goes for requests by the moderators who run the board. From what I saw, Goodk was asked to remove the avatar, he refused, and then it seems the mods had to remove it for him. Moderators should not have to do that. Posters at MD are guests of the host and should follow the rules. This shouldn't be that hard to understand and comply with.

Goodk has left, of his own volition, and he's lucky, because he could have been banned. Instead he is free to return if he chooses. When he wants the attention he gets here at MD, he'll be back.