I don't understand what you mean. I've read this several times and can't really pull a solid argument out, but am concerned about the statement "the noise that you and Neil cut out at a certain time." Are you referring to something that Neil and I actually do here currently, or just upset about moderating in general? When one person attacks a statement or idea that another has put forward, that is one thing. When one person attacks the character or general nature of another person it goes beyond the perimeters of the guidelines, I think that is clear. Moderating is necessary from time to time and everyone has their own style. When I stated that I don't bicker, I meant that over the years, my style of moderating hasn't changed, although I think I probably intercede less than I once did. I don't say that in defense of myself, just to point out that no one can dictate a moderators style, so unless there has been some gross miscarriage of justice or blatant disrespect on my part, "bickering" or pointlessly arguing about it has no value. You seem to take offense where none was intended, so this is my attempt to clear things between us, as my respect for you has grown over the years.
On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:50:45 AM UTC-5, Gabby wrote:
-- On Friday, November 15, 2013 9:50:45 AM UTC-5, Gabby wrote:
"confirmed" in that context meant my theories about what and how people are doing was appropriate for that person at that time, measured by my own standards, as I've explained several times before. The "noise" that you and Neil cut out at a certain time might give me the valuable information about the things I need to know, things that might help others. So when you say "I don't bicker, so I can't help you there" I hear you speaking from a position of assuming absolute power, assuming to be the help giver always, not realizing that you were not asked to help in this situation but confronted with a critical view. But more likely this statement of yours is to be interpreted as what Andrew addresses as backstabbing. Claiming the other was moody belongs in the realm of sexist argumentation and is meant to further weaken a woman's position. Is there a word or expression in English for double-backstabbing?2013/11/15 Molly <moll...@gmail.com>Not sure what "Neil just confirmed" means Gabby. I know Neil to be a stand up guy and am sure that if he has an issue with me as group owner he will contact me to discuss. This has not happened, I was wondering what was pre-occupying him and am glad to hear he is making his way through the tunnel of technology update. I don't take your moods or reactions personally anymore and have learned not to argue with them. Anyone who can demonstrate that I have been in anyway disrespectful, I am all ears. I don't bicker, so I can't help you there.Everyone in the group is who they are and the group, while having changed in constituency over the years, is diverse. The dynamic depends, as with most groups, on trust, support, respect, participation and passion of the members. It is not easy to be honest with others if we don't see the ways that we are being dishonest with ourselves. Challenging the group in respectful ways has become a hallmark. Trolls and hidden agendas seem to fall away because we have learned to spot and deal with them better. While this group may be in a bit of a slump compared to other times historically, it is good and worthwhile, I think.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:12:11 AM UTC-5, Gabby wrote:In contrast to Allan I do not find that you are doing a superior job for this group at the moment. Not on any level. Only the on the technical level your role as privileged moderators/owners(?) give you more rights to decide upon others. I have always assumed, and Neil just confirmed that, that you are lacking the time to do a better job here, which is a reasonable excuse for the state that the group is in. But what I totally object to and always have, is your attitude of selective responsibility while/and preaching to others to lovingly embrace the paradox in the next posting. The words simply don't fit your actions in the here and now.I suggest we need changing to keep this group going.2013/11/14 Molly <moll...@gmail.com>
"From the number of "views"certain topics receive, it seems that many do not even view topics that fall outside their interests."An observation would be "many topics receive a low number of views." You statement assumes why - a judgement. It is a fact, that unless someone is signed into ME, the view will not be counted. I do this often, as I review posts as much as possible. However, my reasons for commenting on some and not others are my own and I am entitled to them. Last I checked, I am free to do so. That you judge me as someone who does not view topics or comment on them if they fall outside my interests does not concern me. If you feel ignored because of that, you are entitled to your feelings and I am not responsible for them.Hundreds of people are members of ME, many never leave moderated status because they never comment. Why do we care who views what or who comments on what? That we have the freedom to do so and the civility to allow people to be who they are while responding to what they have to say (or not) respectfully is part of what keeps the group going.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:11:39 AM UTC-5, andrew vecsey wrote:Dear group members.
Vj Kris`s wish to unsubscribe from this group has pushed me to share my comments about this group.
I have a list of points I would like to share. Please do not take them personally.Despite these criticisms, "Mind`s Eye" is my preferred group to share my ideas with. I look forward to looking for interesting topics and especially look forward to read comments and feedback on the topics I post and on my comments of posts that are posted by others.
- Despite the number of "views" topics get, there are very few contributors. Gabby, Molly, Allan, Ash, archytas, gibbs, channe, and Maudo, are the ones I see other than myself. Many of the contributors seem to be academic types that use words and phrases that are for me difficult to understand.
- Despite Allan`s moto of "hurt no one", he can be very hurtful in his comments. This is I think because Allan takes things too personally. I also have a feeling that he is so strongly opinionated, that his mind and heart seem to be closed at times.
- Despite the friendship and care shown amongst the contributors, there is a lot of cruel back stabbing.
- Despite being a group of "thinkers", we all have our own interests. We tend not to comment or provide feedback whenever topics do not interest us. I tend to view all topics, in the hopes that I can contribute my opinions on them, but many times, the academic jargon used is above my head. From the number of "views"certain topics receive, it seems that many do not even view topics that fall outside their interests.
I
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:35:53 PM UTC+2, Allan Heretic wrote:Is it the desire of the group members of Minds Eye to let the our group fade in to the foot notes of time,, one day wishing it was back?Hiding in the dark corners of the mind?Where can we go to stimulate our minds or is it just to be Black Empty silence??--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.. --
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment