Sockxpert.com - Stock Images. Yours?

[David O'Neil]

David is there something specific that is bothering you?

I have always respected your comments and actions in these boards Bill, so for you I'll try to give my best answer.

The response to the thread that was mentioned is the issue. (And the response to the thread that was just posted, but that is mild compared to the original issue. See below.) To me, the first response came across as a slight to all of the members of this board, and I am one of those who tries to change things for the better when it brings up strong feelings. (The joy of being bull-headed, like Risto.)

One problem is that the thread occurred so far in the past that I cannot remember blow-by-blow what occurred, so if the facts are wrong, please forgive me. What happened created a subjective truth, and the objective rendering that follows is the best my memory allows.

In December, someone posted a thread about a stupid flame topic that quickly proceeded to go awry. It was imbecilic, and it was probably a good thing to close it, or delete it. But as part of that thread, one of the members made the statement that 'ethics' was keeping them from taking action on the knowledge that one of their fellow members of a governing body was corrupt, which they knew for a fact. That issue wasn't tied to the original flame war, and I felt that it was very important to point out to that member that it wasn't ethics at all, but prudence that was keeping them from making a statement about the other member. In fact, 'ethics' probably dictates that they figure out a way to depose the corrupt member in a manner that best serves the interests of everyone involved, as the body being governed wasn't asking for corruption.

Before a response of that nature could be posted, Risto had closed the thread. To me, the new topic, that had nothing to do with the original 'flame' topic, was very important, as it may have a significant positive social impact. So I created a thread that dealt only with that issue, to make the appropriate points in a manner that other people could ponder and respond to.

Risto stated in that thread that I had terribly breached protocols, and I believe he implied (if he didn't state outright) that I could be banned for doing so, even though the topic of the thread he closed was not the topic of the new thread. I asked him whether the off-topic boards were appropriate for the new subject, and if not, what was appropriate for the off-topic board, as it didn't state that topic as being off-limits. He responded without answering the question, stating that the moderator's decisions were final, and not to be questioned, and at least implying that doing so would have serious consequences for me. Then, before anyone could read his reply, both threads were deleted. (The impression given is that he deleted them on his own, as it was late at night, and not many people were on at that time.)

It pissed me off, because that was a very non-professional way to handle the situation. If that subject was not to be broached again, that should have been indicated somewhere, but it never was. So when Risto made his comment in this thread about 'no one stopping the poster,' I responded in an effort to get my previous disgruntlement out of me. When he replied as he did in this thread, it floored me--I was making a simple point, and he was doing anything but acknowledge it.

Anyway, that's done and over, and he probably got the point, even though I'll agree that in a way this whole thing was stupid. But I feel better for getting it off my chest, so thank you for the opportunity to do so.

As indicated above, the response to the newly posted thread is also somewhat irking, because it comes across as unprofessional. That thread was posted because it was felt that the Off-topic board was the best board in which to discuss the interface between ethics and prudence, just as it was when I created the original thread. (The probability of a flame war on the subject is extremely small, and that it had the making of an incredibly interesting discussion with the original poster, and possibly some other members, as the OP's viewpoint was so different.) The 'feedback' portion in the new post was only part of the post.

When it was moved to the Feedback forum, it felt like someone was saying, "Ha, I don't want a discussion on ethics and prudence here, so I'll silence this by pretending that the entire thing is feedback, and putting it in the forum nobody reads." A professional response would have been to either leave it in the Off-topic forum, or to split it somehow so the feedback portion was in the feedback thread, and the Off-topic forum contained the seeds to a valid conversation about ethics and prudence, if anybody wanted to discuss that topic. (And that's my piece (peace?) about that topic, so unless someone put in something interesting to respond to, I have no plans to beat the topic to death any more.) But by moving it, as was done, its been implied twice that the off-topic forum cannot contain discussions of that nature.

That's it. It is hoped that from some perspective this post is interesting, and worth the time took making it. It is also hoped that it remains on the boards (even though this portion should be in a thread on its own).

Best wishes,
David