Underhanded

[Josh Miller]

I have read the forum for two years but never written anything. However, last night an event occurred which should be brought to the attention of the readership.

Late last night, I was enjoying reading the threads on the forum when a thread by Warren Willson, "Last time by, just for the record" suddenly disappeared. At the time of its disappearance, one critical response was attached to the thread. A little while later, the thread reappeared, MINUS the critical response.

I recall that sometimes writers delete threads that they started in order to delete the responses that they disagree with. However, never do I remember that the originator then reposted the original thread minus all of the responses. This action was an underhanded attempt at censorship carried out in the dead of night which I now bring out into the open.

I cannot remember who made the response to Mr Willson. He is welcome to duplicate it here, and unlike Mr. Willson, I will not delete it. I further suppose that Mr Willson will attempt to obfuscate the issue by pointing at that his actions were not carried out in the dead of night in HIS time zone.

[bob jenkins]

Isn't it possible that Brad removed the offending post?

(I'm not saying that's what happened, nor am I saying that Warren didn't do what you accused him of, I'm just asking a question.)

[Josh Miller]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Isn't it possible that Brad removed the offending post?

(I'm not saying that's what happened, nor am I saying that Warren didn't do what you accused him of, I'm just asking a question.)

At 1:30 in the morning? I thought I was the only nut up that late. Anyway, Brad's method of message deletion is to delete the post in question, not the whole thread. Unless of course, it contains inflammatory language which this thread did not. Additionally, I have never seen Brad repost a part of a thread after he deleted it. Mr. Willson's new post on the same subject is exactly the same as the deleted thread, minus the criticism from another poster. I cannot remember the poster's name other than it was not one of Mr Willson's regular critics.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Josh Miller

At the time of its disappearance, one critical response was attached to the thread.

I also read that thread. The so-called "critical" response was not in response to the thread. It was exclusively a critical attack on the orginal poster. It made no mention of the thread's relevance or content. It contained nothing but negative comments regarding the author. As such, it violated the forum's policies.

I recall that sometimes writers delete threads that they started in order to delete the responses that they disagree with. However, never do I remember that the originator then reposted the original thread minus all of the responses. This action was an underhanded attempt at censorship carried out in the dead of night which I now bring out into the open.[/B]

What was underhanded was to use this forum for nothing but a personal vendetta. Now, I'm not a virgin in this area, but at least when most others get in their personal jabs, (HHH, BFair, me all come to mind), the targets opinion on the subject matter is a starting or center point. The post you mention had absolutely nothing to do with baseball in any regard. The target and/or author have no bearing on this. It doesn't matter if someone is slamming WW, CC, HHH, BF or even "the one whose name is never spoken", responses that are exclusively negative attacks on personality, integrity or reputation with no relevance to a position put forth, alleged statement of fact, or interpretation are inappropriate.

If you don't remember this happening before, you haven't paid attention in the "two years" you've been reading.

I cannot remember who made the response to Mr Willson. He is welcome to duplicate it here, and unlike Mr. Willson, I will not delete it. I further suppose that Mr Willson will attempt to obfuscate the issue by pointing at that his actions were not carried out in the dead of night in HIS time zone. [/B]

If that poster accepts your invitation, I guarantee his post will be deleted again for the reasons mentioned above. Oh, and how does one, telling the truth and remaining relevant, obfuscate anything? Should those who live in time zones that are nearly directly opposite of ours be required to post only when we do? That's a tad bit provinicial.

[Josh Miller]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

I also read that thread. The so-called "critical" response was not in response to the thread. It was exclusively a critical attack on the orginal poster. It made no mention of the thread's relevance or content. It contained nothing but negative comments regarding the author. As such, it violated the forum's policies.

If you don't remember this happening before, you haven't paid attention in the "two years" you've been reading.

On the contrary, the deleted post quoted a part of Mr. Willson's post and dealt extensively with that issue. (We may be discussing a different post but I only remember one response.) As I recall, it was at least indirectly relevant to the thread in question since it quoted part of the post. But that is beside the point. Who appointed Mr Willson as the board censor? And since the post was deleted, the two of us are left debating a phantom post. It should have been up to the readership to decide the exact relevance.

Finally, I don't ever remember Brad wiping out a whole thread and then reconstructing parts of it. That is what I said that I did not remember happening. The thread completely disappeared for about 20 minutes and then reappeared, minus the criticism. Brad has wiped out numerous personal attack posts but has limited himself to closing the thread or deleting the post in question. He does not reconstruct the thread and has never done this at around 2 AM on a Sunday morning.

Mr. Willson tried to slip one by us and I have called him on it. It should be up to Brad or other management to police the site, not Mr. Willson and that is the only point I was trying to make.

[Edited by Josh Miller on Aug 17th, 2003 at 02:36 PM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Josh Miller

On the contrary, the deleted post quoted a part of Mr. Willson's post and dealt extensively with that issue. (We may be discussing a different post but I only remember one response.) As I recall, it was at least indirectly relevant to the thread in question since it quoted part of the post. But that is beside the point. Who appointed Mr Willson as the board censor? And since the post was deleted, the two of us are left debating a phantom post. It should have been up to the readership to decide the exact relevance.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the so-called context of that post. However, it is not beside the point. The forum policy gives everyone who initiates thread the ability and the right to deal with non-relevant posts as Mr. Willson did. You should address any concerns in that regard to Mr. Batt or Mr. Flores. If someone reacted to a thread of mine as happened to Warren's I would probably do the same.

To boil it down, all I expect to see when someone decide "to take someone else on" is a little sportsmanship or class. Relate the negative opinion to something other than personality. That poster was lacking in those areas.

Mr. Willson tried to slip one by us and I have called him on it. It should be up to Brad or other management to police the site, not Mr. Willson and that is the only point I was trying to make.

Mr. Willson hardly slipped anything by anybody. And again, if you disagree with how the site is run, conatct Mr. Batt or Mr. flores.

[mick]

Originally posted by Josh Miller

On the contrary, the deleted post quoted a part of Mr. Willson's post and dealt extensively with that issue. (We may be discussing a different post but I only remember one response.) As I recall, it was at least indirectly relevant to the thread in question since it quoted part of the post. But that is beside the point. Who appointed Mr Willson as the board censor?

Josh,
A reading of the thread showed the potential of an escalating "you are..., no you are..." discussion that is trying to be avoided on this forum.
The thread was not locked by Mr. Willson.
You did notice McGriff shutting down a bunch of stuff, ... didn't you?
mick