Hey, being is suspicion-of-motive getting contagious?
I split the thread the best way I thought out of good intention to try and get your thread back to the way I thought you wanted it.
Sure I edited my post, but I edited it to leave in the positive suggestion and get rid of anything that seemed to conflict with your desire to keep that thread on topic. Again, good intentions for your thread status.
OK, perhaps I could have worded that better. I was not trying to be personal.
When I said "trying to influence these discussions", perhaps I should have said "is influencing these discussions".
Graham Banks wrote:Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
This is true, but when he starts moving threads around, supposedly at my request, and leaves his own post (which was the basis of my protest), and is allowed to edit his own post which others have already responded to, to me that's trying to influence these discussions. His posts have an overall tone of saying what is and isn't admissible evidence, and he seems to be the judge on all matters (evidence provided on request). I don't care if he expresses an opinion, but he could do it like most other programmers here and not assume anything.
Why don't you just go the FSF if your case is that good?
When did I say anything in that post about how strong my case was?
I haven't gone to the FSF because I am just getting started. I haven't seen what I would consider proof. So I don't get the point of your comment.
Zach Wegner wrote:
I haven't gone to the FSF because I am just getting started. I haven't seen what I would consider proof. So I don't get the point of your comment.
Then why stirring up all the insinuations and casting a slur on Vas?
chrisw wrote:Please respect Zach's request to be allowed to work up his case here.
Chris?
Ater reading your request, i'm surprised to see you involving yourself here...and (apparently) trying to influence Zach's work.
if you wish to remain impartial, perhaps you should do as you requested others to do.
you demanded side by side code, we provided that, and now you are qualifying the request...i.e the code provided is not what i'm interested in?
i want something different?
i'm sorry, i think (as a moderator) you should excuse yourself from the discussion, it appears that you're trying to influence the outcome.
Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
yes, i agree he has a right to post...
moderators have a lot of power, influence, but power/influence can be easily misused...(perhaps even innocently)
remaining impartial is very important
Chris has made his position abundantly clear, and come out stringly on one side...
and as moderator, he has a lot of control about what happens...
i'm sure it's a very difficult task...but moderators need to work hard to remain 'moderate'.
perhaps it's simply his style...i see his moderation style as a bit 'heavy handed', maybe even 'arrogant'.
note i'm referring to 'moderation style'. it's not personal...i don't know Chris...and i can't see which hat he is wearing at any given moment.
Actually moderators can do a lot less than you imagine. It's true we can delete posts, we can, if we get a majority on the mod forum ban people. But, and it's a big but - if we do stuff wrong, act undemocratically, be unreasonable, the power of the forum to flame us into hell is very strong.
So, we behave ourselves. We even have to restain from flaming certain people - that is a real drag
Hey, being is suspicion-of-motive getting contagious?
I split the thread the best way I thought out of good intention to try and get your thread back to the way I thought you wanted it.
Sure I edited my post, but I edited it to leave in the positive suggestion and get rid of anything that seemed to conflict with your desire to keep that thread on topic. Again, good intentions for your thread status.
OK, perhaps I could have worded that better. I was not trying to be personal.
When I said "trying to influence these discussions", perhaps I should have said "is influencing these discussions".
well, I hope I am, that's my intention - but through power of argument, not any other way.
If your power of argument is strong, then you'll influence, won't you? Isn't that the idea, or are you just writing here for no reason?
chrisw wrote:Please respect Zach's request to be allowed to work up his case here.
Chris?
Ater reading your request, i'm surprised to see you involving yourself here...and (apparently) trying to influence Zach's work.
if you wish to remain impartial, perhaps you should do as you requested others to do.
you demanded side by side code, we provided that, and now you are qualifying the request...i.e the code provided is not what i'm interested in?
i want something different?
i'm sorry, i think (as a moderator) you should excuse yourself from the discussion, it appears that you're trying to influence the outcome.
I looked back but was not able to find the posts. Im just wondering if you are the same "Norm" who got caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar- and was apologetic and showed remorse ONLY after being caught. My apologies if i am confusing you with the "person of very questionable character and ethics" i refer to.
that's me George!, and you know it. this attempt to publicly humiliate me won't help your cause, no problem...i can take it.
Chris, Graham, Zach, and I, just got to the point where we agreed to not make it personal, and were moving on in a more friendly (non-personal) atmosphere, so your timing is perfect if you all you intend is to sabotage the environment and denegrate the discussion with personal insults and flagrant attacks.
I've witnessed your methods with Bob H., here it's me, then Zach, and ?
i'm sure many will see this as reflecting quite positively on you and your organization.
Please don't look at the info we are presenting, simply continue to insult us instead...
