| |
|
As I suggested, but nobody seemed to be wildly interested in doing.
What actually happened: PW offered to answer everything with a question mark at the end:
I will go though this thread and take out every sentence with a Question Mark at its end (those in others' posts, of course). This will take me AGES (Sadly); but, if you want, I will do that and then try to answer them ALL as though they are coming from a place of LOVE.
Evil Scientist suggested that he deal with them a few at a time rather than in a batch.
PW then asks what he is meant to type (that is, say).
Stoats suggests that he answers the questions.
PW asks which questions, and asks people to repost them - that is, goes back to asking for questions to be asked afresh.
Tom said:
What we're asking you to do is to look through some of the things that you've said recently in this thread and elsewhere on the board and either (1) explain why you believe them to be true with solid and reasonable argument and listen seriously to other people's responses and reactions without getting defensive or (2) apologise and take responsibility for the things you've said in error or in the heat of the moment. You're trying to convince the board that it would be an error to ban you because even though you disagree with a lot of people, you're still able to argue reasonably and honourably about those disagreements. That doesn't mean just standing up and saying, "oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean it", it means actually demonstrating that you're prepared to make the effort to explain why you've acted the way you have.
You don't have to address everything, but it's pretty clear that there are some major issues you've been having with the board and which the board has had with you. If you don't know what they are, then that's a real problem and I'm sorry but that's a sufficiently good reason alone for banning you from the board. If you choose not to put in the effort of trying to convince people (and within a reasonable period of time) then again, I'm afraid that's a pretty good reason to ban you.
I don't think it would be reasonable to let this continue indefinitely. If you want to stay on the board I think you should be able to present a decent case as to why you should within a day. I don't think that's over the top.
At which point PW says:
I was showing you how some of you treat others that are different.
I was leading by example.
I was trying to bring Love back.
You have killed this incarnation of paranoidwriter.
The shame is now on you.
What have I done to help people around here? What have I contributed?
Hate?
You decide...
I ask questions. I do not Brand you; you Brand yourselves.
Your pain cuts others too.
Shame - on - you.
Ban me. I couldn't give a toss anymore.
Not having noticed that post, I then say:
On the issue at hand - I could ask PW some questions, but I honestly don't know if that would be useful.
So. There was some confusion about what he was meant to be doing - although either of the options presented by him originally or by Tom could have started the ball rolling. I could have posted questions, if he'd hung around a bit longer, but, looking into your hearts, would that have helped? Or would it have made PW angrier and more unhappy at not being understood? |
|
|
