| Author |
Message |
    
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
805
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 08:56 pm: |   |
As many of you know, Gridley Schimlap is the nom de plume of Mark York, who was banned from this board a while back and recently snuck in through a back door. I can't criticize that because I did the same thing. However, in my case I was successful and in Mark York's he was not.
For those of you who don't know him, Mark's social skills have not developed in line with his writing skills. Although this is unfortunate, I believe that they are improving and in time Mark will learn to get along with others. I can say this with conviction because until recently I suffered from the same problem.
Unfortunately, Mark has got on the wrong side of some of the members of this Forum and has been banned for the second time. It seems to me that banning someone for the second time is overkill. Although it may indeed be possible to excommunicate someone twice, it is impossible to burn in hell more than once.
Why wasn't the banning of Mark York publicly announced on this board? If it is all proper and above board, our esteem Moderators should have nothing to fear. Certainly this is not something which could conceivably fall under the Official Secrets Act. If you are going to ban someone, please be a man about it.
Due to limited space I cannot post a complete transcript of my correspondence with the Forum Cops and Mike York. The following, however, are excerpts.
This is from my most recent email to the Forum Cops:
This is Mindsightseries Forum, not Skull and Bones. The criterion for membership should be based on ability, not popularity. Why is Mark the way he is? The answer is that he doesn't feel the love. That it's not our fault doesn't alter the situation. He aspires to be one of us. Turning him away simply isn't the right thing to do. Although the resposibility to conform with the rules is ultimately Mark's, slamming him didn't work the first time and there is no reason to believe it will work this time. Mark is what he is and part of it is that he is one of us, i.e. a struggling writer with above average ability. We are like family and every family has someone like Mark. He's a minor annoyance. If we can't find anyone worse than Mark to complain about, then we are indeed blessed.
To be fair, this is what one of our Moderators had to say about Mark:
"I think he would be tolerated if he could focus his remarks on issues or positions but he doesn't. He attacks people and he attacks them relentlessly and with a great deal of hostility."
Certainly, CEW has the right to ban Mark or anyone else for that matter. The question is whether, considering the circumstances, it is wise to do so. Also, I believe that any and all discipline should be a matter of public knowledge. I welcome the comments of CEW, our Moderators, and the members of this Forum on this important subject. If you fear retaliation, please email your views to me, fdungan@fdungan.com
http://www.bushwhacked.htm |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
806
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 09:11 pm: | |
Mark can be reached at mark_y48@msn.com.
http://www.fdungan.com/freedom.htm |
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1815
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 06:04 am: | |
Fred (and everyone else),
Yes, I banned Gridley Schimlap.
Why?
Mark York made it patently clear that he has no respect for those of us here some time ago, and he was banned for breaking all of the rules of conduct.
He was never invited back, nor did he make any attempt to contact me to reconcile his previous behavior in a plea to return to the board.
As such, he is not welcome back at this time.
Not to be rude, but I really didn't feel any need to explain all of this to the public board, but since you asked and you are a respected member of the forum, I hope that my answer suffices.
As you know, Fred, I'm certainly open to communication considering this issue, but I was never contacted, and any attempt by a previously banned individual to enter and use this forum represents a 'hack' to my way of seeing things. I can't say that I condone hacking from anyone, and that is especially so for people who seem to have the intent of breaking the rules of the forum.
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator |
Laurel Johnson
Unity Member
Post Number:
3676
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 06:12 am: | |
I don't fear retaliation so will express my views publicly and without hesitation.
I consider message boards - such as this one - to be like the owner's home. The one who pays the fees and maintains the website prevails. To put it on a personal level, hateful, argumentative, and disturbing behavior is not allowed in my home. People who act that way are not invited back, especially strangers. If I know a person well, I may make allowances for awhile until I see they have no plan to modify the behaviors to which I object.
Gridley / Mark was given two public warnings in a public forum by two different moderators. In his new persona, he once again chose to ignore those warnings.
My opinion is that this is CEW's board. He owns and maintains it. He assigns moderators to help police the board. These moderators know the owner's expectations. While I am not a supporter of censorship and do appreciate free speech, those same rights to not apply in my home or on a privately owned board. The Forum Kops enforce the rules. Those rules and expectations were clearly posted on the public area of the board many months ago. Gridley broke the rules, for the second time, under a new name.
These have been my personal but public opinions.
Laurel Johnson
Author: The Grass Dance
The Alley of Wishes
Color of Laughter, Color of Tears
|
Steven Shrewsbury
Unity Member
Post Number:
1188
Registered: 04-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 06:40 am: | |
Wonder why he stopped by, anyways?
www.stevenshrewsbury.com
GODFORSAKEN
Behler Publications |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1319
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 07:02 am: | |
Another point that might be considered is that many of the people who post here merely wish to share information. Their input is often helpful and valuable to those with a sincere desire to succeed. A substantial number of these people would rather remain silent than subject themselves to unreasonable and unfounded ridicule.
There is an enormous difference between criticism and ridicule and it is the responsibility of all who post here to recognize that threshold and to respect both the feelings of others and the integrity of this forum.
Mindsight is the property and creation of CEW, not Jerry Springer. |
Snarzler
Hunger Member
Post Number:
68
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 08:17 am: | |
But to CE's credit, at least he doesn't delete the offending posts so that others can see exactly why some people are unwelcome.
Andrea
Dakler's Dilemma:
If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want hits the paper. |
Bill Nelson
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
921
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:13 am: | |
Fred,
If I may, along with free speech comes the responsibility not to abuse that freedom. For free speech to remain effective it has to be paired with common sense and respect for the other person(s) right to that same freedom.
Bill Nelson
RISEN, ISBN 1-93301616-4
Behler Publications |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
809
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:50 am: | |
Extend a plea for compassion for a fellow writer and receive both barrels of the 12 gauge shotgun. For the benefit of those of you who may not know him, Mark is 51 years old, currently unemployed, and could not represent a "clear and present danger" (the only rationale for banning free speech) to anyone. Mark is a journalism student who is a few credits away from receiving his B.A. I wonder how many of us would have the courage and willpower to go to college at his age in order to pursue a lifelong ambition of becoming a successful writer. His motives are pure. That he desires to be one of us and chose to sneak in through a backdoor after being expelled testifies to the value he places on this board, its esteemed leader, its Moderators, and the individual members. He holds no hate in his heart for anyone. It is not uncommon for those of us with blue collar origins to be seen as abrasive by people who can boast of a more genteel background.
I spoke with Mark on the telephone last night. He readily acknowledged that he has problems in getting along with others. However, he is neither a troll nor a flamer. In an earlier post I characterized Mark as the black sheep of our extended family here at Mindsightseries Forum. I am certain that Laurel would not kick family out of her home unless there was no other option. Nor should we. Mark is working to improve himself. I wish a few of my relatives would follow his example. The standard by which we should judge Mark is by whether or not his behavior is improving. I urge everyone to look at the archives and judge for yourself whether or not he has mellowed since his first postings on this board.
Mark has a dream. He wants to be a best-selling author. All of us have had that dream at one time or another, but few have pursued with the prolonged and consistent vigor it takes to get there. Mark hasn't given up on his dreams. He is a serious individual who comes on a bit strong. Personally, I prefer my coffee without cream.
I am not suggesting that Mark should not be disciplined. There are penalties, however, that can be imposed other than banning. Banning from this board is a more severe penalty than that imposed by similar boards. When an individual is banned at Mindsight, he can neither post to the board nor access the board to read messages that others have posted.
If Mark has been rude, he owes an apology to CEW, the moderators, and members of this board. If, however, he is only being himself, then I suggest that the overly sensitive among us don their armor and cope with the real world in the way that working men and women have always done. The life of a writer may be an ivory tower existence for the priviledged few among us, but that is not to say that we should exclude individuals with less fortunate origins.
http://www.fdungan.com/bushwhacked.htm |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1854
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:52 am: | |
this is what I wrote to Fred last night at Midnight because I felt the need for an honest reply from one of the Moderators and I also copied it to a certain other Moderator this AM, and now what to let the rest of the world see it, because this matter is not seeming to go away:
"Fred, OK the skinny is:
1) Mark York was banned form the Mindsight board because he doesn't respect others at all. He attacks the very people he hopes to have bolster him and his cause. He belittles and nags and berates and smugly states things that are double sided to make backs bristle and tempers flare. He does this full knowing what he is doing and then when he is warned or told to stop, he goes on about his agenda like no one should have the right to even consider asking him to be nicer to the people that inhabit the place he is in.
2) This is CE's board and it was him that took the action to ban Mark York because he personally banned him before and Mark didn't even respect that enough to honor it. When you were banned, you came back, but you also contacted CE when you wanted to do it and the two of you came to an understanding of what is or is not tolerated. CE banned Mark because he did NOT contact him, he did NOT ask to be able to post, and he started his usual snide attacks on people without even considering CE's rights of ownership. I had already warned him, and Dennis did also, but it came down to CE taking the full course of action and banning him, because Mark would not play nice in the sandbox and it is CE's sandbox to decide who is welcome and who is not.
We do not want you to be a casualty of Mark York, and considered this aspect very carefully even before CE was aware of York's posting. You are rather brutally honest in some of the things you say, and you talk with an acid about you, but you are liked and cared about on the board, by ALL of us. And we know you, and know what to expect from and about you, and not one of us wants to see you take this personally, as we do care about you. Mark York has one agenda and one agenda only, and that is to disrupt every place he goes, and CE decided that he (Mark) will not disrupt our family, of which you are a member. We don't want to lose you, and that most certainly was thought about with great feeling and consternation on our parts, but it is CE's board and CE has the right to do what he wants. He pays the bill to keep it running and also works very hard to make it a place that is a safe haven for all of us, with constant improvement and innovations to keep us abreast of all that is going on out there in the publishing world. So, personally, I think that it is up to him to ban Mark York if he thinks that Mark presents a disruption and threat to his sanctuary for us. I sincerely hope you take all of this in and keep it in mind when you mull this thing over in your head. WE CARE ABOUT YOU and MISSED YOU when you were gone from our midst. If you like and want to keep Mark as a friend of yours, and even relay things to and from him to others on the board through email or by posting something that would be noteworthy about him and what he is doing, please feel free to do it, there is no problem with anything other than Mark actually posting on the Mindsight board, as that is something that CE doesn't want to have to put up with, unless he and York can come to an agreement of conduct towards the other members of the community. His conduct towards every one of us is what has brought this down upon his head, and since CE has a very parental attitude toward us, he decided that the course was set and that is what he did. We are his family and he doesn't want to see any of us attacked the way Mark has done in the past and is famous for on other boards."
That is the gist of why Mark was banned, and what it will take to get that ban lifted. You can relay it to Mark if you want too, or you can chose to go with him, but know that we do NOT want that to happen, as you are a member of our family and you will be deeply missed if you chose to take a course of action towards leaving us because of Mark York.
Now, I maybe should not have written this to Fred, but then a gain, I think that he should know and feel a loyalty for us as we do for and about him. I truly don't want Fred to be a casualty of this mess, as I am sure many/most of you do not either. And I thought that he should know how we feel about him and that his motivations may be pointed in the wrong direction.
Steven,
As far as what got Mark York banned in the first place a very long time ago, it is all in the records, if you want to look up all the posts Steven. I personally don't have the time to go back and find them all or pull all of htem to the front, but they are all there in the archives. There are many reasons, if one chooses to see them. And this is CE's board. Mark has pissed so many people off in every other board, for reaons that only he knows, that a vast majority are getting really tired of fighting with and for him. Perhaps Mark York should take a look at his personality skills and communication abilities and make a personal assessment about how he uses them before he alienates everyone and creates a vacumn for himself. That is what he is headed for, if he should chose to keep slinging his nasty opinions the way he does towards everyone without respect towards anyone.
Just my thoughts.
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
810
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:21 am: | |
Claudia,
I respect your opinion. And I would defend to the death your right to express it. Having come from a journalist background, that should in no way surprise you. I do not believe the issue is ownership. Although CEW has the right to behave like Donald Trump, in actual practice I know him to be a caring person. You have portrayed our esteemed leader in an unfair manner and you should be ashamed of yourself. Please apologize to CEW and everyone else who frequents this board (how's that for being overly sensitive?).
http://www.fdungan.com/bushwhacked.htm |
Laurel Johnson
Unity Member
Post Number:
3677
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:39 am: | |
To borrow Fred's statement and apply it to myself: Give an honest comment / opinion after being invited to do so and receive both barrels in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun.
I admire and respect you as a person and a writer, Fred, but don't give an open invitation to express my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Nothing I said was meant as an insult to anyone, especially you. My opinion has never varied. I've shared it with you both privately and publicly now. It was not a personal attack and should not have come as a surprise.
Laurel Johnson
Author: The Grass Dance
The Alley of Wishes
Color of Laughter, Color of Tears
|
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
814
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 02:49 pm: | |
I was not referring to you, Laurel. I was given the impression by one of the other moderators that Mark had not yet been banned for the second time when in fact he had. The analogy was to a disciplinary action taken by the Forum Cops, i.e. they figuratively emptied both barrels into Mark. All that remains is to bury the corpse.
http://www.fdungan.com |
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1816
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 04:32 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Fred, you make a very compelling argument for Mark's allowance to post at the forum, but it's a plea about someone none of us here have seen.
I could bring myself to believe your perception of Mark, and I'm willing to try, seriously.
Mark isn't banned from the entire site, by the way. Just those areas where he has instigated inflammatory commentary. I suggest a course of action.
I will tell you that Mark is free to post on the Musings topic, and that he would be able to start his own subtopic thread there should he so desire. I will keep it this way for the time being, and should Mark like to post there, I invite him to do so.
However...
If he does so and chooses (again) not to follow the rules, that privilage will stop as well.
I'm not asking for Mark to bend his knee to me (I would never ask it of anyone), nor am I asking him to be a picture perfect embodiment of the fake, falsely happy and/or oblivious individual. I am demanding that he post from an attitude of respect - because EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE is deserving of respect, at a minimum.
I'm not so sure I fit that image Claudia provided of me as a parental unit, but this forum is an extension of what I want in an online message forum. I expect respect, and I don't think it is unreasonable to do so.
I invite everyone here to engage Mark in conversation, even argument (and that's argument in the strictly acedemic sense - see archived posts of excerpts from The Elements of Argument here at the forum) on the Musings topic. This is a 1-strike-and-you're-out situation though, and at the end of it, if it results in a banning of his ability to post even there, I'll hear nothing further on this topic.
I'm trying... I invite Mark to do so as well.
CEW
Mindsight Moderator |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
817
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 05:07 pm: | |
Fair enough.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
priceless1
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
502
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 05:12 pm: | |
As one who continues to be at the end of his ill temper in other venues, I beg to disagree with you, Fred. Mark is an angry man, I'll grant you. As such, he sees fit to spread his anger around and tends to play the truth rather casually. To be honest, I have no interest in seeing his continued diabtribes against me or others. As one who posts here, I feel everyone deserves to be treated with respect, something Mark has failed to do.
And yes, if I had a family member that behaved as badly as he does, I'd show them the door in a heartbeat. |
Stacy Anderson
Wandering Member
Post Number:
112
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 09:48 pm: | |
Hi Everyone,
Just my two cents about Mindsight in general.
I've read and been a apart of a lot of message boards and I have to say by far that Mindsight is the best. If this is evidence of how CE handles his business than I say more power to him! I love this board, I feel comfortable here. It's intelligent and one of the few boards where I feel you can post an opinion different from others without having your head blown off, like other writers' boards I won't mention.
My point is that even if something seems unfair to one person ( who may or may not have been misjudged ) CE has the responsibility and right to maintain the atmosphere he wishes Mindsight to have. There are so many boards where the moderators do nothing, that before long the entire place is a shouting match or a place to hurl a bunch of shameful personal attacks. Then there are others where you can't say two words without being thrown off the board. I have never felt that Mindsight is run unfairly or with prejudice towards anyone's opinion or person in general unlike other boards.
No matter what happens in the future I will always enjoy and appreciate the way Mindsight is handled. And like I said before it is the ONLY board I post on. I find it helpful, informative and I enjoy the interesting people that post. I love it and have no complaints.
I just wanted to jump in with my little opinion, folks. Back to your regularly scheduled programming! LOL
Stacy
www.stacy-deanne.net |
Frederick A. Babb
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
303
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 06:17 am: | |
Stacy,
DITTO, DITTO, DITTO.
I never attempt to judge someone for their behavior, nor take their comments (either directly or indirectly) aimed at me personally. Learning to agree to disagree is the basic rule of debates and instrumental in opening one's eyes to other viewpoints. We are not always right, nor are we always wrong.
However, if a difference of opinion is reduced to a schoolyard name calling post, all those associated with the post and the messageboard loose some of their prestige for nothing more than associations. CE attempts to maintain the dignity of conversation here.
As for Mark, I have never had a problem with him and I can't condemn him for what he does. Some remarks could be taken wrong, but it takes two to tangle also. By never having reduced myself to his level in his trying moments, I never was one to recieve his wrath when he suffered (as Fred so nicely expressed) his problems in getting along with others.
Judge not and do not be judged. CE acted in what he felt was the correct procedures in what was viewed as a problem. Not taking it public was an act I applaud him for, since it was between himself and Mark. This isn't a gossip board and we should not have to have the dirty laundry aired.
If, in some future moment, Mark is allowed to return, I would greet him with open arms and tolerate his dark moments as I have always done. Life is too short to worry about the little things.
Now, back to attempting to give Stacy a foot massage...
Frederick A. Babb
Preview books: http://www.frederickbabb.bravehost.com |
Pacwriter
Unity Member
Post Number:
1797
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 06:59 pm: | |
I took the position of "If Mark wrote it, I passed it" some time ago. Selective reading of posts keeps me from getting indigestion. There are other people who post here that I do not read but that is not important. What I feel is important is that each person can choose to read or not read a post. No one is twisting your arm to read and comment.
As to free speech, no one has a right to call someone a name just because they dare express an opinion that is contrary. Somewhere in the history of the United States the definition of "free speech" was changed. Today there is no sense of civility. I do not believe any person has a right to say anything they wish. You can not say, "I'm going to kill the John Doe!" because that is a threat and a violation of law. Threats such as "I will sue" are free speech but will gain a negative response.
You can not say to a policeman, FBI person or other law enforcement the too common "F" followed by "you" word with running the risk of being arrested. some speech is just not without consequences.
If you insult me on this board, your speech is free, but not without consequence. For one, I will not read or respond to any more of your posts. So you see the consequence is I limit your speech by reducing your audience.
There are consequences to free speech that is mis-used. Mark York is has incurred a consequence.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
821
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 08:38 pm: | |
The veneer of civilization is wafer thin. Among a highly educated group such as this, I would not expect the ultimate penalty to be imposed as often as it has been, especially against one of our own. Please be so kind as to reserve your rancor for the trolls, spammers, and flamers who occasionally disrupt our little community. Need I remind you that Wilhem Meiners is permitted to post to this board while Mark York is not? I'm not asking anyone to like Mark or to turn their back on anything he has done. What I am asking is for my fellow writers to view whatever transgressions he may have committed in their proper perspective.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Steven Shrewsbury
Unity Member
Post Number:
1189
Registered: 04-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 08:38 am: | |
That is f&%ked up when ya put it that way, Fred...jeez...never thought of that.
On another board some dork threatened me (or flamed me)alot and the guys running that board REFUSED to ban them or even tell me where the messages were originating. And that board was from a "publishing" company...not PA...
Wonder if it was from them themselves...
Ah well, ancient history 
www.stevenshrewsbury.com
GODFORSAKEN
Behler Publications |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1333
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 09:29 am: | |
In line with putting things in perspective, I would consider myself truly blessed if the biggest disappointment or failure in my lifetime was my PA experience. It's just not important enough to cause some of the agony that I see here. |
Jan Fields
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
792
Registered: 09-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:51 am: | |
Well, since we're talking about PERSPECTIVE -- it might be good to remember that this is just a message board. If C.E. banned me today, I would be a mildly disturbed but I would just trundle on my merry way without any deep psychic wounds. I could still direct email anyone I liked here -- C.E. wouldn't be driving over and bashing my computer to bits or anything. Getting banned isn't an "ultimate penalty" -- no one would come over and shoot me. I would just have one less place to chat up folks. If I am a civilized person with a desire for positive conversation, I could find plenty of other places. Yeah, it would be a bummer but there are a poopload of worse things.
I've said a lot of controversial things on a lot of different boards/lists and sometimes folks have questioned why or disagreed with me pretty sharply -- but I've only been banned once (I was on the PA board long ago when non-PA folks were allowed on). And guess what? I wasn't the least bit honked off when PA banned me. Their banning policies are pretty plain (though unspoken) -- say only nice things about PA and don't hang out with anyone who says negative things or you're outta here -- and I wouldn't comply so I was banned. I was comfortable with that. I knew the rule. I could have complied. I didn't. I was banned. I wasn't surprised. That's pretty much a clearly logical action.
When you know what kinds of things will get you banned and you do them anyway -- it comes time to stop saying how much evil has been visited upon you and just admit: I didn't want to follow the guidelines that the board uses so I got banned. I could have followed the guidelines. I didn't WANT to. I CHOSE not to. The reason I was banned was ME.
Unless someone lied to you, i.e. "They told me anything goes on that board but they lied because they kept warning me about my behavior and then banned me." -- then it comes down to whether you want to participate or you don't. If you want to participate, follow the guidelines everyone else lives by. If you don't, push the envelope until you make everyone miserable and the ultimate penalty is visited upon you. One thing I HAVE noticed in EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION BOARD (except PA) is that they really don't seem to like banning anyone. It makes them feel crappy. They don't take it lightly.
And the} person banned still gets to keep his computer and no one comes to his house and shoots him. And, if he's onery enough, he can rejoice in having made good people feel crappy.
jan |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
824
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:48 pm: | |
Being ornery isn't sufficient reason for banning. And you are wrong in that it doesn't affect your computer. Unlike other message boards, when you are banned by Mindsight, you no longer are permitted access to read the board (even PA doesn't go that far).
I'm not nearly so worried about how this affects Mark, as how it affects the rest of us. If we gag someone simply because we don't like who they are or what they say, it makes us look narrow-minded. Not only that, but it limits the free exchange of ideas. There are lots of writers who don't speak their mind on the PublishAmerica message board because they realize they will probably be banned if they do.
Does it bother you so much to read something you don't agree with? If so, I submit you are being overly sensitive. Our sons and daughters are taking bullets in Iraq to protect other peoples' freedoms. It doesn't mean a thing if we don't keep up our end on the homefront.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Bailey (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: vcn19.usrtc-1.rawl.wy.vcn.com
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 07:02 pm: | |
Mark York has been a psycho on every board he gets on. Not only does he get booted off all of them, Fred is the first one I've heard defend him. I don't think the Iraq war has anything to do with a private owner keeping a whacko from participating on a forum. He's disruptive, belligerent, obnoxious and a person who gets nasty when people are in disagreement with him. Good work, C.E.
Steve Paul |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2146
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 07:23 pm: | |
"Unlike other message boards, when you are banned by Mindsight, you no longer are permitted access to read the board (even PA doesn't go that far)."
I haven't tried to access it, but isn't that why they put their private message board into place?
On a related note...Bailey, please refrain from calling Mark a whacko. I urge you to read the Forum Guidelines here: http://www.mindsightseries.com/FAQ.html
Mindsight Moderator
Check out Who Needs a Hero?
|
Jan Fields
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
793
Registered: 09-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 07:53 pm: | |
There are ALWAYS restrictions on communication. That's just reality. If I choose to go to church, I do so KNOWING the I'm not going to be allowed to do certain things -- get naked in the vestibule, for example, or yell "God is Dead" during the benediction. Hey, that's cool. If I want to get naked or yell about the well being of God, there are places where that is okay.
If I go visit my Dad, there will be things I cannot do. Even though he loves me, he would show me the door if I insisted upon my 'right' to do or say anything I wanted in front of him.
If I hang out on mindsight, I do so knowing that there are restrictions on how nasty I can behave. It's not a government run forum, it's a discussion board run with certain social requirements -- JUST like church would be, or visiting my dad, or grocery shopping (I can't do that naked either and if I start a fight in the check out line, I'll be thrown out and I might even be BANNED from returning.)
My little brother is overseas RIGHT NOW and he dang well isn't there to force ME to let anyone who dang well wants to behave anyway they dang well please on my property. He is over there for serious business and I am DEEPLY offended to have his risks so minimized as to suggest he is defending someone's right to be offensive on someone else's property.
Now, I promise to drop this topic before I get really upset.
jan |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
826
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 08:26 pm: | |
"I don't think the Iraq war has anything to do with a private owner keeping a whacko from participating on a forum."
It has everything to do with it. Our television, print, internet, and radio are for the most part privately owned. When our Founding Fathers authored the First Amendment, they specifically had in mind the rights of privately owned presses. By custom those rights have been expanded to include contributors to these entities. Moreover, both radio and television, being licensed to use the public airwaves, must serve the public interests - a definition which has been interpreted to include the freedom of expression. Although the situation via internet public forums has yet to be tested in court, I would surmise that they will eventually be placed under similar guidelines since the internet is also licensed. I had to purchase my domain, fdungan.com, and was assigned a specific frequency. No doubt CEW acquired Mindsightseries.com in a similar manner. Those who are licensed are expected to be responsible people who serve the public's interest. Theoretically, anyone who consistently stood in the way of freedom of speech could be subject to having his license revoked.
What does all this have to do with Iraq? You can't export freedom unless you practice it at home. Too often we tend to give it lip service. Mark York is the most recent example.
http://www.fdungan.com/freedom.htm |
Pacwriter
Unity Member
Post Number:
1801
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 09:09 pm: | |
Freedom is not free. Some have to pay the price.
And, there is no such thing as TOTAL freedom. When a society allows each person to do and say what they want without regard to the rest of society, that society fails and dies. The rule of law that protects freedom(s) also restricts freedom(s).
Every organization no matter how large or how small has rules.
Also, free speech is limited by law, it has to be. Libel is one such way free speech is regulated by law. You can say almost anything you want to say as long it is true. When you make false statements, the law comes into play.
If you make false statements on Mindsight or fail to observe stated rules you are subject to penalties. when you join Mindsight you obligate yourself to the rules. If you do not agree with the rules, you should not join. Free speech is is allowed within the the parameters of the rules.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
827
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:18 pm: | |
Did he shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater? Was there a "clear and present danger?" If a threat was offered, was there any chance of that threat being carried out? These are the parameters laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court for Freedom of Speech. They are not arbitrary and were instituted due to abuses of the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1917. Certainly, we would not want to have any of these abuses repeated.
Our troops are paying the price for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it too much to expect those on the home front to protect it at the grassroots level?
http://www.fdungan.com/freedom.htm |
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1822
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 04:21 am: | |
I'm really not sure I understand the argument you are offering, Fred. Mark York was given more chances to prove himself here than enyone ever has - because of your request that he be treated fairly.
He was. End of story.
He spit in the face of the rules of this forum, which are publicly posted, and has been removed from posting here. He can read what is here, but by his own testimony, doesn't seem to want to.
I wouldn't like to test the scenario where he came to my house and spit in my face... but I assure you that either the authorities would be involved, or some other type of retribution would take place.
No one here is saying that people don't have the freedom to speak, but I'm saying you need to be respectful here, at my PRIVATELY OWNED website. Let's not continue to blow this out of proportion - wasn't it you that asked for that elsewhere?
CEW
Mindsight Moderator |
Bailey (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: vcn82.usrtc-1.rawl.wy.vcn.com
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 04:30 am: | |
Todd,
You're right. I apologize to the forum members and C.E.
Everything has its own interpretation and as we've seen, the courts change their interpretations every day. If you want to equate the sacrifice of our soldiers today to keep our freedoms and liberties, those liberties also include the right to private enterprise without impinging on the rights of others as long as they follow the rules and laws set forth. I don't think banning someone from an Internet forum is a constitutional issue - but others might disagree - and if you do- that doesn't change my mind.
Steve |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1341
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 07:26 am: | |
Many, in fact most of the writers, members, and guests who post here (and even some who are no longer welcome) have their own personal websites. In most cases those sites were created for the purpose of promoting and advertising the owners literary offerings.
Authors are proud of their websites. They're a reflection of the thoughts and values of the owner, a way to tell the world what we're all about.
That's what this site does too, it promotes the works of CEW. I'm assuming that's why he went to the expense and effort to start it up in the first place.
CEW went a little farther. He added a forum, a place where friends could come to exchange ideas.
How many of us who frequent this forum have invited complete strangers to come and post their opinions and comments on our PRIVATE websites?
Let's look at this place for what it really is. It's CEW's personal property just like all of our websites are our personal property. Doesn't he deserve the same respect that we all demand for ourselves? |
Joyce Scarbrough
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
539
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 07:36 am: | |
From a strictly FWIW perspective:
I'll admit I was bothered when GS/MY said POD books were inferior in every way. When he failed to accept the challenge of disproving my statements to the contrary and relied instead on more weak generalizations, I wrote him off (on this subject, at least) as not worth my time. Since I don't have any past experiences with him on this or any other board, my opinion is based only on his most recent appearance, but I didn't see anything I'd call offensive and wouldn't be upset in the least if he were allowed to keep posting here. Most of the time, I don't have trouble skipping over posts I don't agree with.
Toyce
True Blue Forever
Read the first chapter at http://www.authorsden.com/joycelscarbrough1
Read two chapters of Different Roads at http://www.authorsden.com/visit/mtr.asp?id=7737&loc=ShortStory
Pour yourself a glass of bubbly and check out Champagne Books http://www.champagnebooks.com
Our children have only one childhood, so do whatever it takes to make it happy!
|
Stacy Anderson
Wandering Member
Post Number:
113
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 12:06 pm: | |
Can we honestly compare the deadly, horrific war that's going on in Iraq to CE banning people from Mindsight?  Maybe I missed the point in this comparision but I don't see anything similar. On one hand innocent people are being slaughtered, on the other hand, someone can't post on a board. Nope, still don't get the comparison but anyway...
I don't think banning is something Mindsight enjoys doing. CE doesn't strike me as somoene waiting at the computer to ban every little thing someone says. We've said a lot on this board. We've cursed, even gone a little overboard with jokes and arguments. But it was kept professional and CE never banned because of that. So I don't believe he'd ban someone just for losing their temper once or twice. He must have felt he had a good reason for what he did. Bottom line is it's HIS message board. We either except the rules or go somewhere else. That's just life. It may not be fair to some but that's how it is. I don't want to control Mindsight. If I wanted to control something I'd get my own message board. See the point? We can talk politics, freedom of speech but the point is that CE is in charge, period. We can't change his decisions. We can question things we think aren't fair ( that's our right ), but another right is we can leave if we don't like how things are being handled.
I, for one, don't think the world stops at Mindsight. If I was banned what would I do...move on! But I play by the rules and respect them so I don't count on getting banned. And if I did, so what? Do I need Mindsight to get me through my life? Uh, no. I like the board but I won't die if I get kicked off of it. I think this has been taken way too seriously. Banning from a message board is nothing like being discriminated against, having your legal rights stripped away or being killed in a war. It's just a little place where writers get together, chat and learn about the industry. If anyone takes being banned from ANY message board so seriously when we've got tons of other problems in the world, they need a shrink because taking something like this so seriously isn't normal at all.
Stacy
www.stacy-deanne.net |
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
828
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 12:17 pm: | |
The point is moot. As evidenced on another thread, Mark York voluntarily resigned his Mindsightseries membership. Enough said of Mark York. Overall, CEW showed remarkable restraint and tolerance. We can all be justly proud of our esteemed leader.
However, the issue of free speech at the grass roots level goes on. In my 56 years of active political life, I have never met a Senator or Congressman in person. Likewise, Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch don't send me invitations to their dinner parties. I doubt they know or care that I exist. It is you, my fellow writers - my extended family, if you will - who concern me. To my mind our freedoms are protected by the citizen soldier who fights not so much for the powerful and the famous as he does for common folk like you and me. All I ask is a little more tolerance by the members of this board when somebody says something you don't agree with or mouths off in the future. Please don't fire off an email to CEW the first time you have a petty disagreement with another member. He's under enough pressure without having to deal with that. Save your vitriole for the spammers, trolls, and flamers. I assure you that I will not object when any of these types are deleted and/or banned.
"How many of us who frequent this forum have invited complete strangers to come and post their opinions and comments on our PRIVATE websites?"
In my 5 years of owning/operating the Water Well Helpline message board on the web at http://www.voy.com/102731/, I haven't banned anyone. Granted, it is a technical website with approximately one-fourth the traffic of Mindsight, but I do invite the public to post comments on all the works I have published on my personal website, http://www.fdungan.com, and they are considerable. Last night, I purchased a second domain, dunganbooks.com, in which I plan to expand my policies, i.e. free access to all materials and freedom to comment on them in any manner whatsoever. That these policies have proven commercially viable proves that you don't have to be a martinet to maintain a successful website.
Make no mistake, as in poker, the house has the odds in it's favor and there is no danger of anyone wresting control from CEW. If he and his vast crew of moderators can't defeat a Mark York in open debate (and it is quite evident that they did so), then that individual obviously has something important to say and deserves a forum in which to say it.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm (and yes, I invite public comments on my work-in-progress) |
Joyce Scarbrough
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
543
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Fred, I get your point and agree with you about free speech. Of course, I also think CE has the right to make and enforce the rules for his forum, but if I ran one of my own, I can't imagine myself banning anyone for anything less than personal threats or indecent content. As long as ideas and opinions are expressed in a reasonably civil manner, I don't have a problem with even those vastly different from mine. As I've said before, I don't hold grudges from one thread to another, and I always try to view each post objectively.
Heck, the only reason I even like it when HB gets banned is that I know it rains on his PA parade and makes him throw another hissy fit! 
Toyce
True Blue Forever
Read the first chapter at http://www.authorsden.com/joycelscarbrough1
Read two chapters of Different Roads at http://www.authorsden.com/visit/mtr.asp?id=7737&loc=ShortStory
Pour yourself a glass of bubbly and check out Champagne Books http://www.champagnebooks.com
Our children have only one childhood, so do whatever it takes to make it happy! |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1344
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 01:08 pm: | |
Fred..
Good points and well stated. |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1858
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 01:43 pm: | |
You know,
All this debate about Mary York and his banning leaves me with one HUGE suggestion for MARK YORK..... IF he wants the right to debate and humiliate and belittle and antagonize people to his hearts content, he can add to his WEBSITE and make a forum similar to this one there, where he can flame and shoot and hiss and sputter all he wants, and he can do it to the world, as much and as vitrioloic as he chooses. It is faily simple to put forums on sites nowdays, and I am sure with his ability on the web, he can muster the problems quite nicely.
Then he can invite all to come to his forum and take whatever punishment he doles out and see just how much of a host he really is and can be. Personally, I would think that one would have to be a masochist to go there, but that is just my own little opinion.
So let him whine and spew all he wants about freedom and not being welcome on other boards, he can put up his own and do whatever he wants there.
Claudia
MINDSIGHT MODERATOR
|
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
830
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 03:09 pm: | |
Mark York has voluntarily resigned from this Forum.
"IF he wants the right to debate and humiliate and belittle and antagonize people to his hearts content, he can add to his WEBSITE and make a forum similar to this one there"
CEW uses Discus Pro software to manage the Mindsightseries.com message board. It is rather expensive. If you truly desire Mark York to have his own forum, you can wire him the money to purchase Discus Pro.
Thanks for your concern. I, too, believe that Freedom of Speech should not be just for those economically fortunate individuals who can afford to purchase their own forum. Since Mark York is currently unemployed, he will most likely appreciate the donation.
http://www.fdungan.com/stick.htm |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
2149
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 03:42 pm: | |
Although not as robust as the Discus software, anyone can create a Yahoo or MSN Group for free...although it wouldn't be part of the user's personal website, per se...it would provide a forum to be heard...
Mindsight Moderator
Check out Who Needs a Hero?
|
Fred Dungan
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
831
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 05:23 pm: | |
Todd is correct, I overstepped my boundaries with Claudia and must apologize. As my mother used to say, "Where there is a will, there is a way." In my case, I tried Discus' free version of their software and later switched to a free message board at voy.com.
I wish the same could be said for the truly influential media such as CBS, CNN, NBC, and The New York Times. As Matthew Drudge discovered their are no long-term solutions to getting around the media giants. The only controls placed upon them - other than minor supervision by the FCC - is that of their advertisers. Increasingly, our news and other information comes from sources which cater to the lowest common denominator. This is what makes alternative sources of information such as the internet so important. They constitute the last bastion of Freedom of Speech for the common man.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1349
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 06:14 pm: | |
I lived in Mexico back in 1982. It was an election year and the PRI (Party of the Revolution), Mexico's ruling party proclaimed that it would be an open election and that freedom of speech would prevail.
However, the challenging parties were not allowed to run television ads or print color posters and campaign posters were limited to one per city block per party.
The PRI had non-stop TV ads going all day long. Red, white, and green banners flying penants with photographs of Miguel De LeMadrid hung ten feet apart spanning every street in the downtown area and large flags with a likeness of the candidate were draped from every roof.
They said there would be freedom of speech but they never promised it would be equal. |
Stacy Anderson
Wandering Member
Post Number:
114
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 09:46 pm: | |
LOL, Joyce said:
" I don't have a problem with even those vastly different from mine. As I've said before, I don't hold grudges from one thread to another, and I always try to view each post objectively. "
Man Joyce, you're a bigger person than I am. I don't have a problem with people giving their opinions. But you can bet I have a problem with people being downright nasty and rude. I hold grudges with the best of them. If someone is rude or insulting to me in their post I don't pay their posts anymore attention no matter how interesting their posts may be. Some people say things to get a rise out of you, hoping you'll argue. I don't give them the satisfaction.
I can remember this one lady on another board who was so rude to me. Of course I was polite when I responded but it started because she didn't like my opinion of something. I guess she thought I should kiss her feet like everyone else was doing on the board. Anyway, she was so nasty to me. Then she feels bad so she tries to apologize on the board. I didn't acknowledge it. I could have accepted her apology but she'd been so rude I felt she should stew in her own juices. Anyway she looked like the fool she should have felt like because everyone else started to take offense at her rude behavior. The board was nothing anyway so I just left it. When I peeked back in a week later everyone was telling her off! LOL, talk about sweet justice.
My point is some things you can't say sorry for and some things you can't take back and some things you can't ignore. Some people think that a message board gives them the right to be as rude and ignorant as possible to others. I often wonder: Would these people have the guts to say these nasty things to us in person? You know, I don't think so. And I'd dare them to try.
Okay just sharing my little story. Good going, Joyce.
Stacy
www.stacy-deanne.net |
Stacy Anderson
Wandering Member
Post Number:
115
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 09:54 pm: | |
Fred,
I do agree with the part when you said if you have a problem with a member you shouldn't go behind their backs and email the moderator. That is kind of on the grade school level. Anyway we're not children and should be able to speak to another member about a problem we have with them or visa versa. I think as adults, we should email that person ourselves and try to handle the problem. Then if we can't, ignore that person's posts. And if their truly offensive I trust that the moderators will take care of them.
But on the other hand, I don't think CE should have to ban people in public. I think he used the right judgement. First of all it saves the banned party a lot of humiliation. Secondly, it's really none of our business why he chooses to ban someone in the first place. There's a time and place for everything. To me shouting you banned someone on the board is like your boss firing you in the lunch room. Also it would be very embarrassing ( I think ) if someone banned you then told the entire board you were banned. Just my opinion.
Okay this topic is beyond being a dead horse. Must we keep beating him?
Stacy
www.stacy-deanne.net |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page