Naturally I don't expect Rick to monitor what goes on here all the time, but it is after all his site. So sometimes you have to demonstrate leadership qualities. His solution was not very diplomatic, but it was expedient for him, I guess. A more diplomatic solution? Something along the lines of what you suggest. Sanctions. A two week time out. That is the way sanctions work. You ratchet up the pressue until you get the desired behavior and don't resort to the "nuclear" option until all other avenues have been exhausted.
But Rick will say he's got this going on, and that going on and blah, blah, blah. He seems proud to have given Ravi the boot. I think he demonstrated a lack of nuance, if that's the right word. A time out would have been a better approach, IMO. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > Shooting the messenger is what happened to him. Maybe some words are considered foul, but why not make a rule against using some words? > > > > Really, I am sorry to see him go. For me, all I asked was that he refrain from slander. And I think he got the point. But the place is nothing without insults. And short of slander why not get challenged to the core? He was good at that. Not that his challenges were particularly challenging. Mostly a lot of name calling, which alienated many here, except those who were on his approved list, which itself was subject to revision by the moment. And figure in that he was only good for 50 posts and likely would go over that number with a little provocation, I don't see where it was necessary to boot him. > > > > And figure in that he "needed" us (which of course he would not admit), even though we paid somewhat a price for that, I sort of felt it was worth it. > > > > > > Right now, all we have is what is up to the administrator and if any members get their balls in a knot, then any rule could out anyone of us. It makes me afraid to post. All he was doing was pointing that out. He did not know a person's name using the secret anonymous username and called them out on it to harm them, he found it just like anyone can do on a search. > > Steve, no matter what Rick does he isn't going to please everyone. It's probably why he stays out of our business as much as possible. I recall that you advocated for a timeout for Ravi's foul over the top rant at me. By the way, thanks for standing up for me. IMO you got more flack for that than you deserved, so thank you. > > At the time I thought only porn could get you the boot so I said Ravi shouldn't be censored. I figured he would still launch rants from time to time, so I decided I'd just stay out of his way. I'm sorry that Rick "nuked" him. At this juncture, I think a timeout, as you previously suggested, would have been a more appropriate action. > > After Ravi launched a full bore rant at me for jerking his chain, Bob jump on me for stuff I said to Robin about Ravi, then I had to deal with feelings of confusion and betrayal about whether Ravi's melt down was a fake, then a bunch of apologies and recriminations ensued. I gotta say, I have never felt so emotionally drained on FFLife. > > "It makes me afraid to post" is a bit hyperbolic. We have plenty of button pushers who could use a time out, but you aren't one of them. Ravi was in a class by himself. I believe he took Robin's beautiful post to heart. Maybe he could have learned something from his mistakes if Rick had had a "three strikes [timeouts] and you're out" policy, perhaps a warning prohibiting gratuitous abuse. Now we'll never know. I'll miss the motherfucker. > > > > Now if Ravi had purposely decided to ask people off of the board, what is his name, then I could see a breach in trust on FFL. > > > It would have been best if the rules of the board, said no real names used, associated with anonymous handles, but I read people calling people all the time by their real name as the anonymous handle becomes wayside, regularly. This is something many have forgotten in the past 10 years on the Internet. He was definitely pushing buttons to make a point. Does one see Bob Price here or the Zebra man? I do not think they were afraid of Ravi. Some of the best writers, gone. I am not afraid of Ravi and I don't even know him. I would trust him with my kids, regardless of all the uproar trying to make him appear mentally ill on a message board. > > > If the excitement is removed from FFL, I guess it will still be a good place to plug in to find past friends and chat with them about their experiences with dealing with life and what comes afterward. > > > > > > Welcome back! > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey, Emily, Judy, Raunchy, > > > > > It appears all the dudes have gone away this evening. hahaha > > > > > Look, no post from dudes. See? Check the time and lets count. > > > > > We rule! We own them! God loves us! > > > > > Yay for Venus transiting Aquarius! Yay! > > > > > We won! > > > > > Let's meet for tea sometime soon, okay? > > > > > Oh, yeah, Susan too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny Obba! But maybe in all this, you should consider, that we didn't leave because we are cowards (oh the aggressiveness of it!), but because some of us simply live in different time zones. IOW, when Judy is just about to warm up, it's already past midnight here! > > > > > > > > Also Obba, I found your words last week very encouraging, but 10 min per day don't work for me, unfortunately I am a slow typer, and foreigner at that, so some of the more juicy words (usually signifying emotion, or moralistic POV's) I have to look up. > > > > > > > > And regarding some of the people here, it's not enough to just post in a straight forward way, you have to study a whole metaphysical system to even be able to converse with them! (and that's not a put down!) > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Great rules! Maybe if these go across the board, everything will be alright! > > > > > > I once had the pissing submarines! You put them in the toilet and sink them. > > > > > > Potty target. Good link. > > > > > > Could work. > > > > > > For some reason, I think we need some adult diapers here too. Ultra protection. > > > > > > Us women stay out of it ; ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obbajeeba, you're quite right. Indiscriminate pissing on FFLife needs to be more accurate. Let's give the dudes something to aim for. How about a pissing contest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pissing contest rules: > > > > > > > 1. Dudes only. > > > > > > > 2. Submit qualifying scores: time, distance, marksmanship. > > > > > > > 3. Unacceptable targets: women and children. > > > > > > > 4. Acceptable targets: trees, fire hydrants and each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Training equipment: > > > > > > > http://pottytarget.com/products/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > She is awesome even if she does not like Ron Paul. ; ) > > > > > > > > That does not stop me from seeing her value and reason and respect. > > > > > > > > : ) > > > > > > > > Raunchy too. : ) > > > > > > > > Not like some dudes on this forum who piss the spot with complete teeth grinding bark, protection for their red fire hydrant in multiple layers of consciousness available if only to break through their awareness as something more that tangible, all muddled together 75 foot lead wall with dancing football cheerleaders in cowboy lingerie. > > > > > > > > Nabby not included. He has some morals about morals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, you should know, that Ravi takes clues from you > > > > > > > > > > > > > whom to abuse, and whom to spare. As long as you had > > > > > > > > > > > > > backed me up, he never mentioned me in an abusive way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moment you started to become critical at me, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > switched to your 'get-Barry' mode,(which actually > > > > > > > > > > > > > started first in our off-board exchange after two posts), > > > > > > > > > > > > > he started abusing me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the Troika's party line whenever someone > > > > > > > > > > > > other than me begins to criticize any of them; we've > > > > > > > > > > > > seen it many, many times. I believe Barry originated > > > > > > > > > > > > it some time ago. How nice to see you've picked up on > > > > > > > > > > > > as well. I'm sure you'll get a lot of use out of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Implicit in it is the premise that nobody would *ever* > > > > > > > > > > > > come independently to any negative conclusions about > > > > > > > > > > > > any of the Troika and their allies; it wouldn't ever > > > > > > > > > > > > even occur to anybody that there was anything to be > > > > > > > > > > > > criticized about them if I hadn't spoken up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this case, Ravi could *never* have read your > > > > > > > > > > > > exchange with Barry speculating about Robin's mental > > > > > > > > > > > > health and thought ill of you for it unless he'd > > > > > > > > > > > > gotten it from me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, right. It's a simple observation, Judy can't help it. > > > > > > > > > > > My accusations to masked zebra where much before, Ravi only > > > > > > > > > > > started when you gave the signal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi had been here only intermittently and didn't > > > > > > > > > > necessarily plow through all the posts when he *was* > > > > > > > > > > here, so he may well not have seen whatever you're > > > > > > > > > > referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, if he had really just been taking cues > > > > > > > > > > from others, he might well have taken his anti-zarzari > > > > > > > > > > cue from *Emily's* post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, but Emily took her cue from me, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange > > > > > > > > > > with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. It > > > > > > > > > > wasn't until Robin took after you big-time that I used > > > > > > > > > > the term "slimy" to refer to your post to Barry. And > > > > > > > > > > by that time Emily had already given the two of you a > > > > > > > > > > very thorough tongue-lashing, completely of her own > > > > > > > > > > accord. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And Ravi didn't start going after you until you'd > > > > > > > > > > come back after your little vacation. That was *after* > > > > > > > > > > you'd already made several posts attacking me, but > > > > > > > > > > before I'd had a chance to respond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm afraid your theory just doesn't fit the timeline. > > > > > > > > > > Too bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No clues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The term you want here is "cues," not "clues." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take from Barry here. This is a a again your insidious > > > > > > > > > > > insinuation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a reasonable assumption, given how many times Barry's > > > > > > > > > > used it (you responded "Bingo" to one such post); and > > > > > > > > > > Curtis has also used it quite recently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
