The "in" crowd has special priveleges on this board

[SleepyGuyYawn]

Hmmm... I disagree with ZAP pretty strongly.  I think it was right for Big Tex to bring this up.

[The ZAPINATOR]

edit

[maximumtennis82]

special priveleges...on a message board? 


whiny

100% f-ing agreement...c'mon people, it's *AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD* for christ's sake...

Perhaps y'all need to step away from the keyboard for a bit...

[goodadvice (account resigned)]

Come on, guys. Whether they do or not, is it really a huge deal? They can have all the special LSD priveleges they want, if that's the case, and I'll go on posting and go on living.

It was obviously a big enough deal for THEM to cut out the dissent in the first place. I don't think i'm really upping the ante by calling them on it.

If this is true then its a biased abuse of power. Completely inappropriate for someone who wants to enter law. Its always good to point these things out. Even if nothing changes.

[BigTex]

Hmmm... I disagree with ZAP pretty strongly.  I think it was right for Big Tex to bring this up.

In this way? 

What way would you suggest? My dissent was censored. I made note of it. A discussion has ensued, your posts being the longest so far. By "the right way" i'm guessing you mean to just be quiet and not say anything.

Also, i have no interest in seeing it turn out this way. I honestly went to bed last night feeling good about the discussion following my original dissent. In it, I think pook and i came to a better understanding about where each was coming from with regard to background traditions in "congratulations". I certainly gained more respect regarding where she was coming from and can now understand her position better.

THAT'S what was so amazingly wierd about the censorship. The dissent ended on a generally positive note, with not much negative feeling between the parties and actually some good coming of it.

To censor that??!! It was amazingly bizarre. I want to try to get along w/ people to the best that I can w/o giving up who i am. The censored discussion was a very good communication between two opposing points of view. Very sad to have a heavy handed moderator come along and crush a sort of peace that was beginning to be established between two traditionally opposed board members.

[Koga]

I can empathize.  A few of my posts have mysteriously vanished.  But I know that Pookie has nothing to do with any of this censorship. 

Oh, and while Pookie has biases in her posts(we all do), she is a fair and evenhanded moderator.

HTH

[WoeIsMe]

and here i was content thinking I was the only one in the 'out' group

[BigTex]

Oh, and while Pookie has biases in her posts(we all do), she is a fair and evenhanded moderator.

that's a statement i can endorse.

[sordomudo]

What way would you suggest? My dissent was censored. I made note of it. A discussion has ensued, your posts being the longest so far. By "the right way" i'm guessing you mean to just be quiet and not say anything.

That wasn't what ZAP was saying at all.  He was saying you could've been tactful about it and done so in a more discreet fashion.  Whether you agree with how it was handled or not is your business, but I think ZAP merely wishes you would've been a little more careful.  Sending some PMs to determine the person "at fault" would've been much less inflammatory and probably would've reached a resolution quickly, thus avoiding this whole almost pointless thread.  And, for the record, it's entirely possible that whomever moved the thread (Kgd) didn't do so out of any malicious, exclusionary intent--perhaps they (Kgd) honestly just thought it was logical to make the split, even though most here agree it wasn't. Discretion, people, discretion.

[amelus]

Discretion, people, discretion.

ironic huh?  the whole bit started b/c tex felt the excessive congratulatory remarks should have been kept to PM's