[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Shadow

again?
Why so defensive Rich?
It's really not necessary with me.

There was no "swipe" at anything Rich.
Just an attempt at some humor that apparently didn't go well.

So I guess this is like the fact that you claim a frisk or pat down is NOT a search..... That telling someone "enough!" doesn't mean to "shut up"? You simply redefine the terms to suit you?

Originally Posted by Shadow

Why must you always end with this? ""
There's really no reason for it.

Whatever

I stopped for a quick rest and to do some antiquing with the wife in Micanopy.
Had to pay a couple of bills on line and thought I'd check in.

And this is all that's happening here?
Must be a slow news day

There's nothing constructive going on here, just more of the same.
Trying to revive old threads just doesn't seem to be working and the redundant commentary is starting to get boring again.
I really need to be done with it.

Going to go enjoy the rest of my day and quit worrying about your comments on the matter.
They simply do not matter to me any longer, and you're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway.

Continuing with this is like swimming up stream.

Unless you're a Salmon, all you get is tired and frustrated

Later dude

No, no REASONABLE person would EVER interpret those words as "swipes" and merely humor...... (BTW, those little graphics are called smilies, which are graphic icons used to represent some body language and facial feedback that can't be express just in words easily. You did ask why I use them....)


<< some stuff deleted that was pretty much what I expected. You really don't like not being the lead dog pulling the sled. >>>

Originally Posted by Shadow

Huum?
"Seriously?"

Seriously, there is/was no underlying "motive(s)."
I've said this repeatedly, but you apparently don't believe it?
Nothing you mentioned in your "rogue Moderator" post, had ever occured to me until you brought them up.

Huum?
"Seriously?"

None of those things I mentioned about what rogue moderators will do EVER occured to you? Let me refresh your memory in case you forgot those details.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Now understandably and necessarily so, a moderator has quite a bit of power on a site. An admin needs to pick moderators carefully as they are pretty much putting the fate and health of their site into the hands of said moderators. A moderator gone rogue, for any number of reasons, can completely destroy a site of this nature. They can delete posts and messages at will. Like ALL of them if they so choose. They can ban every member. They will likely know the viewing habits of the admin, and will know when they will have the MOST available time to do as much damage as possible before the admin can learn about it. In many cases, the damage can be irreparable. I have seen MANY instances of moderators who had conflicts with not only the administrator, but also other moderators completely destroy websites. I have personally experienced moderators who used the access they had to the memberlist surreptitiously contact other members and advertisers as they built their own website to compete with the one they were moderator on. This often happens when there becomes a conflict between the admin and one or more moderators, and they become convinced that they can do a much better job of the website. Which they decide to do, but of course behind the admin/owner's back. There are normally two ways this sort of damage takes place, although both can and have been used concurrently.

One method is to try to get the current admin/owner so aggravated with the site because of constant strife and headaches that they just simply want to be rid of the site. Sometimes bogus registrations are employed just to provide aggravations and headaches to the admin, but not necessarily. It's not difficult for someone with the knowhow to fake IP addresses to avoid detection, and of course, free anonymous email addresses are a dime a dozen. The idea is to get the admin/owner so tired of dealing with the BS all of the time that they just want to walk away from it all. Which, of course, those mods will be only too happy to take over. A popular ploy is for a bogus registration to be so much of a pain in the butt that they get banned and then another bogus registration strikes up the marching band claiming the admin is overbearing and dictatorial by not allowing free speech and legitimate complaints from the membership. Basically putting the admin in a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" position. Which is actually very effective if the admin isn't aware of what is going on.

Another method a rogue mod will use to undermine an admin and his site is to be building another website all along, secretively, while still maintaining the role of moderator and the appearance of all is cool, regardless of the friction. This gives a rogue mod a lot of time to get all their ducks in a row and contact other members, sponsors, and advertisers to bring them onboard with their new site. Often running the other site secretly while making those contacts. In this scenario, the mod or mods (or even some helpers supporting the mod and the new site) will constantly try to undermine the admin both overly and covertly trying to make the current site appear less attractive to the membership, and therefore make their own new site appear that much more attractive in comparison. Pretty much a sales pitch effort outlining the perceived faults of the "old" site and the changes that will be implemented in the "new" site. Fortunately, it is quite rare that these "spite sites" survive for longer than 6 months.

You are claiming that NOT ONE of those points mentioned above have ever crossed your mind before my post mentioning them?

Originally Posted by Shadow

You may notice that in the Rick Scott thread, Z06Rocket and I degree on some of the suggestions proposed by Scott.

But he and I have kept it civil, stated our position and point(s), and tried our best to support them with fact.
The way a debate should be.

I'm not attacking his profession or that his denouncement of Scotts proposals "might" be self serving (nothing could be further from the truth I might add-I know Rocket-he's just not that way! About as down to earth as they come!)

I still consider him a friend and on the next debate, I may have his back.
One never knows.

What I do know, is that we're not all going to always agree.
It's human nature.

What I fail to understand, is when we (you and I disagree), you take it personally; yet when others disagree, it has no effect?

Umm, perhaps because YOU make it personal with your little digs? But they are all just joking or "f**king with me", right?

Originally Posted by Shadow

You and I have disagreed on (IIRC?) one (1) thing publically, related to this forum...that being the necessity to place one's entire name to be able to post in the BOI.
I felt there was a better way, you felt otherwise.
I was concerned for the members security, you didn't see a problem.

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. There are legal liabilities involved with accepting anonymous postings that could be considered as libelous towards another party. Members making claims against someone else need to be willing to accept responsibility and ownership for those statements, otherwise those sorts of statements are not going to be allowed here. THAT was the crux of my argument.

And, of course, there have been PRIVATE disagreements concerning how I run this site. You argued that I should make this site more commercial and restrict postings by sellers unless they are paid members. I want this site to be FOR the members and have them freely able to get any and all information they can from vendors without those vendors being forced to pay to display their wares. You have argued with me about my being too lenient concerning banning members and deleted posts and threads. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt and allow a member the opportunity to simmer down and perhaps see the error in their ways. You are obviously much more hard line about things than I am, and I suppose that does pluck at your nerves that I run this site the way I do, contrary to how you would choose to run it.

Originally Posted by Shadow

As we saw with Harwood, some people, if given the right information, will do what they can to attack a persons family or career (fabum is my example-they went to his and his wifes CO with threats of civil action and complaints).

In the end, agree or not, I supported your decision.
It's your house and your rules.
Simple as that.
I just chose not to participate in that section.

And as a moderator, your choosing to not participate there at all was really not "supportive" in any reasonable definition of that word. Matter of fact for a while you pointedly had a disparaging comment in your profile about refusing to participate in the BOI forum. Choosing to boycott that forum really isn't what I would call "supportive".

Originally Posted by Shadow

Other than that, all of our "disagreements" have been over politics, law enforcement and procedure, and the BP oil spill.

I'm not sure why any of that should be an issue?

As they say, it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. And your comments have often been condescending and belittling. It has gotten to the point that anytime you replied to any comment I made I was SURPRISED if it was not condescending. I'm sure you will say that you were just "f**king around with me" or "joking". We had had this discussion before when I removed you from being a moderator here and I thought I was clear about your public display of attitude towards me. But apparently not.

Originally Posted by Shadow

A for my comment in this thread which lead us here, I've said all I'm going to say about it.
The comments here speak for themselves.

Yes, I believe that is very true.

Originally Posted by Shadow

Take it for what it is was and how it was meant (as a friendly suggestion) or not.
The decision is yours.

I do know how it was meant. And my decisions are based on that understanding. I really wouldn't call your current motives as being exactly "friendly", however.

Originally Posted by Shadow

There's really not much reason to continue this if all we're going to do is go back and forth at each other.

Please, have the last word. I'm going to try not to respond again.

As long as you continue needing corrections on details and redefinitions of words, then I will feel it necessary to reply. Seriously, Gordon, I DO know what is going on. I've watched people do this dance before, you know...

Originally Posted by Shadow

In the meantime, I'll continue to participate as time and duty allow.

If that is in the capacity of continuing to belittle this site and/or myself, please don't do me any favors. Saying afterwards that it was a joke or you were misunderstood is in itself belittling to readers who can see your posts for what they are. Seriously, I DO know why you want to continue posting here, and I am truly disappointed that you think I am so stupid that I really don't know.... Your desire at this point, in my opinion, is to try to make myself and this site appear in as negative light as possible to others thinking it will be beneficial to your plans (that you never thought of before).

I do hate that this is coming to the head that we both know it is, Gordon, but you are the one who has set this ball in motion, you know.