shooting an intruder

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Bob K

WTF, This had been a good site. All he said was "enough was enough" meaning he said all he had to say.

Your interpretation of his intent is obviously faulty.

Originally Posted by Bob K

Rich, you can hate the world but you can't take it out on us. There were no "disparaging back handed comments". I'm not going to get into any comments made by anyone on this site. I also know that we do not have freedom of speech on a privately owned site but I do know the day you exercise your right not to allow free speech you'll end up talking to yourself.

So I hate the world, eh? That sure covers a lot of territory. And how do you interpret anything I have said or done as "taking it out on us"? Who exactly is this "us" you speak of?

Sorry but I am not going to take the time to provide examples of the "back handed comments" to show you that you are incorrect. But they are there, nonetheless. And yes I did remove a "swan song" post that was not appropriate, for the record. I do understand that not everyone will be adept enough to pick up on something like this, and I do apologize for that.

"Free speech" nowhere is really unlimited. There are always going to be boundaries to what is acceptable fare. This place is no different than anywhere else in that respect.

Originally Posted by Bob K

The day that Shadow or anyone else is removed from this site for voicing an opinion is the day that many others will also leave.

Allowing people to voice their opinion is not the same as my agreeing to allow anyone to be disparaging and/or condescending to me personally here in my own home. If anyone cares to leave because I won't permit that, then so be it. Anyone who would demand that of me is not welcomed here anyway. I seriously doubt that any of you in my shoes would allow it in similar circumstances.

And again for the record, I don't recall anyone ever being removed from this site for that sort of abuse. But that does not mean that it cannot happen, if warranted.

Originally Posted by Bob K

Edit: Now I see he's been removed as a mod. Damn.

Unfortunate, but true. I felt it was a prudent move to make, under the circumstances. Anyone who has ever been an admin on a message board site will fully understand this logic. I apologize to others who may not have the experience necessary to understand the reasoning.

[donzee]

"Unfortunate, but true. I felt it was a prudent move to make, under the circumstances. Anyone who has ever been an admin on a message board site will fully understand this logic. I apologize to others who may not have the experience necessary to understand the reasoning.[/quote]"



Rich, I am a more than once daily reader, and do not have the necessary experience to understand what happened ( I guess I missed the sawn song deleted post ), but would love to hear the explanation in order to better understand.

[Z06 Rocket]

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Sorry if you may disagree and interpret that as me "lashing out" (yet you don't seem to interpret someone else telling me "ENOUGH" in a similar light), but I do not have to tolerate ANYONE telling me to shut up on my own forum. That is not a "liberal" nor a "conservative" view at all. It is merely ME saying what I am willing to continue to tolerate HERE. Someone telling me "enough" HERE is not only being rude, but definitely way overstepping their authority in this domain.

I do allow a fair amount of head bumping and chest thumping here, but it gets old after a while, and one way or another it will have to come to an end if carried on for too long.

I dont feel that anyone told you to shut up. I think you are being a little bit too sensitive.

[Z06 Rocket]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Well ain't that just a hoot?
So much for free speech
It's ok, it proved something I needed to prove to myself.

BTW- Rich, at the risk of once again upsetting you, read the danged post again!

No one told you to "shut up!", on "your site" or anywhere else

What I was trying to get across as politely as I could, were concerns being voiced to me by other members regarding your repeated disparaging commentary, and how it was likely to not only offend some of us that are/were in the field, but also many of those who have been long time friends and supporters of the site.
Guess it fell on deaf ears.

You probably couldn't see it, but the comments in one form or another, were showing up in almost every thread. It was becoming so much sour grapes.
Let's run off what's left of the house

But now that I can speak freely (I think?), I'll say that personally, your continued disparaging comments, and apparent disdain toward anything law enforcement, was exceedingly insulting to ME!!
I'm sure I'm not alone.



Tolerate?
What are we, 4?

1st- My comments were not made under any "authority." They were made as a member and a friend, in an effort to keep you from alienating members.
And yes, despite what you think, I would have said the same thing to your face.
Enough was enough.
And that's MY feeling on the matter.

Second- I'm sorry to say, you did exactly what I expected



Yeah, that was pretty much my point

I'm sorry Rich but I have to agree here, especially what I have highlighted in red.

I don't understand why you have become so angry on the board as of late. I have been browsing and posting here for several years, and this is somethiing new to see. I don't know where this is headed, but it seems as though you are tired of the site and may be ending things in your own way. I am disappointed to see it (or to belive that it is happening), but I am afraid it may be true. This is not any ganging up, or attempt to belittle you, just a few friends asking what the heck is going on?

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Z06 Rocket

I'm sorry Rich but I have to agree here, especially what I have highlighted in red.

I don't understand why you have become so angry on the board as of late. I have been browsing and posting here for several years, and this is somethiing new to see. I don't know where this is headed, but it seems as though you are tired of the site and may be ending things in your own way. I am disappointed to see it (or to belive that it is happening), but I am afraid it may be true. This is not any ganging up, or attempt to belittle you, just a few friends asking what the heck is going on?

Sorry, but I'm just calling a "spade" a "spade". I have seen first hand evidence of law enforcement being painfully ineffective, bordering on dereliction of duty. I have personally seen law enforcement handed substantial evidence to prosecute and have declined to do so for suspicious reasons. I have seen first hand evidence of law enforcement officers throwing their weight around to intimidate private individuals, just because they can. I have seen first hand evidence of law enforcement officers believing that they are above the law and due special considerations when THEY break the law. These are all irrefutable "spades" in my opinion.

Now to look at this from a different angle, my last name is "Zuchowski". I have heard every Polish joke in the book. ALL of them are extremely derogatory and belittling to the extreme to people of Polish descent. Do they get me upset? Nope. Not in the least. Some are actually damned funny to me. Why? Because just because I am of Polish descent does not mean that those jokes apply to me, and I KNOW that to be the case. If one or more of them of them did, well then perhaps introspection would be a much more beneficial use of my time to determine why it upset me so much, rather than to get pissed at the joke teller and tell him "enough!".

I bred snakes for a living. I have heard many people posting insensitive remarks about killing every snake they see. "The only good snake is a dead snake" sort of thing. Hey, I don't like it, but people have their own opinions, and like it or not, it's something I just have to put up with hearing. Was it good for my line of business for people to be saying such things in public places where perhaps my potential clients could read it and perhaps be influenced by such talk? Doubtful, but that's just the breaks when it comes to discussions in public places. As long as someone didn't try to belittle me directly for my own choices of a career (such that it was), then I just had to accept the fact that some people would not like such a line of work, and would likely say negative things about some members of the group of people who do engage in that sort of activity, that perhaps reflected poorly on us all. That's just the way it is. As long as those detailed points did not apply to me, then I have no cause to get upset about it.

So what makes LEOs so special that they cannot handle when someone discusses the foibles of some aspects of their job and unable to accept that some members of their group have less than stellar methods of going about their duties? I seriously doubt that anyone can convince ANYONE that bad apples to not exist in law enforcement. So when this is discussed, along with anything that might even slightly be considered less than optimal, ethically, the method of the good cops dealing with it is to wish it were suppressed? To try to throw a rug over it? To try to stamp out all discussions in public whenever and wherever possible? Seriously if it pisses anyone off to hear that sort of talk, is it the messenger that is really the problem?

No, I am not anti-cop at all. But I AM anti-BADcop. The kind that abuse their badges and positions. The kind that feel they are above the law. The kind that will tell others to do as they SAY not do as they DO. The kind that treat the power of their office as a PERSONAL carte blanche to do as they please to "civilians" simply because they can. The kind that feel a badge suddenly make them untouchable in all things. If that offends some, then I suggest looking in the mirror and trying real hard to understand WHY it offends you. If you are not one who does these sorts of things, then my distaste for cops that engage in that sort of thing simply does not apply to you. Just as the derogatory and belittling Polish jokes do not apply to me. Nor the negative press about dumb and inconsiderate things other snake breeders have done. If the shoe does not fit you, as the shoe does not fit me, then what is there to get upset about? Those issues are not ABOUT me at all.

I am sorry that those sorts of discussions offend, upset, and embarrass some members here. And I apologize if you are not privy to all that has gone behind the scenes to make such discussions come to my mind at this time. There is no one here as a member in law enforcement that I know fits the negative descriptions I have itemized above, and nothing I have inferred or said has been directed any anyone here. But regardless, I do stand firm on my OPINION about the things I do not like that BAD cops do and I feel detrimental to law enforcement in general. And if I feel the desire to discuss them, then I most certainly will.

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by Z06 Rocket

I dont feel that anyone told you to shut up. I think you are being a little bit too sensitive.

OK, let's see how you interpret same comments being applied to YOUR statements...

Z06 Rocket, my brother, my friend,...,enough...as a friend...enough.

That's not telling you to SHUT up, now is it?

But what does "enough" in this context MEAN then?

[Rich Z]

Originally Posted by donzee

"



Rich, I am a more than once daily reader, and do not have the necessary experience to understand what happened ( I guess I missed the sawn song deleted post ), but would love to hear the explanation in order to better understand.

I guess you are asking about the quote I made concerning an admin on a message board site. This might take a bit to explain, as some things are not self evident and I had to learn through the school of hard knocks myself.

Well, on a message board site, it is not unusual for an admin like myself to grant moderator powers to one or more people for a couple of reasons. (1) Is that it helps to endow a feeling of ownership to some members who have already shown a desire to participate on the site so they feel a stronger desire to help contribute with conversations taking place, and often initiating their own new threads to try to start new conversations to help keep the site active and growing. (2) Moderators also help keep down the instances of spam attacks, simply because the admin, as one person, just can't be on site 24/7 to be able to handle them as quickly as necessary. I have had porn spam attacks wreak havoc on some of my sites that caused quite a bit of consternation from the members, and in some instances those sorts of posts can get a site blocked by corporate and home profanity filters at the ISP or router levels and put a site on a black list that is difficult to rescind later. So it behooves an admin/owner to get rid of such posts on a site as quickly as possible. BTW, this is also the reason why profanity must be limited and/or contained as much as possible on a site. And can negatively affect a site in quite a number of ways. (3) Moderators, of course, are there to "moderate" discussions when they become heated or otherwise blow up into what are called "flame wars" between members. This can produce a very uncomfortable atmosphere for a lot of onlookers watching the train wreck between other members, so the moderators' job is to try to keep such things from going beyond the simmer level to where the pot boils over. Continued flame wars will also often destroy a site as the majority of members cease to be amused by such antics and just take their presence and participation elsewhere to places where such things aren't quite so common.

So obviously there are a lot of solid reasons why moderators are a good thing for a site and can be quite beneficial.

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.

I have seen all of the above take place, and in many instances on some of my own sites with some of my own moderators. So I am quite cognizant of the dangers of what a rogue moderator can do and am constantly on alert for the signs. That is why I have had to take care in my choices for mods for my sites, and picked people I felt were trustworthy and stable enough so that the possibility of the dangers mentioned could be minimized. Obviously, for me to have experienced such things in the past, my batting record has certainly not been perfect. Knowing I have made mistakes in the past, my current philosophy is to err on the side of caution.

Now, no, I am not accusing Gordon of any of the above at all. But I have become very cognizant of the fact that when severe conflicts become more and more common with a mod, and their attitude becomes very evident that they disagree with more and more of my decisions, that the jeopardy grows exponentially that ANY person can not be ruled out as being a risk to my site. The fact that I have made this mistake in the past is ample evidence that it is not prudent to ignore the warnings and take steps IMMEDIATELY to prevent yet another mistake from taking place. It is much better to be safe than sorry.

Do I think Gordon would do any damage to this site or undermine me in such a fashion as I have indicated? No, I do not. I still consider Gordon a friend, however we just are not compatible in an Admin/Moderator relationship. As such, one had to relinquish that power here. Since it is my name on the door, the choice was obvious of who that had to be.

Now for the record, this is NOT my first rodeo running a message board site. I also run the following two sites and have been doing so for years.

http://www.FaunaClassifieds.com/forums
http://www.Cornsnakes.com

In both I have had issues with moderators that did not work out. It's just par for the course, and obviously a learning curve involved. I think the first message board site I created and ran was actually in 1997 or so. Trust me, you DO learn a lot about people running these things.

Anyway, sorry if that was a lot more detail than you really wanted to hear, but I felt I should explain this in as much detail as possible for those who really don't understand this aspect of running a message board site. The internet is littered with message board sites that have failed, and quite often it has been because of conflicts of this nature. I just do not want to see this site suffer that same fate, and felt I needed to take steps necessary to protect it in case I was once again wrong about someone I trust.

[Shadow]

First and foremost, let me make something perfectly clear for everyone.

Unless I'm forced out, I'm not "leaving."

Yes, I'll be "elsewhere", but I'm already "elsewhere", and have been for years. Most of us have more than one site we visit. I've just always considered this one "home."

Second, I'm NOT upset about being "defrocked"
The hours were bad and the pay sucked worse than Scotts proposed cuts!

I am however, a bit disgruntled by the inferences made in a couple of the post.

So....

Originally Posted by Rich Z

OK, let's see how you interpret same comments being applied to YOUR statements...

Z06 Rocket, my brother, my friend,...,enough...as a friend...enough.

That's not telling you to SHUT up, now is it?

But what does "enough" in this context MEAN then?

No...it's not!
As you personally have reiterated on many occasions, the internet has no way of inferring feeling or emotion.
The only way one could do that, would be in thier style of writing.

In this case, the "Rich, my brother, my friend...." should have been seen as an attempt to reach out to a friend.

The repeated "as a friend...enough", should once again give rise to the fact that the author is reaching out to the intended reader.

In this case, it was a plea, from a friend to a friend.
An effort to let you know that the members were starting to notice and maybe we should curtail the repeated attacks?
And it was not just the LEO's (and former LEOS) on the board, but other friends and members, were growing increasingly tired of the repeated attacks on goverment as a whole and law enforcement specifically

It was time for a break.

This particular post was actually spurred by an email recieved by me from a concerned member.

I was acting as a FRIEND, not as a moderator.
As a mod, I'd have simply said, "that will be enough, or no more attacks, blah blah blah...."
I've done it before

People were getting tired and the repeated commentary was effecting the site.
It was glaringly obvious to me and others that you were angry.

I knew why from my interactions with you in the private, invitation only Harwood thread, and knowledge of what you'd been through with the 2 agencies you'd interacted with.

Others didn't and as you can see from some of the comments above, were concerend with your appaarently sudden change in attitude.

As an administrator, your words lay heavy on the members.

In the below post, you repeatedly use the term "rogue" when referring to moderators.

When the admin goes "rogue" (to use your own wording), it can also have a huge impact on a site.
In this case, I believe a very negative one.

And as with most scenarious, it's usually not apparent to the writer.
I've BTDT myself.

In the past, I've allowed sour grapes to influence or color my comments to the point where it was finding it's way into almost every post or conversation, on and off the board.

The redundant commentary was driving away friends and turning off potential new members.
As for your recent interactions with law enforcement, you've come to me for help, and I've done everything I could to help guide you.
In turn, you've either disregarded the suggestions, chosen to do things your way, or failed to follow through.
As a result, you've been tossed aside by the system, resulting (IMHO) in the situation you have now. A very negative (and justifiably so) feeling toward law enforcement in general.

That said, it's still not fair to paint everyone with the same wide brush.

We aren't talking about "jokes" or "snakes."

As for my own issues not so many years ago, It took a lot of introspect to find that and do away with the hurt and anger I was feeling.

As a friend, and at the risk of having you again lash out at me, I'm going to suggest that you too may want to take the time to look inside.
Otherwise, the anger will eat you alive...trust me!

Looking back, it was pretty disgusting. I can only hope I've learned from those days gone by and don't ever revisit them regardless of the situation.

Hopefully you won't take the above as some sort of condescending or derogatory commentary. It's just my opinion.

Be that as it may, I can't believe what I'm reading below.....

=Rich Z;132940]...(3) Moderators, of course, are there to "moderate" discussions when they become heated or otherwise blow up into what are called "flame wars" between members. This can produce a very uncomfortable atmosphere for a lot of onlookers watching the train wreck between other members, so the moderators' job is to try to keep such things from going beyond the simmer level to where the pot boils over. Continued flame wars will also often destroy a site as the majority of members cease to be amused by such antics and just take their presence and participation elsewhere to places where such things aren't quite so common.

This was exactly what was happening, except in this case, the rhetoric was coming from the ADMIN.
So how do you "moderate" that?

....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.

"ROGUE?"

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.

I think you'll recall this happening with another member here, and the steps I took to resolve the matter
Yeah, that was pretty "rogue."

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.

I have seen all of the above take place, and in many instances on some of my own sites with some of my own moderators. So I am quite cognizant of the dangers of what a rogue moderator can do and am constantly on alert for the signs.

That is why I have had to take care in my choices for mods for my sites, and picked people I felt were trustworthy and stable enough so that the possibility of the dangers mentioned could be minimized. Obviously, for me to have experienced such things in the past, my batting record has certainly not been perfect. Knowing I have made mistakes in the past, my current philosophy is to err on the side of caution.

So I'm suddenly not trustworty or stable?
Is that what you're implying?
My wife could have told you about the "stable" part

[quote]Now, no, I am not accusing Gordon of any of the above at all.[?QUOTE]

Of course not...

But I have become very cognizant of the fact that when severe conflicts become more and more common with a mod, and their attitude becomes very evident that they disagree with more and more of my decisions, that the jeopardy grows exponentially that ANY person can not be ruled out as being a risk to my site.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially what you're saying is, disagree with you on matters other than the operation of the site, and you're a "security risk?"

Although it's common knowledge that you and I disagree on the need for full names to be public to post in the BOI, (there are other ways) I've ultimately supported your need or desire to do so.

We've disagreed and debated on other matters on the board, from the oil spill, to seafood, to well, now law enforcement.

But when these rifts have come up, I thought we were doing so as a member of the board and not as a moderator.

If as a moderator, one looses the ability to participate without walking lockstep with the site administrator, then I'm no longer in the position in the first place.
I certainly didn't realize it was in the "job description."

From day one until today (well, yesterday now), I've done nothing but support you and attempt at every opportunity, to help it grow into a flourishing site.

Even when traffic continued to diminish, I tried to remain positive and keep things moving!

Myself and another member have even offered to take over the site if YOU decided to "shut it down" as you're suggested a few times in the past when traffic has slowed to a standstill.

No one has ever attempted to "take" it or it's members "from you."
Only to try to keep it up, running and open for it's members.

We've suggested more commercial sponsorship, and a more business approach, but you've always said, that's not what this site is about

Now, all of a sudden, there's this concern over "undermining" the site?

And as I've said dozens of times in the past, there's room on this great wide web for many sites.

Most of us belong to more than one anyway, whats the big deal unless it's a commercial venture, which this has never been!

I'm not sure why you have suddenly decided that I'm such a "risk", which despite the flowery commentary in your lengthy (I thought I was reading one of my own novellettes) "explanation", is glaringly obvious.

I've talked the sites free spirited and open, non-commercial, family atmosphere at every opportunity to the point of I fear, occasionally alienating friends from other sites.

So your sudden concern that I'm somehow "Rogue" is a bit baffeling?

Until yesterday, the concerns you've outlined, had never crossed my mind.
Sorry, I just don't work that way!

The fact that I have made this mistake in the past is ample evidence that it is not prudent to ignore the warnings and take steps IMMEDIATELY to prevent yet another mistake from taking place. It is much better to be safe than sorry.

"warnings?"
"Mistake?"
Trying to keep you from destroying your own site is a mistake?
I truly give up!

Do I think Gordon would do any damage to this site or undermine me in such a fashion as I have indicated? No, I do not. I still consider Gordon a friend, however we just are not compatible in an Admin/Moderator relationship. As such, one had to relinquish that power here. Since it is my name on the door, the choice was obvious of who that had to be.

Somehow Rich, after reading everything you've written above, I find this last part a bit hard to swallow.

The internet is littered with message board sites that have failed, and quite often it has been because of conflicts of this nature. I just do not want to see this site suffer that same fate, and felt I needed to take steps necessary to protect it in case I was once again wrong about someone I trust.

Wow.....just wow.....I really don't have any other words to sum up what I've just read

I'm sorry Rich, but the redundancy of the term "ROGUE" throughout the post, combined with all the other "FEARS", leads me to believe that there may be bit of parnoia involved, from someone who, for what ever reason, has lost faith in his fellow man
I'm sorry if I caused you such concern.

I'm sorry to see this and I truly hope you find a way to deal with your feelings and emotions in all regards.

For me, it's late, I've wasted far more time on this than I should have and I still have work to do.


BTW- This is why I do a lot of these post in the early AM.
It's not to "SNEAK" anything by, it's because that's when I'm up and working.
I've worked on this post for hours between writing and working.
I'm tired and I'm going to bed...hopefully, I won't wake up banned

Gordon

BTW-To further my point...It appears that once again, my second "contact info" post has been deleted.

Look, for the record...to whom this may concern...I'm not trying to sneak this in!!!!

MY PM BOX IS FULL!! And I don't want to clear it at the moment!

That's it!
Bo sour grapes, No "swan song" (EVEN SAID SO IN THE THREAD-NOT GOING ANYWHERE)
It's just that I'm busy and do not have the need to be on line as much as before, much less the time.
It provides those that want to talk with me, an alternate means to do so...PERIOD!
That's it, bottom line, end of discussion.
Am I really that much of a threat?
How about putting it back up?
WTF?Dang!!!

I GIVE UP!

[Bob K]

Just let it go Gordon. Many of us have said the same things but obviously we're wrong. Personally I know if law enforcement did wrong by me I would bring them to task and not just talk about it. I would also not talk about LEO's in general like they're a piece of trash.

You say another post has been deleted? Is that the one with your personal contact info? I have posted my personal info in the BOI so I need to remove it.

I have been proud to be a member here, considered this site to be home away from home and I always tell new guys like Jpee and Ernie that they can post whatever and not suffer any consequences. That's obviously not true any longer but I'm sure they see that.

I have been Admin on two sites and I can tell you members cannot be stolen and directed somewhere else. They leave voluntarily for reasons of their own. Also, as you stated members tend to belong to more than one site. It was my job as Admin to provide a place where 'they wanted to stay'.

[Shadow]

I'm done with the matter.

I'm getting ready to head back to Tampa and back to more work, so my time will be limited again for a few days
I'm hoping things become a bit more stable and I can be more involved again

Yes, it appears, unless I've somehow missed it, that a second, even more generic thread, regarding my contact info has been deleted.

I was always instructed that we don't edit a thread, we only delete when absolutely necessary and then so it can be referenced later (which would have elimintaed a lot of speculation if that had instruction had been followed),and only lock one when we have to.

Then these two get locked back to back?
It gives the appearance that we're trying to prevent or hide something?

Rather than push the issue, in fairness to the site, I'm letting it go.

It places the administrator and other mod(s) in a precarious position and I don't care for that.
It's like doing something intentionally in front of a cop, then expecting them to give you a break for it
It's unprofessional.

The folks here that know me, know how to reach me. Those that don't, can go through you or KAP, BEEPSTER, Zo6 Rocket or a number of others that do to get the information.

As for the comments and implications made, I guess it's a matter of opinion and history.

Rich has a history of running websites and as such, has had his share of issues with people (mods, members and threats) on them.

I understand where he's coming from amd respect his concerns.

I don't however, appreciate those thoughts being conveyed in my direction.

Reading between the lines, that's exactly the way I percieved it.
If I'm incorrect ro reading more into it that there is, my apologies, but I don't believe so.

I've made a living both in and out of law enforcement, doing just this, reading people and reading between the lines.

I'm sorry he chose this route, but as I've said many times before, it's his sandbox.

He has made me think of some options and for that, I'm grateful.

I'm still here unless he decides otherwise, and if/when business get's under control, I may be more active.

I want to move on to greener threads

I hope I'm finished with this mess and this thread

Gordon