• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Mr.Mcknowitall

Member
  • Posts

    14,110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr.Mcknowitall

  1. I don't think it is self serving at all.
  2. A good Post and reflection, in my opinion. I actually agree, except PMs can also be private info about family, the health of another member or their particular difficulties, that they would not like shared, seeking advice or opinion on a matter that the person might not want to be known, and of course the ever popular reason....talking about another member, which of course is going to happen.
  3. Thank you...I have taken that in the spirit intended. Your question is both sound and logical. There are reasons.
  4. That is a very clear guide, and very logical. I certainly appreciate this clarity.
  5. I forgot to add: All members are encouraged to vote, regardless of opinion or why voting, since it effects the entire community. It is of course up to the Host what happens and what Rules should or should not be added/enforced/etc. Nobody knows what members have bought/sold and or participated in commerce in any manner with other members, and what manner the participation venue is or was. and it does not negate the value of a member's opinion. Such issues should never exclude an opinion by any member. To suggest that an opinion by any member should be barred/excluded is contrary to the entire idea of a public Board and is exclusionary, haughty, and clique centered for personal reasons, such as dislike of an individual, social haughtiness, or superiority complex, to name a few. My opinion, of course.
  6. This is why, Mr. Logan. You are the person that stated you know of members that are doing so, yet you did not follow the example of Andrew, and disclose the names. To refresh your memory. It is not about "a" member (singular). The Poll is not about "a" member" (singular), even though I understand you may prefer it be. It is about Rules being applied for ALL members. Trying to restrict it to one member, in a Javertian manner, without regard to addressing the entire issue, settles nothing. If a member (me) is invited to a PM conversation, and states....what you label a 'contrarian" opinion.....an opinion about the over and over and over posts concerning Mr. Cataldo, and then is accused of backing the wrong horse, sticking my neck out, and DEFENDING the person's behavior.....and that member know clearly the actions were not being defended..... and suggests a Poll..... and the PM conversation clearly proves this and the member is asked to release the PMs after getting permission of the other 2 participants, and the PMs are never released, yet that member does not admit lying and characterizing my reasons for a "contrary" opinion, then yes, I am a "contrarian". I do not appreciate being portrayed in an untrue vein, and depicted as lying. So, are you going to publicly release the names of the members that you know are engaging in PM buying and selling and are on the HOS list? How about the members that are not on the List that are doing business by PM with those on the HOS List? Should they be outed? Any double standard there? I hope this addresses your curiosity. BTW, I am a member also.
  7. I am very happy you recognized . To many persons would not. Your priorities are straight.. But, back to the original question you asked. there is only one answer: YES!!!!!! Twinky approved, as a shout out to porcupine, MIA.
  8. Sheridan (Buzz) replies to Tosawi (Cataldo). Sherman (Mod) takes it under advisement. Custer complies with Orders from Sheridan. That did not end well, either.
  9. That is a Dranzer of a Post!! Congratulations....well done.
  10. Update: 40 Yes. 15 No 27.27%) (As a sideline, I wonder if the 15 voting No are sticking their neck out, backing the wrong horse, and wrongly defending Mr. Cataldo (all of which I was accused of by Buzz. We will probably never know without PM disclosure but that is not the point. It does not really matter. People will have to make up their own minds). The rest of the above Poll Breakdown remains the same, except for one added change because another member posted a reason: 8 individual responses, 5 persons responded with more than response choice (known responses by persons that it is assumed voted and stated their reasoning/choice). The added response choice: Yes if includes members not on HOS List that are dealing with HOS listed members: 1 We don't know the reasons for the choice by the remaining 47 member votes that voted without public comment.
  11. Have you thought any more about posting the names? Were you able to find out if they are on the PL List or the HOS List? I think that Buzz would say that posting the names is the right thing to do. I would bet he would agree, because he mentioned that the names should be disclosed if the persons are using PMs to conduct business. Shouldn't that apply to active members that are not on the PL or HOS Lists, but are using PMs to conduct buy/sell deals on the Host Boards with members that are on the HOS List? That would seem to be an equal example of what Buzz has presented as a reason to stop PMs from HOS persons that are engaged in buying and selling using PMs or is this an exception and is acceptable?
  12. PL List is not a part of the vote Poll, at the moment. So, which is it, the couple you know about are on the PL List or the HOS List, or both? If it is the HOS List, wouldn't you want to be as diligent as Andrew has been, in naming those individuals? Seems to me that would be the proper response given your comments on the subject. Any opinions concerning the other aspects of my Cool Books Posts? I would be interested.
  13. A question, Andrew: as of now, in the present Poll, 14 members have voted No in the present Poll. Would you characterize or describe those votes as backing the wrong horse, sticking their neck out, or being wrong ? I completely understand that any of those No votes could possibly be from members on the HOS List, and have an obvious reason to vote No. Common sense tends to favor the conclusion that, while certainly the possibility exists, it is a minor number of members at best, when reviewing the dates that members were added to the List. Another question: when the Poll is deemed complete, the date of which is not stated anywhere and noting that votes as of now are rather low in quantity, what exactly happens? There has been many comments that there is no firm established Rules, that Moderation favors self policing, Moderation has opinions concerning what constitutes trolling and what doesn't, that Moderation has abdicated responsibility in regard to the present situation and left it in limbo, and whether or not the PL List is or is not a separate situation. Note that the present Poll does not state PL....just HOS. So, what happens? What happens if a new Poll that is based on the Grass Roots movement you espouse is established (with an end date)? What then? 2 issues come to mind, that have been raised. A member that is on the PL List, has returned and it is my understanding that the member asked to be left on the PL List. The member stated that all previous issues have been settled. I do not have any idea if that is fact or not. It has been suggested that the member is an exception, because the member is contributing, via a recently popular Thread. What do you suggest could be a method to address this? I have been informed that a person that posted in the previous now locked divorce thread, included multiple posts by a banned member, who is not on the HOS or PL List. He continuously pops up, and members that have been very clear in their opinions that PL and HOS listed persons should not be allowed any privileges, actually replied to his posts, and in fact you actually thanked him for his opinion and comment concerning you. That seems a bit odd, and could be construed as a double standard. Any suggestions on how members should handle such issues?
  14. Here you go, Andrew. Seems the Poll should be cancelled and re-worded to accommodate your grass roots movement suggestion. Otherwise, nothing at all is accomplished by the present Poll, and is a waste of time and confusing.
  15. However, Andrew, that is not the basis of the Poll. I understand that you are in favor of the Grass Roots movement to move the needle, and there certainly nothing wrong with that. If that is what members want, then the present Poll should be cancelled, and start over with a new Poll, because previous member votes were not based on your movement. In fact, the early voting had members actually voting in a certain manner that was multi-faceted as to their opinions. I will next post an example of this, previously posted.
  16. The 'tribe" has a Poll. What do you think should be the action by Moderation when the Poll is completed...realizing there is no stated end date and doubtful there will ever be, mainly because of the interpretation of what is being voted on, doubt there ever would be......an issuance of a List of Board Rules? That is definitely happening already.
  17. That appears to be underway already, for the last 2 days at least, repetitively, over and over and over.
  18. I see. I truly did not get that. Now that you plainly state it, it is very clear. In that sense, the needle is being moved, because I can not find any Rule supporting what some mebers state is factual in that regard. Thanks. I need to be more aware of the behind the scenes reasons, and not go with common sense interpretation of posts. Very appreciated. You taught me something.