|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 12:47:58 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 12:47:58 GMT -5
I do not think it was deliberate falsehood but rather technical incompetence as the person said that her pop-up blocker setting was incorrect. my glassumption is she tried to reach this site from the main web site which is the only pop-up I spotted. My complaint is specifically about being attacked by David. My request for information was based upon the person's original post but is still is a valid request despite the original poster's technical FUBAR. I have spoken to David about refraining from attacking you personally. My only problem with your original post was that came across as an accusation (which turned out to be false), rather than a request for clarification. And before you assume that the original poster was only guilty of a technical FUBAR, you might want to ask why this poster continues to display the moniker under their profile of "PRE-BANNED by the LBHA site!"? NOTE- the poster in question has since removed the false moniker under her profile name. No, statements critical of GAC are not grounds for immediate dismissal, anymore than statements against Marcus Reno or Frederick Benteen were grounds for immediate dismissal from the old message board! lol. How absurd! The ground rules here have already been posted upon joining. BTW, they are exactly the same ground rules that were posted at the old LBHA message board. Thanks Billy. I will check it out.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 13:13:33 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 13:13:33 GMT -5
Well, John McCain seems to have been proud to have been a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution, whatever that means. As to Custerwest, where the heck does he get off calling anyone a liar, or attacking someone for being loyal to someone else, or for bringing up what happened on another board. Hi Foolkiller, Custerwest was referring to a person who attempted to disrupt this forum by falsely claiming on another board that they had been "pre-banned from the LBHA site". This person was informed that they were not banned, yet they continued to display this phony moniker under their profile name on that board until just recently. It would be nice if no reference whatsoever need be made to any other message boards, but in this case it has a direct influence on our own board here, and even caused one of our members to become so upset that they threatened to cancel membership in the organization. The lying charge refers to the false accusations made against this board regarding the banning of our members. Custerwest is correct in pointing out this falsehood, which remained uncorrected for several days on that message board. From that fact, one could draw the conclusion that the continued proliferation of this lie constitutes an ethical violation. He is unable to do so, as he is not permitted to respond to any of the vituperative slander and drivel thrown his way on what seems a daily basis on that board. I suppose you are familiar with the term "trolls"? No, not the kind that live under bridges and collect tolls. This kind of troll joins a message board with the sole intention of disrupting it and causing its demise. It would appear that a number of people who have personal issues with Custerwest from another board have followed him here to continue their harassment and antagonisms, hoping to disrupt our own efforts here, much as they have done at the old board. But you are correct in your observations. It would be a tragic mistake to allow this board to devolve into the kind of vitriolic infighting which has so characterized the other one. Not everyone has the time to answer all questions put to them right away. Give Custerwest a chance to get around to them. We should be encouraging our members to post and express their views, not criticizing them for not answering fast enough. But you are right to point out the need for us all to stay on topic and not engage trolls from other sites out to disrupt this message board. There seems to be a good deal of bad blood between members who belong to other message boards and unfortunately, some of this bad blood has been carried over from there.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 13:31:41 GMT -5
Post by markland on Feb 3, 2008 13:31:41 GMT -5
Tricia is an outright liar. She wrote to me that she had never been banned but pretends to be for fun (schoolgirl behavior). She signed up here under the name of Clara Blinn, it is confirmed by the moderator. Markland serves a a foot soldier for a women who cheat with the LBHA last year and now wants to destroy the entire organization by calling members KKK, nazis etc. and by constantly lying and bashing the Board of Directors and the association. Legal action will probably been taken against these defamatory statements. Fred is on the top of the list, action is on the way. These people have no ethics but the LBHA constitution and the civil justice will calm them down. Mod, just in case you perhaps missed David's accusation against you. Billy
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 13:38:40 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 13:38:40 GMT -5
Tricia is an outright liar. She wrote to me that she had never been banned but pretends to be for fun (schoolgirl behavior). She signed up here under the name of Clara Blinn, it is confirmed by the moderator. Markland serves a a foot soldier for a women who cheat with the LBHA last year and now wants to destroy the entire organization by calling members KKK, nazis etc. and by constantly lying and bashing the Board of Directors and the association. Legal action will probably been taken against these defamatory statements. Fred is on the top of the list, action is on the way. These people have no ethics but the LBHA constitution and the civil justice will calm them down. Mod, just in case you perhaps missed David's accusation against you. Billy Thanks for the information on this, Billy. I will speak to David about this immediately. No one I am familiar with here at the site released any personal information about anyone. If David made this assumption, then I will ask him to correct it right away, lest the trolls make an issue of something which is not true. Their agenda is clear---to disrupt this board in any manner they can.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 13:42:54 GMT -5
Post by markland on Feb 3, 2008 13:42:54 GMT -5
Mod, just in case you perhaps missed David's accusation against you. Billy Thanks for the information on this, Billy. I will speak to David about this immediately. No one I am familiar with here at the site released any personal information about anyone. If David made this assumption, then I will ask him to correct it right away, lest the trolls make an issue of something which is not true. Their agenda is clear---to disrupt this board in any manner they can. Wrong...whether you consider me a troll or not is irrelevant as I am a fully paid-up member of the LBHA. As such, if this board's costs are being paid for by that organization, I have every right to be here and express my opinion about the sorry state which the organization is finding itself. That is not being a troll. If the Board doesn't like it, tough. Billy
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 14:02:41 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 14:02:41 GMT -5
This is probably going to be my only post at this board. If no-one is giving out personal information, then why did it CLEARLY state in Custerwest's post that "she signed up here under the name Clara Blinn, it is CONFIRMED BY THE MODERATOR [my emphasis]." Why? If I'm a liar, doesn't that make Custerwest the source of all truth? Custerwest was mistaken when he stated that any personal information regarding you or anyone else on this site was confirmed by the moderator. He has since corrected this error. I have informed you that I have never released any personal information about you, yet you continue to make hysterical accusations against this message board and the LBHA in general. First you scream about getting pre-banned from the site, not bothering to tell anyone that you were already registered here under a different name. Now you are falsely claiming that your personal information was released by me. Get your facts straight before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself. You might want to contact your local authorities to ask them the penalties for making false and libelous accusations against others. No one here has a problem with your novel, nor the fact that you have a number of personal issues dealing with the current Board of Directors as well as its past members. From the 1st day this board opened up you have been jumping up and down like an hysterical child making one phony accusation after another with the sole intention of causing as much disruption and dissension as you possibly can. Your personal bias against certain members of the LBHA BODs has blinded your sense of balance and fair play. Yes, I agree an apology is in order, and I sincerely hope you come to your senses and make that apology for making false accusations---twice now---sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 14:11:33 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 14:11:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the information on this, Billy. I will speak to David about this immediately. No one I am familiar with here at the site released any personal information about anyone. If David made this assumption, then I will ask him to correct it right away, lest the trolls make an issue of something which is not true. Their agenda is clear---to disrupt this board in any manner they can. Wrong...whether you consider me a troll or not is irrelevant as I am a fully paid-up member of the LBHA. As such, if this board's costs are being paid for by that organization, I have every right to be here and express my opinion about the sorry state which the organization is finding itself. That is not being a troll. If the Board doesn't like it, tough. Billy Again Billy, you jump to conclusions. I never said that you were a troll. I said that there were clearly trolls here that were intent upon creating silly distractions and making false accusations for the sole purpose of disrupting this Message Board. If you choose to put yourself in that class, then so be it. No one has questioned your right to be here, nor to post your opinions about this fine organization. Your complaints about people being banned do not belong at this board as no one has as yet been banned. It is not an issue. You must be referring to members of the LBHA who were banned or threatened to be banned from the old LBHA message board, not this one. I would suggest you take your complaints of this nature and post them there, not here.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 14:21:41 GMT -5
Post by markland on Feb 3, 2008 14:21:41 GMT -5
Actually, if your read my first message of this topic, you will specifically note that I did not accuse anyone of banning, however I did request information as to what the process is for a moderator to ban. In Diane's case, it is when someone gets on her last nerve, such as Custerstillstands, aka Custerwest over here. I. personally was an advocate to he being allowed to stay until he finally got on MY last nerve.
And to save you from trekking to the first page, here is my quote of the relevant first two paragraphs.
Billy
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 14:21:55 GMT -5
Post by custersfreckles on Feb 3, 2008 14:21:55 GMT -5
Moderator:
I have received no information from YOU saying YOU didn't release my personal information. None whatsoever. No email, no pm, nothing.
Tricia Johnson-McDuffie
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 15:03:06 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 15:03:06 GMT -5
Moderator: I have received no information from YOU saying YOU didn't release my personal information. None whatsoever. No email, no pm, nothing. Tricia Johnson-McDuffie Well, you certainly have now. In the future, a simple inquiry might work better than a public accusation based on a falsehood.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 15:19:00 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 15:19:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification on this Billy. But I was referring to your further comments in that post (see below:) which implies that we have a policy of banning posters who disagree with someone else's posts or depictions. Then you follow this theoretical assumption up by threatening to cancel your membership in our organization and urge others to do so as well. Can you see how this post might be confusing to some people? In any event, no one need fear being banned for getting on my nerves. My ego is not that big, and it will take far more grounds than that subjective reason to ban someone at this message board. This board belongs to all of us, and we are all welcome to post here in a spirit of camaraderie and friendship. There is no need for us to create enemies amongst ourselves. The welcome mat is extended to all.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 15:28:04 GMT -5
Post by markland on Feb 3, 2008 15:28:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification on this Billy. But I was referring to your further comments in that post (see below:) which implies that we have a policy of banning posters who disagree with someone else's posts or depictions. Then you follow this theoretical assumption up by threatening to cancel your membership in our organization and urge others to do so as well. Can you see how this post might be confusing to some people? In any event, no one need fear being banned for getting on my nerves. My ego is not that big, and it will take far more grounds than that subjective reason to ban someone at this message board. This board belongs to all of us, and we are all welcome to post here in a spirit of camaraderie and friendship. There is no need for us to create enemies amongst ourselves. The welcome mat is extended to all. Hmmm, being fair-minded about it, the third para was unclear. However, my thoughts are that this board was started by the Board in an effort to sanitize the Association of those who don't believe that GAC walked on water. Whether that is a misinterpretation on my part is one thing, however reading Blake's diatribes in the Newsletter leads one to suspect that I am not far wrong. And I will follow my "theoretical assumption" up with actions to cease my membership if I feel the need or urge to. The only reason I am a member of LBHA is due to the "face" that Diane Merkel put on the group by her being a welcoming, friendly presence. Billy
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 16:20:02 GMT -5
Post by moderator on Feb 3, 2008 16:20:02 GMT -5
Hmmm, being fair-minded about it, the third para was unclear. However, my thoughts are that this board was started by the Board in an effort to sanitize the Association of those who don't believe that GAC walked on water. Whether that is a misinterpretation on my part is one thing, however reading Blake's diatribes in the Newsletter leads one to suspect that I am not far wrong. I appreciate your sense of fair play here Billy, and your willingness to give this board a fair chance to demonstrate that your assumptions regarding its motivations are not correct. I can assure you that both Custerphiles and phobes are welcome here to post their views freely and openly. There is no other agenda. Too many falsehoods have already been spread on this matter and the truth has suffered greatly in the process. I well recognize your loyalty to Diane, but please understand that she is not the focus of anyone's ire or attack here. I have been a member of this fine organization about 3 decades now, long before anyone attempted to put their own "face" on it, and have always found it to be a very welcoming and friendly presence, as well as an extremely informative society composed of many experts in the field of Custeriana. Lets focus our attention on working together, rather than tearing each other apart. A house divided against each other cannot stand.
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 17:17:55 GMT -5
Post by benteeneast on Feb 3, 2008 17:17:55 GMT -5
Who is the moderator?
|
|
|
Banned?
Feb 3, 2008 20:57:37 GMT -5
Post by Melani on Feb 3, 2008 20:57:37 GMT -5
Tricia stated on "the other board" that she had received an email from custerwest telling her that she had indeed been banned ("LBHA Chairman's Message," p. 21). That could certainly have led to some confusion.
As far as I can tell, until his threats on this thread, David has done nothing worse than post some very long, rambling statements and challenge people to verbal duels. To my mind, that does not constitute abuse--if something he (or anybody else) posts is too long and silly, I simply don't bother to read it or reply. You can all do the same. He did say that the moderator released Tricia's information to him; that statement has been removed, presumably because it wasn't correct. We have no way of knowing whether David removed it himself; we can all modify our own posts. I can't believe that anybody qualified to moderate a site like this doesn't know better than to release personal information without permission.
Incidentally, Melani is my real name, and if anybody wants to communicate with me off list, send me a personal message and I will decide if I want you to have my address.
It might be nice to wait until he actually does something that deserves it on this board before howling for David to be removed. Everybody here flies off the handle from time to time, and we would all at least want a warning or two before being put before a firing squad.
The problem seems to be that David has some very controversial stuff on his website, including some things that could be considered defamation of character under the law. That could conceivably cause trouble, and perhaps the LBHA Board should consider whether they want their site to be associated with his, if only to maintain the credibility of this organization. But that does not mean that David should not be allowed to post on this board, as long as he abides by the rules.
The statement about abuse, etc., that is displayed upon registration has been mentioned several times. Maybe we should all read it again and then try to keep it in mind when posting here.
|
|