[Theforum] Re: (no subject)

[Ron Dorman]

Martin wrote:

>
> On Saturday, May 11, 2002, at 02:42  am, Ron Dorman wrote:
>
>>>> Plenty have left admin and other roles
>>>> because they've had enough. But, that's been going on for awhile.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You left out the first sentence.  You are quite adept at out of context
>> spins.
>
>
> No spin intended, just wanted to make the points which followed.


ok, given.  but it is very common in you posts and usually leads away
from the issue being discussed.  makes them seem like a spin.


>
>> When the same thing was done to dan, Michelle and Matt you had nothing
>> like this to say.  You even did some of the bashing your self if I
>> remember correctly.
>
>
> If I did, it was never with intent to criticise the person, only the
> actions.
> If I inadvertently strayed from that I was wrong.


Martin, for a few months you actively participated in bashing dan,
Michelle and Matt for the things they were doing to help evolt.org.
Most of us, except the people who have joined us lately, read the posts.
  To me, they didn't read as criticizing actions.


>
>> When list administration methods and personnel were changed in matter of
>> a few hours with input from only a small percentage of our group you had
>> no problem with it.
>
>
> Actually, I did - I would have preferred an open process as we now seem
> to be following - but didn't want to say anything which would be
> misconstrued
> as bashing Dan. Sorry.


again, given.  but you had no concerns bashing dan before.


>
>> However, a short time ago you grilled Michelle for
>> stepping up and taking care admin tasks without approval (which she had,
>> even if not from you)
>
>
> Please see my correction to this misunderstanding from a couple of
> days ago.


I read them when you posted them.  Doesn't change the original perceived
intent or the results of the posts.


>
> I've never suggested that I'm *the* proper authority for anything
> btw. I think you'll find I have a consistent track record of saying "we,
> collectively, are the proper authority". When admin exclusively
> ran evolt, the 'we' was admin. When that authority passed to this
> group, 'we', became this group. When issues come up which
> exclusively affect a specific subgroup of evolt (eg this week with
> thechat),
> I've every time called for openness and democracy.
>
>> even though she handled them very professionally and in
>> evolt.org's best interest.
>
>
> Again, looking at the facts, you'll find I never disputed that.


no, you didn't.  you just hammered away at the point that it was outside
policy and unacceptable.  we don't even have clearly defined policy.  we
are working on creating it.  you were going on implied policies,
opinions of what should be.  yet you defended actions of other members
based on implied authority of posts.  you rebuke some members for doing
that and defend others for the same thing when all of them were simply
helping evolt.org.  explain it!


>
>> Explain it!
>
>
> Please, no more provocative challenges, Ron. It's late, I'm tired, and
> it doesn't work with me anyway.

These are not provocative challenges Martin.  I truly wish this thread
wasn't happening.  I want the things that have started over the past
couple of weeks to continue and blossom into the concept and dream we
started evolt.org with.  I believe that we have to find the problems
that stymied evolt.org for a while and solve and/or remove them for
good.  It is my opinion that we are at the root of those problems.

Ron D.