Reply to Lou Arab

If you read that brief thread, you'll see that no offence or "patronizing" at all was intended.

Stargazer opened the rabble reaction to protest against Lou closing, abruptly, yet another thread, this time on the grounds that he thought there was a libellous post in it. However, he apparently took no action to have the "libellous" post deleted.

Oldgoat posted in Stargazer's thread saying that he hadn't read the original thread. So I linked to the original thread for oldgoat's benefit, saying:

Lou wasn't there - oldgoat was - so I suggested that oldgoat explain to Lou that if something arises that can really get babble into trouble, it has to be DELETED - it doesn't help to just leave it sitting, readable by anyone, in a locked thread.

Lou then appeared, one week later, with the above sarcastic and gratuitous attack. Obviously, you can see he misunderstood the conversation - in its absolute entirety - and ascribed motives that weren't there.

That's sad. And I would like to advise Lou - publicly - that if you don't understand what was meant in a conversation that you weren't party to, just feel free to ask. You'll avoid embarrassment and bad feelings that way. And no, this is not a private comment to Lou's email.

Comments

Submitted by E.Tamaran on February 20, 2010 - 11:18pm.

You're not supposed to explicitly target another participant on babble. Follow the rules Unionist.

Submitted by Unionist on February 20, 2010 - 11:21pm.

E.Tamaran wrote:

You're not supposed to explicitly target another participant on babble. Follow the rules Unionist.

You're not supposed to make another babbler look foolish.

Even if it's yourself.

Submitted by Lou Arab on February 20, 2010 - 11:35pm.

Unionist wrote:

Lou wasn't there...

Really?

Where was Lou?

Unionist, what did you do with Lou?

Unionist, you don't have to like me, or like my moderating decisions. But please address me directly when referring to things you don't like about me. That's what I found most obnoxious and patonizing. If the two of us were in a room with Oldgoat would you have spoken to me though him like that? Posting such trash on a public board (especially one in which I am a moderator) is highly disrespectful and rude.

You could have said:

"Lou, closing the thread does nothing about libel," but instead you chose to ask Oldgoat to admonish me somehow.

I admit that kind of thing gets my back up.

Here's another example:

Quote:

And I would like to advise Lou - publicly - that if you don't understand what was meant in a conversation that you weren't party to, just feel free to ask.

Wasn't a party to? Are you serious?

This is a public board, not a private chat. Everything you say is open to the world. And need I remind you that you were talking about me!

The thing is, you actually had a fair point, but because you spoke it in such a patronizing tone, not to mention the fact you spoke before knowing the facts (like the fact I didn't at the time have the power to delete threads) you undermine your credibility.

All I'm asking from you is a little respect Unionist.

If that ever happens, I'll do my best to return the favour.

Submitted by Lou Arab on February 20, 2010 - 11:36pm.

As for closing the thread, fair enough.

The post was already closed by Oldgoat, so I wasn't sure what to do with it. I probably should have started a new thread.

I waited a week though for a reason. The internet would be a much better place if we all waited to hit 'send' a little more often.

Submitted by Unionist on February 20, 2010 - 11:45pm.

Apparently, when I say that no offence or patronizing was intended, that's not good enough.

How about if I just say this:

"Ok, you're right, even though I didn't intend any offence, I can see that you were offended, and I'd like to apologize to you for that. In future, I will address you directly when I have something to say to or about you. If it's in a thread where you haven't posted yet, and I'm not confident that you'll notice my post because no one reads every single thread, I'll make a specific point of following up with an email or a PM to you. Hopefully misunderstandings can be avoided in that way."

Submitted by Lou Arab on February 20, 2010 - 11:50pm.

See, how hard was that?

Submitted by Unionist on February 20, 2010 - 11:51pm.

That's a fairly personal question, isn't it? But since you ask - flaccid.

Submitted by Lou Arab on February 20, 2010 - 11:57pm.

I'm now cleaning up the wine that came out of my nose when I read the last post.

Submitted by bagkitty on February 21, 2010 - 1:15am.

Lou Arab wrote:

[...] The internet would be a much better place if we all waited to hit 'send' a little more often.

[munching popcorn]

But also dreadfully dull.

[/munching popcorn]

Submitted by Unionist on February 21, 2010 - 1:32am.

Want something to wash that down with?

Submitted by Lou Arab on February 21, 2010 - 2:29am.

Now that Unionist and I have gotten our digs in, I'm going to close this. I'm pretty sure the thread is against babble policy, but I allowed it for awhile so Unionist could have his reply.

I'm hoping we both got it out of our system.