Popular or not, fish guy was suspended without any explanation and Care2 did not tell him what he was suspended for other than to say that he was "flaming" in a thread. They wouldn't say which thread or which group and didn't say which post. They want him to apologise and promise to adhere to the Care2 Terms of Service which includes the Code of Conduct, yet he won't know what he's specifically apologising for.
That is unfair, and is the reason he should be reinstated. It's not about liking or agreeing with him, it's about the arbitarary way in which he was suspended and the fact that he has to apologise for something he doesn't know he did.
If this happened to him, it could happen to any one of us. It isn't so much about fish guy himself as it is the principal of what happened and the way Care2 handled it.
How does that prove he's not lying? Care2 stated in dma what he needs to do to come back. He won't. Why should he come back then? I had to kiss butt to come back. He needs to play by the same rules we all do.
[ send green star]
When I was suspended I had to agree to the coc to come back. Kiss butt are my words. Should I have said play nice? Do what anyone has to do to get unsuspended? It isn't that difficult to understand what I meant. Why should he get to ignore the coc?
[ send green star]
Exactly. We all know what fish guy needs to do to get back in and that is not what's in dispute. The issue is WHAT he was suspended for and why. He'd like to know what he's apologising for. Is that wrong?
I want to see proof, Christian, that isn't just based on the "fact" that Fishguy is your friend. I want to see proof he wasn't told why he was suspended.
I have never heard of Care2 not telling someone why they were suspended - but I've surely seen many people "twist" the truth of what they were told.
I also want to see the actual thread and what was actually said in that thread that you say got Fishguy suspended. If you say you know the whole truth, Christian, then please post the whole truth here. Then and only then can we make a judgement about what has happened.
I knew exactly why I was suspended. Knew I would be when I posted it. I can agree that freediver may not know. That happens when so many flames are placed. Supporting him is a smack in the face to anyone who has followed the rules. I don't see how it gives a message to care2. For all we know he is lying. He has said the the best lies are 95% truth.
[ send green star]
I want to see some proof too... I don't know Fish Guy but I do know what he said about cats, for instance... That's something I have read with my very own eyes. I have nothing against him as a purrson but I want to see what he said. I'd be a fool not to, as I'm careful about what I sign.
Whenever I've been "in trouble" with Care2, they have always openly told me exactly what they thought I did wrong. In each case they "called" me on, when I cooled off, I realized they were correct. I was out of line.
I do not automatically believe when they suspend someone they are doing it arbitrarily. In fact, in many past cases, I think they were overly-cautious and slow at suspending people who should've been suspended.
As to this case, with Fishguy, not knowing any facts at all means none of us can objectively make a judgement. We're entitled to know what the truth is - the objective truth - before we're asked to sign any petition. That's my opinion.
fish guy sent me the actual e-mail from Care2 (sent to him on Feb. 29th) but I can't post it here because to do so can result in a suspension for me. Posting correspondence from Care2 is a violation of the Terms of Service and/or the CoC.
I posted the gist of it in another group last week. It's a lengthy e-mail but all it says is that a thread in which he was participating had been reported to the Care2 support team for "investigation" and that "in the thread" (it didn't say which one or in which group it appeared) he was "flaming" others and that they placed his account on suspension.
Whining about it doesn't really do anything about it one way or the other, though.
I must have missed something. I see people talking rationally, I don't see anyone whining. I see FD doing a lot of whining about this, is that who you were talking about Christian?
Like Knate I'd like to know the facts. I've seen what is suspected to have gotten him suspended, it hasn't been confirmed though. If it is true I would be concerned about sticking up for him. Not to mention he hates bunnies in general so I wouldn't sign anyway.
I don't think an apology would be all that hard to produce... I have apologized many times in my life, also for things which I didn't cause or do... It's not all that hard once you're accustomed to it. Saying sorry and promising to adhere to the CoC... is that a mission impossible? I could do that in heartbeat as I'm sure I have inadvertently hurt some people's feelings here... without meaning to.
What Angela said, I believe to be true. Flagged by a witch hunt.
I don't know how that can be proven to be true, or proven to be untrue.
But I, being gullible and paranoid, believe it to be true. All it takes is one enemy with an army of flaggers. That is why I hardly dare post anything anywhere anymore, especially in such groups as Hot Debates and Shocking News or Left Right & Beyond. I certainly do not dare express any political or religious viewpoint. Nor do I dare to use my usual sarcasm, because anything I say could be pounced upon by the narrow-minded.
There are many in Care2 who are blinded by their hatred of Freediver. They would fight for justice for a friend, but not for one they perceive to be an enemy.
I don't hold any animosity towards Fish guy. I just want to know why he was banned. I really don't like to sign petitions until I know the entire truth. There are always two sides to every story and I really don't want to side with any one. A few people have been banned and I'm sure they have all been told the reason(s). I was asked about the banning of a member by Randy Paynter. Care2 doesn't really just willy nilly ban someone because they don't like the smell of their fish.
You guys have to be completely off your rockers if you think I'm going to risk being suspended myself for reposting private correspondence between Care2 and fish guy, a clear violation of the Terms of Service.
Once more, may I remind everyone that they can take this petition or leave it.
Yelling at me and demanding this, that and the other thing when you have no intention of signing the petition anyway, is, as Angela put it, pointless.
Sign it or don't. I don't care either way, but I won't be browbeaten about anything from anyone. Take it somewhere else.
There is plenty of proof, over long periods of time, that Care2 lets people know why they are suspended. Why would they suddenly change this for Fishguy? If they are inconsistant with this policy, why do you think we don't need some sort of proof or verfication?
That he was not told is being used as a major part of Fishguy's argument against Care2 - so we deserve some kind of verification.
If Care2 is just suspending people with no explanation, then we need more than paranoia to verify that. Accusations against Care2 are just as easy as accusations against Fishguy.
From Day One I have wanted to see exactly what Fishguy is being accused of. I haven't seen it yet. I have seen plenty of things he's posted I don't like but I have never seen a post from him that was threatening or dangerous or I would consider in need of being suspended for. That's my experience, so I want to see what exactly happened.
You want fairness, Angela; so do I. I want to be fair to Fishguy and to Care2; to both. I want to know the facts so I can base my response on the facts.
Christian, I'd never browbeat you or shout at you... I think it's admirable that you create a petition to help a friend. I wish that if I was ever suspended, friends would do that for me too. It's truly lovely. I have never been warned or suspended but care2 has always treated me fairly and been really lovely and helpful towards me. So well... I have nothing purrsonal against Freediver but I know he can be rather... abrupt, shall we say.
In any case, c2 has said he can come back, on their terms (and it is their site after all) You wrote: "They want him to apologise and promise to adhere to the Care2 Terms of Service which includes the Code of Conduct"
Is that too much to ask after all? He could be back already today. If I was Freediver, I'd play by the rules. Care2 is no different from any other site in this.
I explained what happened with fish guy at the top of this thread.
The ball is in his court now. He has to apologise to Care2 and promise not to do whatever it was that he did, though they did not tell him which of his posts he was suspended for or which thread or even which group, so he has to somehow make an apology about something non-specific - "I'm sorry for doing whatever it was that I did wrong" kind of thing, which, quite frankly, is bullshit as far as I'm concerned.
You guys can disbelieve me all you want but I have the actual e-mail and there is absolutely nothing specific in there at all as to what he did wrong or where, other than that he was reported as having been "flaming" in "a thread".
I did not mean to imply that people in this group are asking for proof (or not signing petition) because they hate Fishguy!
I said "many in Care2."
There can be many reasons for not signing a petition. And we don't know unless the reason is stated. I, for one, have refrained from signing petitions I fully agreed with because of mistakes in petition or becacause it was poorly written.
Guys, there is no mystery to this. It is not a revelation that all fish guy has to do is apologise to Care2 and then he's back in. I know this and so do most others. We get it already.
The issue is how he was suspended and why and the arbitrary way in which Care2 dealt with the situation overall as well as the fact that he wasn't told what to apologise for.
Knate, "fish guy" is two words, all lowercase lettering, no capitals. Even if the sentence starts off with "fish guy", the F is not capitalised. I realise this contravenes the cardinal rules of spelling but it is an exception to the rule.
I could edit the petition to add the reason it was created, namely that his suspension, unlike previous suspensions of other members, did not specify exactly when, where and how he contravened their rules. That way, the petiton makes more sense and it still maintains the spirit in which the signers signed.
Will we get a new petition that asks (politely) for Care2 to please explain the details of how and where and why Fishguy was suspended? (So we know the details of how rules are enforced) (And asks for Fishguy's re-instatement?)
That petition Charlene and I could sign. Thanks, Christian.
Care2 has already stated that they will not publicly discuss the situation regarding anyone's account even though permission has been given by fish guy. A petiton asking Care2 to give Freediver the details would be appropriate.
Hmm, Care2 did post something(s?) about this. Was it in Feedbag or another group? Or both? Anyway, what I remember is that they reiterated that he had to apologize and that they were calling the shots, no exceptions.
They have suspended a couple of others recently who are avid supporters of Care2's stated purposes and never make waves. I'm not sure enough of the details of the first one to state them accurately but I know in the second case that she sent out a warning about someone who she had reason to think could be harmful to other women. She works very hard to make a difference, and she is not the kind of person who would intentionally violate the rules. Many of us were shocked at her suspension. It seems that Care2 has gotten off balance lately and I believe there needs to be an intermediate step before suspension. An opportunity to understand specifically how one has violated the sometimes ambiguous rules and some leniency if it is a first ever offence of any kind. The rules are especially ambiguous because many people post things that get by that are a lot worse than what suddenly causes a suspension. I believe this is causing distrust of Care2's rational decision making and doesn't serve them any more than the membership.
Freediver is the only person to take a stand. But an action is needed. He often speaks up as a sole voice and sometimes he says something much more worth considering than truly controversial. It's unfortunate that it is being taken up by someone who has upset people to the point of closing their minds. The issue is not so much about this symbolic person, however, it's really about an unfair and detrimental policy of Care2 .
But for one reason only: Because simply saying Freediver was "flaming" is not enough. Truth in Advertising requires that exact details regarding the suspension must be published so there will be no doubt that Freediver got a just punishment.
I would have gladly stood behind Nadia or Cate. They were suspended at the same time, and they came right back. FD is the only one who hasn't. Would anyone have been hurt to see Nadia's photo all over the place? I don't have issue with the stand, as long as that's what it is really about, and not FD.
I suggested asking Care2 why Fishguy was suspended but that idea was dumped on and rejected.
I don't mind supporting Fishguy's reinstatement but I think I'm entitled to know what he did.
Why are so many people so hostile because I (and others) are asking for facts? What in the world is wrong with asking for a minimum of facts from Fishguy and from Care2? What are we, a mob of mindless sheep?
Charlene has a great suggestion and I hope this one won't get shot down, too:
PETITION to Care2: When a person is suspended please place on their Profile Page a specific reason why they were suspended.
Then they will know and their friends will know. That's fairness.
I think it was DMA where Care2 posted about it and yes, they basically just reiterated that fish guy needed to write to them and promise to agree to the Care2 Terms of Service and CoC and then they would reinstate him.
Knate, I would love to post the Care2 e-mail to fish guy and you would clearly see that they did not say tickety boo about what, where or when he said what he said but I simply cannot. There's no way I'm risking suspension over this.
I can only speak from my own experience.. but care2 has only ever been fair and just towards me, and I have been active here for a long time. I know that they recently suspended a friend of mine whom I like a great deal but I have to agree that they did the right thing... As someone posting on their profile that he likes "wild sex" is no crime... and asking people to flag the profile is just not right. Not in my opinion anyway. I believe that sometimes we step in gray areas here and as for c2 not telling fish guy what the exact problem is... I believe it must have been because it was some very particular thread and a specific purrson who was offended... and the explanation would reveal who that purrson was. And there would be backlash. I think they're trying to protect whoever it was that made the complaint. I have no idea who it is But I think care2 simply has no choice. They have to protect this purrson. It's being between a rock and a hard place, and in any case, their call.
This is my best guess anyhow... I share almost no groups with FD so I can make no truly educated guesses.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 12:02
[ send green star]
You know, that's a pretty good idea, Knate. As long as the reason is valid and the incident actually occurred, displaying it on the person's profile could prove to be a sufficient deterrent to breaking Care2 posting rules. It would certainly help us to identify trolls much more easily.
BTW, Nadia D should never have been suspended. I almost met up with her in New York last week but she injured her ankle and couldn't meet me. We talked on the phone though and she's simply not the type to cause the kind of trouble that gets one suspended from a website.
You can't say: we know why he was suspended. Then also say, we don't know why he was suspended. What is it? Know or don't know?
BTW, Fishguy is NOT the only outspoken person at Care2.
This place is filth-deep with outspoken people, loudmouths, braggarts, arrogant buttheads, confrontational, obnoxious people who talk long before they think - if they ever think, and most of us here (today) have been in one or more of those categories. Frequently.
All of us at Care2 have the right to know, clearly, what the rules are and how they are specifically enforced, so we can either live by and agree to them or not. To say otherwise, is to be a passive robot. I'm not a robot.
Don't you think that a warning to her would have been enough considering she might have thought that it was a violation and was not intentionally violating any rule. And strongly works for Care2's goals and never makes any trouble?
Why are so many people so hostile because I (and others) are asking for facts? What in the world is wrong with asking for a minimum of facts from Fishguy and from Care2? What are we, a mob of mindless sheep?
First, Knate ... sorry. It was not my intention - nor did I even realize - to come off as "hostile." Like many others here, including you, I try to say what I mean without walking on eggshells about it.
Honestly? I'm actually seeing more "hostility" coming from those that do NOT support FD.
As for what he supposedly did to get booted was "flaming," based on Care2 template email. The specific example of the flaming hasn't been explained to FD, as far as I know.
Annie, I agree... it would have But this is not the issue at hand... it's about Freediver who's an entirely different kind of fish. I was only trying to make a point, that's all.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 12:15
[ send green star]
March 13, 2008 12:16 PM
My wife Cheri defintely doesn't want Fish Guy back, and I am apathetic about the issue. I suspect most people who want Fish Guy back are really worried about the possibility of THEM being suspended for an unknown cause. That wouldn't be an issue if Care2 had simply made a detailed statement about the matter immediately. So why don't they???
Did any of you even read Cissy M's post at 12:00? I'm seeing the same rhetoric over and over and finally someone has something new to say, that makes perfect sense - and you all just keep on going as if there is nothing there.
I expect there are many cases where Care2 steps in and gives someone a time out but protects the complainant's anonymity to avoid backlash. So they should.
No - none of us have the right to demand information.
but I strongly disagree with you. I doublt that Cissy's idea was their reason but more importantly, how can I apologize or correct my erroneous behavior if I don't know what the heck I did??? That just doesn't make sense...to me.
Christian did FD respond to that email? I've been told that once you reply to the generic email that they would then tell you the issue. In fact care2 said that he has not replied to their original email. Maybe if he would respond to their email, they would tell him what he did and we can all move on.
There are rules at care2 - as I think there should be - but we should know, specifically as possible, what those rules are.
What does "flaming" mean?
I frequently, very frequently, see posters call each other names like "b*tth**d" and "***h*l*" and the "f" word and the 'c" word and "j*ck*ss" and much worse. Is that flaming? They don't get suspended.
What is allowed and what is forbidden? Obviously threats are forbidden but what about asking delicate questions?
What are the rules and the parameters of the rules?
Bugalina, belief is not knowledge... This is, in my opinion, the most likely scenario. I don't mind FD coming back, it has very little (if any) effect on me, but I don't believe in him becoming some sort of c2 martyr either. We are all in the dark, and well, c2 has the right to suspend someone when they see there's a just cause. Why can't he just apologize and agree to follow the CoC?
Well, purrhaps that's just me. But in all my years in c2, I have always been fairly treated and I can't imagine it being any different... In any case, it's getting late here in FinLand, so I better give my kitties their nightly snack (fish) and I wish you all a lovely day.
what gives them that right? That they own the company? Well, they wouldn't own anything without the members. And we have a long history, world wide, of "owners" being abusive of their power. No, I think our input should carry weight and I think it often does. But they seem to be having difficulty hearing us on this one. They have stated that part of their position is that they just don't' have time .....but the inequality of the enforcement of their policies is something that the members have every right to protest and to ask for a better way of enforcement.
Actually what care2 said was that they were waiting for a reply to their original email to FD. I think it has to do with verifying the email address. Once it is verified by him replying, then they will give the reason. Has he verified his email address yet? Does anyone know?
That number is pretty misleading as only about a third or a forth that number are really active and only a few hundred have even seen the pitition. Also, the issue is confused by the focus on FD. that doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
Also, I think many people think, like Cissy, that Care2 has the right to do whatever they want. It would be a sad world if people didn't speak up when something seems wrong. We have and investment here also. Many of us have invested deeply of our time and our caring.
Oh Annie... I guess it's a good thing I took one final look at c2 after giving my three kittybabes their fish dinner (sardines)... as what do I see: "Also, I think many people think, like Cissy, that Care2 has the right to do whatever they want."
I see. After this I am likely to take anything you have to say with a pinch of salt... Where did I claim that? All I did was describe my own experience. I don't think that c2 OR fish guy have the right to do whatever they / he wants.
Anyhow, Christian, that's brilliant Always room for some humour. In accordance with the theme...
Well - only in this specific instance if you have an answer - I kind of assumed Christian would have the answer since he is the only one I have seen say he has personal knowledge of the behind the scenes facts in this case, and he started the petition.
But I'm happy to talk to you anytime!
I don't dislike people because they are on the other side of an issue - I often disagree with friends since none of them are robots We are all adult and can disagree without it damaging our basic friendship.
I find it interesting that such a simple question can't seem to be answered.
Did fg hit the "reply" button and respond to Care2's original email?
The first thing the officer does is ask to see your license and registration. If you ask him what you did he will tell you with license in hand. If you don't ask him he will just write it on the ticket. At least that's been my experience, and I've gotten a lot of tickets.
His issue, as I'm sure it would be with anyone else here, is why he wasn't told what he did, where and how, other than the nebulous proclamation that he was reportedly "flaming" in "a thread", not how to get back in. He knows what he has to do.
I thought I said that at least several times today. I guess I was mistaken.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 13:32
[ send green star]
1) There are some people who are supporting FD merely because they like him and want him back on Care2.
2) There are some people who are supporting the equal application of equal offense aspect.
3) There are some people who are opining that Care2's policies should be more clearly spelled out.
4) There are those who think that Care2 should, if not at least provide warnings before booting someone, provide the specific reason for one's booting.
5) Probably some other things that people are doing this for.
6) Any combination of the above.
That should have been put on the petition, I can understand that. The problem is with blanket title like Reinstate fishguy it looks like that is the sole purpose. I agree that it would be nice to know why people are suspended. I don't care either way if FD get's reinstated, especially since all he has to do is agree to the same rules we all do. Those choices should be on the petition, it would make a much better impact.
From the beginning of this I wanted to find out what the truth is, as much as that is possible. Yes, I question the story but I want to make something clear:
I DO NOT question anything Christian says about this as he experienced it.
If there's anyone here who can be trusted, on a serious issue, to tell the truth, it is Christian.
I know Christian well-enough to know he does not lie. His integrity is important to him. He messes around like we all do but on an important issue like this, what Christian says is what he knows. He does not embellish to get a reaction.
Yes, I question what story Christian has been told - I have my own reasons for that - but everyone here should know, without a doubt, that what Christian tells us is the truth as he knows it - and it is not slanted just to favor a friend.
I apologize to you, Christian, if it seemed I was personally questioning your version of the truth - I was questioning the story you are receiving. I'm still questioning one side of the story - but that is my opinion. You, from what you experienced, I know, I can count on telling it exactly like it is.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 14:08
[ send green star]
Knate is right, said exactly how I feel. Christian I hope it doesn't sound like I'm attacking you. I have always known you to be honest Iand I would never think otherwise. I just don't trust FD, but that's from my own experiences with him and has nothing to do with you.
A lot of my friends like FD, a lot don't. I don't care who are friends with who. I think it sucks that this has become a him or us situation. Friendshps are being lost over this, it's really sad and you know he's laughing over the whole thing.
Welcome back, Jeffrey.....NOT! March 13, 2008 2:43 PM
I've always said from Day One of your exile from Care2 that if they were going to ban you, they should have banned fish guy too. I'm not changing that position now that you have returned and fish guy has not. As for those who say you two are totally different, being different does not prevent you two from being equally bad. A troll is a troll, no matter what else may be true of him.
I know you wont see this until tomorrow but I wanted to be sure it's here when you arrive.
I apologize for how I stated that comparison, as it related to you. It sounds like I misinterpreted or overstated your position, when you said, "We are all in the dark, and well, c2 has the right to suspend someone when they see there's a just cause. Why can't he just apologize and agree to follow the CoC? "
Considering all the concerns that were previously expressed about not letting someone know what the just causewas, it seemed to me you were saying that you felt it was fine for Care2 to do what they wanted and, because members had been doing so, he (and we?) should just agree to what they demand whether we really know what we are agreeing to or not.
I guess,(please correct me I'm wrong) where we differ is that I don't feel that just because suspensions have been being done a particular way, it means it is best to continue doing them that way.
As I've already mentioned, I was already feeling concerned about how Care2 was handling recent suspensions, and noticing other petitions, about other suspended members, before FD's showed up.
However, I do honor your appreciation of Care2, which I share, and I can understand why you might want this handled differently. Peace?
Care2 has it's issues, believe me!!! That's why I don't particapate as much anymore. Why waste one's time on here when some supersensitive person isn't going to like your post and get their 5-6 buddies to report you. I have been reported in the past by the "so call witch hunt" that goes on in a group That is just some people's personal opinion that don't like your post. It has nothing to do w/the rules here.
If Care2 was really so hype on the rules here they would make everyone play by them. I see alot of spam in this site. I have gotten emails from Care2 that said my post was inappropriate. Sorry they don't give a reason. They they just give me the rules, when I reply to them I get no answer back as to what post or anything. Whomever said they do I am telling you they don't. They don't give the group or the post that was inappropriate. I have seen other members be suspended for one reason or another and they don't know why....they do come back w/n 24-48 hours for some reason.
You won all right. How many times do you need to be told Christian CAN NOT divulge the content of FD's e-mail? You sound like a broken record right now. I'm not a fan of FD, but I'm really gettind p'd off seeing derogatory remarks about Christian and the petition in several groups. Give it a rest, will you?
BTW, I'm thinking about a fan club for Christian. I wish I could take all the shyt like him and still be as civil about it.
Would someone please flip this thread? Thanks!
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 15:46
[ send green star]
Tracy T, our owner, made it clear in NM what we are to do. It does not matter what was posted. We are to act immediately.
This delete is not a public issue. We are to act and not wait to act if a certain person (JW), who is banned from Care2, shows up here. Otherwise, this group will be made to pay for allowing that certain person (JW) to post anything at all here.
But there was a brief member here a few times today. They were deleted and blocked.
It is the rule of the owner of this group that that specific person be immediately deleted and blocked because Care2 will take sanctions against this group and its hosts if that person is allowed in this group, or any other group at Care2.
This post was modified from its original form on 13 Mar, 19:16
[ send green star]
March 13, 2008 7:17 PM
There are, unfortunately, many members who have fake IDs.
There are also many members who have multiple IDs.
Unless you actually know the person, there's no way to know who they really are. That's a problem across the entire Internet.
My wife and I have three profiles between us. The only problem is that with the third profile we have very few groups because I don't Care2 to join all the others I and/or Cheri am in with our regular accounts.
Okay, maybe I didn't enunciate properly. Offending posts by offensive people who were banned by Care2 and could get us in trouble just by posting in this group can still be copied before being deleted and then pasted into a Yahoo e-mail afterwards.
The act of copying only takes about two seconds, max. Once something has been copied (that is, by highlighting and right-clicking on it and choosing "Copy" or hitting Ctrl + C or whatever), it remains in one's computer's Clipboard indefinitely. That gives one time to delete it quickly before pasting it into a Yahoo e-mail and sending it to me so I can see it.
It takes two seconds to copy, that's it. Once it's been copied, one can take all the leisurely time in the world to paste it.
It is not a matter of whether the post is offensive or not.
Tracy has asked me, and the other hosts, to immediately delete anything from JW and block him and she explained why. That's it.
If you get there first and want to make a copy of the post, okay. But if I see any posts by him I will immediately delete them, as asked, and block him. Sorry, but I'm not taking any time to copy the post first.
It's two seconds, if that. I will delete and block said person too, but not until I take a second or two (and that's seriously, literally, all it takes) to copy it first. I would seriously appreciate it if the co-hosts here could take the miniscule amount of time it takes to do that for me.
By the way, this is how I get around a certain rule, because no one is being asked to click on this if they don't want to:
Annie, I really don't care one way or the other but yeah, It's often difficult to get one's point across online. Speaking of which, I do agree, Christian... When and if something's deleted in a group I host / co-host, I want to know what it was.
Oh, and re: suspensions... I'm yet to see one I couldn't agree with... I don't know all the cases, but those that I do know, I'm cool with. Btw, those avatars in the link are so funny
I am not a fan of the Bubblefishboy, never have been, doubt I ever will be and no, I do not miss him at all. I do believe though in the saying that there are always 3 sides to every story, yours/theirs/truth. I believe that Christian is being honest/upfront in what he knows to be true, I believe that C2C feels they were justified and I believe that Bubblefishboy believes that he was truly wronged.
What I also believe is that for quite some time there has been constant bickering and down right turf wars breaking out all over this site. People that were friends became enemies as they sided against each other. Sadly some very good people were run off, but the rest of us got to celebrate when some of the slugs-on-drugs were permanently booted.
Right or wrong, justified or not, IMHO, Bubblefishboys suspension seems to have brought back some of the together we stand fighting for the principal I havent seen in so long. People like myself that do not care for him personally, even if for a short time, put the Bubblefishboy on their avis as a show of unity. And ok, yes maybe some of us did more because we were having so much fun doing it, but we were having fun 'together', and I just think it has been a nice change.....
This post was modified from its original form on 14 Mar, 0:43
[ send green star]
I agree... There has been lots of backstabbing and things like that going on here... I have tried to stay away from it all but it ain't always easy. I hid my profile twice recently, for a rather long time and even deleted one of my groups... I think it's been lovely to see people stand up for the fish guy, and I too am sure that there are three sides to every story, there usually are. And I am equally sure that Christian is being honest and as I said before, his standing up for fish guy is lovely and great. But, well... this is not my battle.
It won't be everybody's battle. It doesn't have to be, can't be.
Even if it's just about the principle and not about the principal actor, there are still people who just don't like to sign petitions like this. (Like me, for example).
But I sure don't like to see people who have been online friends falling out over something like this. Nobody, IMO, ought to be thought worse of for not supporting the petition, or for supporting it either.
I have people on my friends list who absolutely can't stand one another. There are people on it I get aggravated with as well. I'm sure there are days when the aggravation is mutual. If they don't want to be there, I hope they leave.
Personally, I think Care2 could take a good long look, when they can get a minute free from the bug list, at revamping their entire rules of operation. If any of Care2's people would care to write me I can offer some specific suggestions and examples from other places I frequent.
Uno, fish guy's not been the reason I have had trouble with "friends"... nor has them taking a side other than mine, and I really do refuse to take a side in this particular issue. What I meant is that I agree with ME T that it's great to see people united in this (well, some people) as there is just such an awful amount of bickering, backstabbing, lying, flaming, flagging etc going on here in care2. I've even had someone I don't know at all writing offensive things about me on her profile billboard... so I'm not surprised at anything that goes on here anymore... And in that sense, people fighting for the fish guy, wrong or right, is a welcome change.
Kris, I agree... it can't be everyone's battle, and I totally understand what you mean about some friends on my list disliking each other immensely... It's not easy. Especially if you're caught in the middle.
You mean ... you're not friends with fish guy anymore?
This post was modified from its original form on 14 Mar, 5:35
[ send green star]
March 14, 2008 5:46 AM
To answer you directly, Christian, I have many friends on my friends list. That's nice but let's be real. The ones who I actually count as real friends - who are people I know and we share trust and real friendship - is only a handful. A handful - and I consider myself blessed to have made their acquaintance and to have gotten to be close friends with them.
The hundreds of people of people who "know" me don't know me. And I don't know them.
As for Fishguy, it's no surprize to anyone that he and I do not get along. I would be quite happy if he were to leave the groups I am in - and I am only in a few groups, not in hundreds like some. I find he is disruptive and, for me, often ruins the group.
However, I would not ban him. I have the choice, when I encounter him, to engage with him and argue or to disengage and move on to another post or another thread. I may not like him being there but he has as much right as I have for being anywhere at Care2.
I am not interested in being his friend. I am sure the feeling is mutual.
But as for suspensions, like I've repeatedly said, I have seen Fishguy be confrontational, rude and obnoxious, but I have never seen him do or say anything that I'd consider different than the normal flaming and rudeness many others communicate. But I wasn't there for the so-called incidents so I don't know what happened.
I am concerned that any rules we have to follow at Care2 are made clear to all members so we know, clearly, when we are breaking those rules and when we are complying with those rules.
I am concerned that all members are treated equally and fairly under the rules.
I am concerned, and hopeful, that when any of us breaks those rules - and are suspended - that Care2 explains specifically what we have done wrong so that we know how to alter our behavior to comply.
I think it is perfectly right that Care2 asks us, if we break their rules, to make an apology and promise not to break the rules again. Otherwise, it is fully within their rights to keep us suspended or banned.
I am concerned about the mob mentality that makes this an issue of "us" versus "them."
We do not own Care2. It is a free message board, a place for discussion, a place to meet people and share ideas, a place to have fun or to have "serious." Care2 is free. We do not own Care2. We are guests here, in their own home. They can tell us how to act.
At the end of the day, it is up to them and it is solely their right to make the rules they wish and to enforce those rules the way they wish to enforce them.
Yes, I would like them to be clear about the rules so I, personally, know what is allowed and what is forbidden. That would be helpful for me and for all of us.
But they owe me nothing. They have no contract with me. I don't give them money or services in exchange for my membership. I was invited to join in (for free) and I am allowed to stay, as long as they allow me to stay. I have no problem with that.
I only hope and ask them that they be fair in how the apply their rules. And clarify them.
As for what they do with Fishguy, I am sure it is not only what they do. It's also up to him what he does.
I will not join the mob that blindly declares Care2 is the enemy - and I will not automatically condemn Fishguy for something I have no knowledge about. But if Care2 is asking Fishguy to agree to following their rules, they have that right.
If Fishguy wants to continue to be Drama Queen over this and play Martyr, maybe others will fall for it and fawn all over him, but count me out. They want an apology; give them an apology. Unless, of course, it is all about the drama and playing the martyr, which I suspect (at this point) is what it really is.
I wore the avi for less than 12 hours and lost 2 friends, yes they were friends, ones I communicated with quite a bit. I tried to explain why I made the avi, that it was more me mocking his suspension. You know, now my bunnies can run free and play while he's away kind of thing. Didn't matter, they only saw his avi. Then I make it clear my distrust of fd. I tend to believe care2 when they say he has not replied to their email. Maybe he has, and maybe he hasn't. You never know, he could be telling the truth. I doubt it though since he has lied directly to me. Then yesterday I go to send someone a green star and notice I am no longer on her friends list. I couldn't figure out why until I saw she signed the petition. So yes, friendships are lost and that's sad, just like I said yesterday.
Ok, Uno Well, there's been plenty of pettiness from my "friends" but none of that because of , I'm happy to say. It / he does seem like a very strange reason for a falling-out, more like a catalyst or an excuse. Some people are just hungry for the drama
There is a new Mountain Dew commercial here, that is very funny when you watch it. However my husband found it offensive. Why you ask? The commercial is sooo funny afterall. My husband's best friend Hugh was struck and killed by lightning 10 years ago, it was horrible. I know he still thinks about Hugh a lot. To him the commercial is not funny and I don't blame him. Of course I have no problem with people who find it funny, even find it amusing myself. That's how it is with FD. Yes he can be amusing, and all this can seem so funny. However he has hurt some people, followed them from group to group just to promote killing ferils. He does this to people he knows do TNR to save ferils. To those people seeing him all over the place is offensive. I'm not going to blame them for that. I'm not going to accuse them of creating drama because they admit to being hurt by something so many others don't have an issue with.
Cold weather sucks like a hoover. On cold, humid days the only way I get out of bed is to roll off and fall. Fibromyalgia is a major pain everywhere. Finns should (by definition) be immune to cold. Guess again
We are in the up and down weather stage. 20 one day 60 the next. We are all sick with colds. I had to keep my daughter home yesterday, she was not happy to miss school. Of course she's fine now, and I'm getting ready to hit the worst part. Always the way isn't it?
Hi Venetia, I just missed all the crummy weather in Indy. I'm in Seattle and I've had a monster of a cold, too. Everyone seems to be sick. Maybe that's why fishguy got bumped-the Care2 frog is sick! Nyquil makes some people nasty.
Venetia, you made a great point... That's exactly true, people find different things offensive, and one of the most offensive things is people then telling you that you have no sense of humour, because something hurt you. Anyhow... yeah, I think that FD's promotion of killing feral cats is awful. But I almost never saw him anywhere so him being suspended makes very little difference to me.
Btw, I too am tired of the cold weather and snow here in FinLand... and am affected by the weather too, suffering from RA (rheumatoid arthritis). It's snowed more last night...
Charlene are you sure the Indy virus didn't follow you there? I swear half the state is sick. Next time you are here we really need to do lunch.
Thank you Cissy. I hope you feel better.
My last comments on FD. (I hope) I've been on the receiving end of his flaming, however since then I have gotten to know FD a little and he doesn't bother me much at all. Even joke around with him now and then. However people who have only seen him on the attack, never got to see that he does have a sense of humor. They can't understand why people would like him. Those are the ones I've lost. I can't blame them, but it does sadden me that they reacted so strongly.
40 degrees today, thank goodness only 8 more days till I leave for Florida.
People shouldn't be suspended because of a popularity contest, nor should they be suspended because they have a sense of humor I ahbor, or a lack of a sense of humor. If that were the standard I wouldn't last ten minutes at Care2.
The standard should be, I would hope, based on clear and universal rules of behavior that are applied equally to everyone. Equally and fairly to each of us.
But, as I mentioned before, if Care2 suspends any of us and asks for an apology before we're allowed to return, we should give them the apology and play by their rules. This is their place; not ours.
Playing the martyr over this situation - and getting others involved pro or con - is infantile, irritating & manipulative, and just shows the real agenda of the one suspended is the agenda of a Drama Queen. I have no sympathy for anyone acting like that, regardless of the reason for their suspension.
Excuse me for my suspicions about Fishguy but I have seen too much of his antics in the past to believe this is anything but more of his manipulative game-playing.
The only reason I would start a second thread would be to piss Wolfbaby off and nothing else. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
We don't need a second thread as much as we need fish guy to quit jerking us around in here and tell Care2 what they want to hear already so we can all change our avis back and return to what we were doing.
There once was a petition to bring back a dog that had been banned from Care2. I never met that dog, but it was said that he was a nice dog, not at all like WolfBaby. It was said that he'd been banned, not because he was naughty, but because he was a multiple profile.
Well, that didn't seem fair to me. Lot's of people have their dogs here. So I signed the petition.
Now I wonder how many people refused to sign that petition just because they didn't like that particular dog. And I wonder if any signers of that petition are signing this one?
Probably not. Seems people seek justice for those they like, but not for people and dogs they don't like.
There was no dog. It was a ruse by You-Know-Who to come in under a dog's name so he could use that "front" to viciously attack other Care2 members and avoid admitting it was him so he could avoid suspension and banning.
A discussion about the dog, Newton, an avatar of JW, is started here and - gee whiz - JW as Newton shows up and tries to get back on Care2.
Well, Care2 knows about it and he's been zapped.
For anyone who may be supporting JW's attempts to get back on Care2 - secretly or openly - or is trying to help JW get back into this group (secretly and openly) I will, as a host, block and ban JW whenever he is found. That will include anyone who encourages him to come back here secretly or openly. They will also be blocked and banned.
We will not allow JW - or any of his friends - to screw up this group for the rest of us.
Crap, I missed "return of the troll." For what it's worth, I'll add my two cents. I don't think Care2 handled this well at all. I think they should explain to fish fella exactly what he did "wrong." I haven't always agreed with him, and his attitude towards animal rights pisses me off, but for some strange reason I like him. Besides, I wouldn't let my feelings stand in the way of what's right. I just hope he isn't "soaking" this for his own motives...
[ send green star]
Well, I initially intended to not get involved in this discussion at all, but having finally read through the thread, there are some mis-conceptions that I would like to clear up.
While Christian was no doubt only posting exactly what he had been told was the case, there are some inaccuracies in his explanation.
Care2 Contacted FD on the 27th of march regarding his suspension. Since the support ticket was created by Care2 staff using his email address, apparently there was confusion on Freediver's part with the fact that he got the 'auto-reply' message. This was because the system sends out a copy of the original message out every time a member submits a support request.
Freediver did not reply to their email.
Days later, He had someone post for him in F&S with a very sarcastic post beginning "Dear Care2 cyberbots" which went on and on about the apparent 'glitch' which sent him 'spam', and such.
Given that the support team has more than enough to handle with the discussion boards, support requests sent via the appropriate venue and the abuse reports, they chose not to take him up on his offer to go to his website, read his side of the story, and send him a PM from his website. However, in the interest of clearing things up with him, they sent him a response to the support email they have setup explaining how to address the matter.
Freediver did not reply to that email.
Instead, he posted a long 'reply' on his website, even going so far as to start it with 'Dear Kristen' as though he were pasting an actual email reply. Perhaps he was under the assumption that the Care2 support team has nothing better to do than to visit Freediver's blog every day to see whether he replied to his support ticket there instead of simply hitting 'reply' on the email. To me it seems that he was far more interested in the publicity than actually discussing the matter with Care2.
Finally, on march 17th, he decided to reply to their email. He did not actually address the requests sent by support, nor did he ask for specifics regarding his suspension. He simply pasted links to his website. He then updated his website to state that he contacted Care2, and would be updating it were he to receive a reply.
He was sent a response the same day, but has yet to either reply or to update the blog. In my opinion, this seems a clear attempt to exploit the situation. If he had taken the time to simply reply and ask about the suspension at the start, he could have gotten more information from the Care2 team. Instead, he immediately decided that he would get nothing, and started a campaign to smear Care2 for suspending him "without explanation".
While I am not familiar with the details that let to his suspension, I find it quite wrong to make the claims he made about it, without ever actually trying to find out from Care2 what happened. Now that the suspension happened about a month ago, and he has still not actually taken the time to hit 'reply' and ask for more information, it seems quite unrealistic to expect that Care2 would have the spare time to hunt down month old abuse reports, and discussions. It may be the case that there should have been more detail provided initially. However, the fact remains that he never bothered to actually ask via the established contact method (which he certainly knew how to do) by simply replying to their email.
Wow, this is a lot longer than I thought it would be. Please note I am not commenting on the actual suspension. I do not know what exactly he posted or did to get suspended, and to be honest I don't care. I just wanted to point out a few inconsistencies with the story, as things were not presented quite as they occurred.
Fair enough, Jeff, but I think the point remains the same as it did initially, and that is that there was no specific reason or example given to fish guy as to what he did to get suspended. Regardless of whether he did or did not reply to Care2's emails after the fact, or even whether he's just milking this thing for fun, it doesn't change the fact that he was suspended arbitrarily and without explanation other than a vague reference to "flaming".
How fish guy chose to handle the situation afterwards is beside the point.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Mar, 18:19
[ send green star]
Jeff. Thanks for clearing the air. It was beginning to get a bit aromatic in her.
[ send green star]
March 24, 2008 6:28 PM
It would be a simple matter for Freediver to be reinstated if he agrees to change his behavior to stop being so offensive to animal lovers and others who have opposing views from him. When I was suspended last year, I knew why it happened and I knew not to repeat that action. In Freediver's case, it is obvious that he engaged in actions that were actually tolerated for years within Care2, but came VERY CLOSE to violating the Care2 Code of Conduct as it was (and according to some hosts' interpretations, he DID violate the Code, which is why he's been blocked from so many groups). By adding a detailed clarification to the Code, the Care2 admin have made clear that what was barely tolerated before in some places won't be anymore, ANYWHERE!
"Regardless of whether he did or did not reply to Care2's emails after the fact, or even whether he's just milking this thing for fun, it doesn't change the fact that he was suspended arbitrarily and without explanation other than a vague reference to "flaming".
How fish guy chose to handle the situation afterwards is beside the point."
I have to completely disagree with you there. Our team suspends members for abuse on the site quite regularly. The majority of the time, the members understand what topic or discussion they went too far on, and don't even ask for the specific posts. Those who do wish to request more details are assisted further in understanding our policies and why they were suspended.
You say that Freedivers response (or lack thereof) is not the point, but it is * exactly * the point. Had he simply chosen to contact Care2 rather than making a spectacle of it, it would have been handled. He knows well enough having been here so long that Care2 does not publically discuss specifics of suspensions with the general membership. All he had to do was make an effort to find out what happened. What happened is completely his choice and his doing. You say that his suspension was arbitrary and unjustified, but you actually have no way of knowing that, since he never took the time to find out what caused his suspension.
To use an example someone else gave on this thread, if you get pulled over, the officer may only say " I stopped you for reckless driving", or "I stopped you for speeding". You may need to actually ask for the specifics of "You were crossing the double yellow lines" or "I clocked you going 65 in a 35", as they would likely assume that you knew why you got stopped as soon as the flashing light appeared behind you, or as soon as they said what the generic 'offense' was.
Regardless, obviously you could care less what the back story is Christian, you clearly have your mind set that it was completely wrong. I only posted this for those who were interested in the full story, since that which you were provided was not really accurate. For those who were interested in the specifics, and whether, for instance, FD had made a good faith effort to find out the reasons for his suspensions before the theatrics, I wanted to at least post it. Maybe for many of you it means nothing. But to me, it feels better to at least see the full story posted.
To add to Jeff's example, it's like the city changing a speed limit from 40 MPH to 30 MPH on a road. The police would be quite justified in writing tickets for speeding to motorists continuing to go 40 MPH on that stretch of road and the fact that they were premitted to go at that speed there in the past would be no legal defense.
Just because we were used to Freediver acting a certain way does not mean the Care2 admin would not be right in putting a stop to it if they felt like doing it. The limits have changed, and those who cannot adapt to the new limits don't belong here, period. That's why I myself have had to change MY behavior too.
I have no problems with learning the back story or any other part of the story. That's great that you provided it but somewhat unfortunate that presumptions were made about what I do or do not care about.
What my thoughts are, how "made up" my mind is or which part of the story I care about cannot possibly be known to anybody but me. For the record, you missed on all accounts. Just because I believe he was suspended arbitrarily does not automatically mean that my mind is "set" or "made up" or anything else of that nature about any of this. I am not a mindless automaton, incapable of rational, independent, critical thought.
Now, on to this:
<<You say that his suspension was arbitrary and unjustified, but you actually have no way of knowing that, since he never took the time to find out what caused his suspension.>>
And here's my point about this: why is it incumbant upon fish guy to find out what caused his suspension? If Care2 is going to take a measure so drastic that involves a complete, on-the-spot profile suspension without warning, then the least they can do would be to provide an example of what caused the suspension.
"Dear fish guy,
We're suspending your account because _____________ and here's a copy of it: ________________________________"
That's actually a good point, but the fact remains that Care2 could have sent just such a message to Freediver and he would then still deny getting such a message to continue his attacks on Care2 for the admin not letting him get away with murder, so to speak.
I simply don't trust him to tell the truth about his situation, based on my past experiences with him. When you lack credibility, nothing you say need be taken at face value. So I won't.
Glad to hear that you actually were interested in the fully story, even if it means little in your feelings about this.
Would it be nice if every time someone was suspended they were given the exact post(s) in question. Maybe so. That said, it would be a non trivial addition in work load given the number of reports received, and the fact that sometimes someone is suspended for a number of different posts or posts in multiple threads/groups/etc.
I don't see why it is such a big deal that if he cared to know the reason he would have to take the 30 seconds to hit 'reply' and ask for details. Since most people do not ask for them, it seemed that most people knew where they tread too heavily. It makes far more sense to me that in the interest of getting through the hundreds of abuse reports and support requests in as timely a manner as they can, they use a more general explanation and only provide further information in the very few cases where people ask. You disagree. Fine.
My past experiences with Fishguy are the same as Dale's. I know we are not alone.
I thought, as I inferred before, he was manipulating this situation and I think now, to many people, it is clear he is.
Whether one likes him or not is not the point. He has been caught "twisting" the truth so often it is difficult to believe anything he says about this. I do not trust his side of the story, Christian. I know you are not manipulating, Christian, because you do not do that. You are trustworthy. But, in my opinion, he is not.
I believe he either knows the reason he was suspended or could've easily found out if he had contacted Care2 instead of playing Drama Queen over it. Whether that was fair or not, I have no way of telling. In any case, I'm sure if he had contacted Care2 instead of having you, Christian, be his shill, he probably could've worked it out. That's my opinion.
Fair suspension? Unfair? It still is up to him to be the one directly dealing with Care2 over it, not someone else. I think they have given him that chance and still do - and it seems to me he's not willing to do that.
Yes, he should be treated fairly....and I would guess he would be if he contacted Care2....but it is up to him to take a role in that, not manipulate people to do it for him.
The ball is in his court. It is not, in my opinion, up to Care2 to do anything but expect him to contact them.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Mar, 19:24
[ send green star]
"In short, his suspension was arbitrary not because fish guy never bothered to find out why but because no one bothered to tell him."
I would disagree again. As with the police example. If I am pulled over and told I was stopped for "reckless driving", that is much like FD getting told he was suspended for "flaming". If am not sure what specifically I did wrong, I should ask for the specifics, as should he. Neither case seems arbitrary.
Maybe Christian could set up and run his own web community, with policies like he advocates. All I know is that Freediver posted his comments about his suspension on his own website instead of sending them directly to the Care2 admin like I or anyone seeking real resolution to the problem would have done. That's all I need to know about Freediver's sincerity, or lack thereof.
Of course, I also posted comments on my suspension somewhere else, but I also DID correspond with the admin at the same time. I wasn't just a needy whiner about it.
Again, what is with this line of communication? First you say:
<<Glad to hear that you actually were interested in the fully story, ...>>
which is fine, but then you put in this presumptuous little dig at the end:
<< ... even if it means little in your feelings about this.>>
Sorry, but I gotta ask again how you specifically know anything at all about my "feelings" on anything, let alone this fish guy situation? There has been much concern expressed recently by many people, not all of them friends of fish guy, about the fact that there has been an extreme rash of completely arbitrary (and in some cases completely uncalled for) suspensions of Care2 profiles of late. Some of the profiles that were suspended belonged to 100% stand-up, solid people who have never, ever caused trouble before, such as Nadia Donato and others belonged to somewhat more controversial folks such as fish guy who really didn't do anywhere near as much as some other folks who have gotten away with murder and yet were allowed to stay unpunished.
Suspending someone's profile is a very serious step to take, so the least that should be done in that instance would be to provide a copy of the alleged offense.
By telling us:
<< ... in the interest of getting through the hundreds of abuse reports and support requests in as timely a manner as they can, they use a more general explanation and only provide further information in the very few cases where people ask.>>
You're literally admitting to us that the support staff isn't even bothering to investigate whether the allegations brought forth against a member are actually true and are instead, merely taking the word of the person(s) complaining.
So you're saying that when person A disagrees or dislikes person B, all they have to do to get person B suspended is to flag and report them to Care2 support staff and the suspension will have been based on nothing more than the word of person A because Care2 support doesn't have the time to actually check out what happened?
You're literally admitting to us that the support staff isn't even bothering to investigate whether the allegations brought forth against a member are actually true and are instead, merely taking the word of the person(s) complaining. So you're saying that when person A disagrees or dislikes person B, all they have to do to get person B suspended is to flag and report them to Care2 support staff and the suspension will have been based on nothing more than the word of person A because Care2 support doesn't have the time to actually check out what happened?
No, Christian, I don't think he said that at all! I myself have flagged many profiles and nothing was done, and there were other cases, like the recent spammer attacks, in which accounts were shut down soon after I flagged them. So I would assume that if you provide enough information to the admin, they DO conduct an investigation. Merely my saying, "Freediver is a cat hater, please get rid of him for me," wouldn't be sufficient, nor should it ever be.
"You're literally admitting to us that the support staff isn't even bothering to investigate whether the allegations brought forth against a member are actually true and are instead, merely taking the word of the person(s) complaining. "
Far from it, Christian. I can attest to the fact that they spend countless hours pouring over every abuse report sent in. All I was saying that after spending all this time reading through report after report, if they decide that they have received sufficient valid reports to warrent action, they do not attempt to search back through all the messages that they received to find the specific posts that were the worst. Would it be better if they did? Maybe so. I am not yet convinced given how few people ever actually request more information.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Mar, 19:59
[ send green star]
March 24, 2008 8:08 PM
I think Christian is biased regarding this situation because he has actually met Freediver face to face, and thus sees him as more of a fellow human being than a troll he only knows via the web. I can understand that feeling. I have a friend, Buck, who met Jeffrey Williams face to face, and I'm sure Buck sympathizes more with Jeffrey for that reason as well. I myself have met four Care2 members face to face and talked to three more over the phone, and thus understand how both Buck and Christian feel about their respective friends.
But understanding is not the same as agreeing. The fact is, every internet troll is also a human being, but the fact that they are trolls is reason enough to condemn them. Being human DOES include being a disruptive pest in some cases.
To be honest, though I have never met him, I actually liked Freediver too. That said, I have been seriously disappointed by his decisions regarding this whole situation, and his skewing of the truth to support his drama.
Dale, now you're doing it. By harping on the fact that I met fish guy in person, you're implying that I am incapable of a rational, impartial and independent thought process.
If fish guy did something wrong, then he did something wrong whether I met him in person or not. I won't defend his actions if they broke the rules, nor have I ever done so in the past.
I find it particularly distressing that people here are completely missing the point on top of the fact that they are also implying that I'm giving fish guy a free pass just because I met him in person.
I've made my point repeatedly and if people choose to ignore that and instead focus on red herrings, then I suppose there's not much more I can do at this point.
Christian, nobody missed anything. It's just that we cannot agree here. And why must you be so paranoid? I was trying to put myself in YOUR shoes and to explain to others, including Jeff, why you side with Freediver so they wouldn't think you were being dishonest or stupid. Thanks for nothing! Why must you assume the worst about what people say?
Yes, Buck told me long ago that he'd met Jeffrey, but gave no details. That was back when THE LEFT, THE RIGHT, AND BEYOND was shut down briefly because Jeffrey had invaded it and had not been blocked from it.
Jeff That's really great of you to come here and explain. I never had any doubt that FD was treated fairly. As I wrote before, I've only ever seen c2 be fair and helpful towards its membership.
[ send green star]
March 25, 2008 1:21 AM
Christian is a good and loyal friend to those he considers friends, but I think it is unfair to insinuate he would do and say what he is doing and saying for FD purely because they have met.
Christian is doing and saying what he is, about this situation, because he feels it is right and correct. Agree with him or not about his conclusions; agree with him or not about his methods; but respect his integrity and respect what he says. Christian loves to play around - as we all know - but when it comes to something serious he believes in, he does not lie or base his beliefs on petty biases.
Christian is doing and saying what he is, about this situation, because he feels it is right and correct. Agree with him or not about his conclusions; agree with him or not about his methods; but respect his integrity and respect what he says.
Christian is one of the most honorable and trustworthy people I know ... period. He doesn't do what he does for stupid reasons such as having met someone in person.