She created a forum where the rule was graciousness.
She did not enforce the rule unless the level of perceived ungraciousness effected her personally.
When she was disagreed with she stooped to calling people unChristian, dupes, and ignorant of the abuse of women.
She claims to stand against racism and abuse of women while idolizing a man who pays prostitutes for sex.
She claims people can disagree with her yet she threatens banning and locks down posts when they don't and admits that she's had a past problem with being enraged at people who disagree with her.
She allows people she's known for years to be called all sorts of ugly things and have their beliefs disparaged, while defending perfect strangers from the comments of a media personality.
She claims that people are trying to control her when in fact she is the one trying to control others.
She says she wants dialogue when what she wants is agreement or "you may leave."
Finally, she insulates herself from criticism by saying she has the right to administer her forum anyway she wants. The second part of this is certainly true, but it does not in anyway mean that no one should question why and how decisions are made. To deny that this forces people to walk on eggs for fear of being banned, deleted, lectured, etc. Is an outright denial of what is there for everyone to see.
Take it to email is just one more form of quashing those questions.
Remember these things when you are tempted to reconcile and go back.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Hello New Blog!
I am going to use you to express to myself things I need to remember. Stay tuned, there is much to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)