Quote Originally Posted by GlimDropper View Post
Beacon, thank you for starting this discussion in an appropriate forum.

I know you used the holocaust as a deliberately over the top example to make a rhetorical point.
Sometimes in physics or mathematics one takes the extreme case since disproving it would disprove the principle. In moral cases the holocaust child abuse or terrorism for example are similar (although "terrorism" can be a tricky one every time the US for example redefine terrorism they seem to break their own rules by doing it)
Let me address that. Under American law t... The point is that the non user contributed portions of this website are completely judgment neutral. Is it or isn't it, you get the point?
Thanks for the clarification on US law. I was not aware you were registered or operating in the US. Ironically, unlike scams, I never looked up Realscam in detail :)

Let's proceed with a small confession. It's a more or less open secret around here that I have, let's call them emotional equilibrium issues. ... This explains some of my periodic absences.
I'm sorry to see that and I will keep it in mind in any further correspondence.
...
The rational response, when ever I can empower myself to make it, is almost always just let it go.
I have similar psychological pathology to the one you describe but ironically I get like a doig with a bone who can't let it go. :)

I'm not perfect and with the exception of one ex wife I've never met anyone who thought they were either.
Ironically I seem to be meeting your ex wife all over the place and she always appears different than last time.

I try to make allowance for people and if that doesn't work, I ignore them. There's a lot more emotional economy in that than trying to convince others how important my drama is when I should be trying to convince myself the opposite.
This is probably something I should try more often.

Yea, LRM got snippy with you, not his proudest moment. If he abused his authority and sanctioned you unjustly I will personally whomp him with a knotted plow line. But you aren't saying he did that.
No. He didn't ban me. But had he done so for the reasons he claimed he would have been wrong. Also mods/admins should be above ad hominem. I dont take any huge offence about the personal insults. It just does not look good for the image of RS. What is more important is whether people band together in a "groupthink" and defend the system above the truth. That is what I am more worried about.

You did say that you have PMs from us saying we'll support him above the truth. Please admit that that is your characterization of the PMs you have.
Yes. that is the impression I got. Based on a point
A LRM had every right to ban me

But in a later PM it was put to me that that is not what was being stated. I don't like to discuss PMs in open discussion (otherwise what is the point of them) but I dont think the people sending them would object in what I now post. I certainly o What was later put to me was that
A . If LRM wanted to ban me LRM had every right to do so
BUT
B. If LRM did so this would not be the right thing to do

I admitted that the B completely undermined my "groupthink" argument. I have since posted this discussion saying so. Your additional response which is the same as B only adds to that counter argument. I haven't looked up a list of Mods and admins but given you seem to own the site or know who does I would have to say my "groupthink" argument of "loyalty above honesty" is in error.
I value your participation and contributions to this forum and hope you'll feel welcome to continue making them. But we flat out need LRM. There's a fair amount of work that goes into running a site like this, quietly, competently and with no desire for fanfare or applause he does his share of that work. And most of mine.
This is where people like me can create problems but I hop also provide a solution.
the problem is when you say "we need LRM" you are making a statement like A above. Actually stronger than that you are stating "loyalty to people we need above honesty" . It is only when you later qualify it with B or with "If he abused his authority" that A isnt taken as absolute.

For the record. I personally find contributions of LRM ( outside of administrative work) as constructive and well thought out. So what? Who cares what I say? Well I only mention it in
relation to the point that I wont cloud "facts" with opinion and personal dislike. I don't like what he personally said about me and think it wasn't justified but so long as fair debate is allowed I don't have a huge problem with that. I don't expect him to like me and I am aware I can rub people up the wrong way. This is usually because I challenge people's views and beliefs and deal with things in a cold way.
We aren't covering for him or letting him run roughshod over our members. Because quite frankly he isn't.
His personal attacks weren't warranted but as i said I'm prepared to let that go.
ther were accusations that I was being "passive aggressive" which is news to me. I was not out to get anyone although I may have been out to destroy their argument.
By far the most worrying element - to me - was my understand ( based on evidence) that RS was a groupthink/loyalty above honesty operation. I now freely admit that understanding was wrong ( based on more subsequent evidence).

In hindsight I should have dealt with it more by PM and left it a few days before jumping to conclusions. It probably wasn't assisted that there were a concurrent personal spats involving LRM and others in the same thread.