On a more serious note, I have little time to post my thoughts on the "War Zone" question or posting etiquette or BW's recent ousting. But perhaps some quick comments before this thread grows cold:
I am quite dismayed that the war zone idea was even considered in the first place, and seriously enough that it was actually posited openly on the forum. It goes completely counter to everything I have previously read here from the moderators and the majority of other members who have expressed their beliefs in mature, civil and respectful exchange. Why even suggest it? It's an absolutely absurd idea. It makes it seem like there is an underlying desire from one or more members to vent some unresolved issues, whatever they may be, and "have at it".
On that note, there seem to be a minority of members here that appear willing to drop the gloves and mix it up from time to time, and it's often around PMTS vs. the others. To be honest, this is getting very tiresome. Hardly a day goes by or a single thread evolves, without some mention of HH or PMTS. If it wasn't for the recent contributions (ie. past 12 months) of others who offer a counterpoint and different outlook, and who are contributing here with excellent, well-written posts, I would have deleted my account long ago. Don't misunderstand, I have nothing against HH or PMTS, and don't intend this as a criticism of either. I have no other soapbox to stand on, and never get involved in technique discussions or punting another teaching method. However, there have been times in past when this forum has had a very singular focus, and those who did not share that doctrine were either actively criticized or simply ignored and politely disregarded.
As for the ousting of Josh, I learned of what he had done, and find that kind of action inexcusable for a forum such as this, and in no way do I condone it. However, there was at least one post in the "One Mountain" thread that I found very confrontational and was a direct attack on Josh. I consider that as lowering oneself to the same level as Josh (well, perhaps not quite as low, as his subsequent actions showed). But in such an argument, if one person says or does something low and underhanded, does that mean the other has justification to lower their own standards of behaviour and hit below the belt too? Not in my eyes.
Furthermore, I have been at times very uncomfortable with the way Josh was treated here over the past year. His character flaws and shortcomings were openly discussed between members, often without his input or rebuttal. And he received several unprovoked, if subtle, put-downs and jabs about his character that would never have been allowed had they been directed at another member here. Directed at Josh, however, they were allowed to pass without comment or other sanction. And, further to my dismay, several of those came from at least one of the moderators. It makes it seem like there was a double standard here.
OTOH, as I mentioned before, I do respect that the moderators gave BW a voice here and a platform by which to contribute, where other forums had closed the door on him. I detected active and also subtle coaching and patient mentoring to make him a valued contributor. The fact that they would have been willing to take him back had he offered an apology, speaks volumes for the leniency and open-mindedness of the moderators here.
So, I am of two minds on that issue, and I hope that it doesn't appear that I contradicted myself. I could go on, but I simply have no time at present.
I hope my words on these topics are considered objectively and without prejudice.
Home
Login
Register