[Posted in two parts -- which I combined into one.  BIG]
 
Okay, let me clarify two things in relation to the FML magazine discussions:
 
1. The last time there was a discussion about favorite ferret magazines it
got UGLY -- truly nasty, destructive, and uncalled for.  Then some of the
people on each side got together and agreed that what was causing that
was that BOTH sides were dredging up the past.  We agreed that it was
DESTRUCTIVE to call attention to specific incidences, but CONSTRUCTIVE to
mention what HAS improved, and to mention what people would like as further
improvements was considered fine among the group, as was mentioning a new
problem.  That seems logical and fair, doesn't it?
 
2.  One of the people who was strongly in the Fancy camp asked me to make
a promise:
 
    A. that I would follow Fancy for a while (to which I said that, yes,
    I would if I could borrow it for free but I wasn't going to put money
    into it until it had been worth that for while in my estimation --
    since it is my own fun money, after all), and
 
    B. that when when it met my expectations for money to be spent that
    I would mention what had improved and that I did consider it worth
    purchase.
 
I agreed WITH THE CONDITIONS that I would also mention any current concerns
which I still felt needed tackling as per the agree discussion style, and
that I would be free to have my own option.  My own opinion, as I have
stated, is that they are are worth the money now -- almost entirely thanks
to the ferret-experienced writers who have turned the magazine around since
it's earlier issues -- but that I do NOT think that it as good as "Modern
Ferret" or the "American Ferret Report" so I'd certainly buy those before
"Ferrets" if funds were limited.  The things which improved WERE mentioned
in my past posts, as well as things which still need doing in my estimation
to have a magazine which is most fair to ferrets and readers.  You'll
likely have read them if you are reading this; if not, you won't know the
difference :-).  Those are my opinion and there's no reason I should have
to alter them to fit someone else's whims or pretend that I think that the
improvement are greater than I do to fit that individual's stance, any more
than that you should ever have to alter your opinions to suit anyone else's
preferences, including mine.  No biggie since we all know that.  Right?
 
There was a private discussion which hit on many points of the magazines
and the person seemed to understand why this discussion method had been
agreed upon -- to SPARE THE MEMBERS OF THE FML FROM HAVING TO DEAL WITH
NASTY, UGLY, DESTRUCTIVE FIGHTS CAUSED BY RE-HASHING SETTLED THINGS RATHER
THAN PRODUCTIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS.
 
These things were touched upon in the many private e-mails which exchanged
recently between me and someone (who later apparently had a bad day)-- and
SEEMED to be accepted as logical.  Just why the individual decided to then
a few days later rehash something which is a LESSON ALREADY LEARNED -- SO
IS BYGONES -- is beyond me, but it bothers me, because it could open this
thing wide open again and that's something the FML readership should be
spared.
 
NONE OF US NEED THAT, and only someone who gets a kicks from fights would
want it so I am hoping that it was a glitch for a reason we can all
understand -- like a fever, lack of sleep, or so on.  As a result I am
going to publicly assume that the person who wrote that thing had a bad
day, or not enough sleep, or was ill, or something, and let it slide in
hopes that people will PLEASE show the courtesy of NOT starting all this
unneeded garbage again.  It's ugly -- especially when it gets into full
swing.
 
Every time it opens up so many people write that they are so SICK of
hearing all the old news rehashed ***as if both sides were incapable of
learning***.  Well, NONE of the principals in the past have been nasty this
time around -- so that shows that learning goes on away from magazines,
too!  I think this shows kind control among the "Modern Ferret" people
given what has been rehashed and think that credit should go where it is
due, as well as thinking that folks should notice that that ALL the
principals from last time have used fair-fight techniques which is
wonderful on both sides.  I hope that none have already gotten off letters
in relation to that only glitch since I think that the agreement reached in
the past is a REALLY GOOD one for the FML readership in general.  People
ARE looking out for the FML readers and trying to be kind to all!  I have
nothing against people having personal opinions, but when readers on both
sides are trying so hard to not let things get destructive again it makes
sense to enjoy that and be grateful for it, I think.
 
Let's face facts, the principals from the past argument have been civil and
beyond civil.  We all know the lesson that bringing up old things in an
argument is dirty fighting.  We all acknowledged that we had done it; we
all cleaned up our acts.  Bygones...
 
There is no reason I should have to pretend that I consider the magazines
to be equal to each other or not bring up current issues.  That would be
illogical -- and that goes for voices from both sides -- but clean-fighting
was agreed upon, and I HAD thought that the person who glitched understood
that; it sure seemed that way.  Perhaps I didn't word it well enough.  That
happens.
 
Here's what I figure: there is NO logical reason from EITHER side to NOT
give the other a chance.  Heck, I went to the extra effort to not only be
civil but to actually follow the one that I hadn't liked and to note where
it had improved and why (giving credit where due).  Maybe that's why the
person from that camp asked me to follow the magazine and was fine with
the conditions -- perhaps he realized that I do try to be fair.
 
People LEARN -- at least when they want to learn.  We all know that Mary
and Eric realized that they pushed the taste boundaries too far back then.
Fine.  They make a mistake in taste.  They are human.  So are the rest of
us.  Where's the surprise in that?  People LEARN from mistakes -- that is
what mistakes mistakes are for.  I don't have that excellent _Paper Chase_
quote in front of me but it goes something like " Experience comes from
good judgement, which comes from bad judgement." We all make mistakes and
we all learn from them.  It has been acknowledged that Fancy learned from
some dangerous errors they had made and that led to improvement, so where's
the mega-pain in admitting that Mary and Eric learned a taste boundary?
Heck, when the agreement was made the people on BOTH sides AGREED that
people learn from mistakes.  Everyone knows that, and we all learn that
way.  So, how is it that one side should be thought capable of making
mistakes and learning from them (which has happened) but the other -- with
no evidence to back that ONE person's personal view -- can't be extended
the same courtesy?  Heck, no one even asked that person to go the extra
mile like I did and try the magazine again, just asked for NOT fighting
dirty with ancient history.  That's all.  When people won't let the past go
it's not about ISSUES anymore, but of course, everyone knows that already.
So, now I've said my piece (and I think that I have done so very civilly,
though I did need to get it off my chest given how angry I am and how
worried I am that people may break the truce) about this new problem
and hope it's laid to rest, and I didn't mention who did the glitch
specifically because I want it dropped and figure that helps it be dropped.
 
So, look, I did what I promised I'd do, and I do think that "Ferrets" has
improved and I said why, but I do NOT consider them to be the equal of
either "Modern Ferrets" or "American Ferret Report" for CURRENT reasons --
which can be constructively addressed.  I acknowledged that they learned
from their mistakes.  EVERYONE learns from mistakes: EVERYONE!
 
There is, of course, nothing to prevent someone from bringing up ancient
history, and nothing to prevent people from publicly beating up on someone
for doing so, but let's all, PLEASE, instead consider keeping cool heads by
letting this be bygones and just get on with being constructive.  Except
for a blip it was working fine so let's forget the blip happened and get on
with life.  Fights are NOT fair to the people who get stuck reading them;
they are an imposition.  Let's be fair to the FML membership and fair to
other opinions.
 
I would like to make one request, though.  This camp went the extra mile.
Can't courtesy be extended toward it?  (I'm not even asking for equal
courtesy through going the extra mile although that wouldn't hurt and could
only help everyone -- just plain old simple courtesy as agreed upon when so
many of us talked together about not letting this topic degenerate again.)
 
Sukie (Yes, I did send this to the person who blipped in hopes of ending
this as a public thing, except for CONSTRUCTIVE discussions of CURRENT
issues.  If she wants to fight that can be kept private in deference to the
FML membership and I HOPE that she agrees.
[Posted in FML issue 2954]