>Well, pretty much the crieria used to allow posts are that they
>be related to ferrets (or in some cases to a subscriber's personal
>life) and they don't severely "flame" people.

flaming consists of comments that are made, in any way, shape or form,
that berate or belittle another persons beliefs or actions. sometimes
they are directed right at the person after something happens and other
times it's a bit more indirect - comments are made in a manner that is
just intimating opinion/derision. those are the posts that could be
'taken either way'. by that i mean, they 'could be' flaming or they
'could be' just a difference of opinion and part of the discourse of
the conversation - which is the purpose of a forum: disseminating
information, and more specifically, correct information.

those types of posts are the the hardest to deal with on any forum
because they can come across as 'being reasonable' with just such a
small hint of derision and it's presented in such a manner that they
are given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't flaming (even when
they are). some people are very good at being backhanded with their
insults. and some people are very good at looking the other way when
this happens.

making fun of someone is ALWAYS a form a flaming.

offering a different outlook and/or opinion on a subject is not
flaming. these types of posts are easy to spot because they are calm in
tone and factual in their rebuttal and they don't fly off the cuff with
outragous comments and accusations that have no bearing on the subject
at hand (which is a technique used to take the focus off the actual
topic at hand). they also keep things impersonal and focus only on the
subject being discussed (see previous sentence).

that is not what we have going on here. just in the past few months
there have been 4? 5? incidences of flaming. flat-out, full-force,
intended-to-be-hurtful postings.

and they've been allowed!!!!

see the quote above. if this is the policy, then i just don't
understand why the posts deriding and berating people have been
allowed. they were crystal clear 'flames' and shouldn't have been
allowed.

as for mr. lipinski and the quality of his posts, well, they leave a
lot to be desired. what i worry about with his posts is the new ferret
owner taking his comments/suggestions and actually applying them to
how they treat their ferrets. that can only lead to disaster - at the
least, a sweet little one would be hurt; and, at the worst, death would
occur. *shudders*

if it were at all obvious that these posts were tongue-in-cheek (like
some of the reverends usually are), then it wouldn't be an issue. i
doubt, very much, that ed's posts are tongue-in-cheek.

it seems to me that ed doesn't know a durn thing about properly caring
for ferrets...that post that bob c responded to is case in point. it's
also perfectly clear to me that ed thrives on causing upheaval and
offending people.

any new people on the list, please make note: IGNORE what ed says to
do with your ferrets!!!!!

to belittle the work of saraferret is just going beyond it all - 'in
bad taste' doesn't even come close to covering it! how dare ANYONE
berate ANY of the bridgegreeters??????? these people put a lot of time
and effort and heart-felt emotion into writing the greetings. it's not
an easy task at all and they do it willingly. and they don't get much,
if anything, in return.

to all bridgegreeters on the list; most especially saraferret, please
make note: I have appreciated reading and have been touched by every
greeting. THANK YOU for being so generous as to provide these
comforting words to the grieving mom's and dad's!! *hugs* to all of
you!!

how you, ed, could be so disrespectful to saraferret, or any of the
bridgegreeters, is beyond me. that post was absolutely atrocious and
so totally uncalled for. you owe her, and the rest of the greeters, a
HUGE apology. and a public one, at that.

>As moderator, I think I go pretty far out of the way to let people
>express their views, however non-traditional they may be. I don't
>believe in prohibiting posts just because I don't like or agree with
>their content. But, as moderator, I do have to draw the line somewhere
>and it's a struggle to make the decision every day.

being a moderator is a hard spot to be in - especially if you're doing
it alone (if that's the case, and i do think it is). i appreciate the
time and effort you put into pulling this list together every day. the
list serves a good purpose, on the whole, and we have you to thank for
that! *hugs* for you, too :)

there have been too many times when the members have been insulted
and put down, though. those posts shouldn't have been allowed to go
through. it's one thing to allow for difference of opinion and to get
discussion going (kibble vs raw thing). it's a whole other ball of wax
when people are allowed to berate someone after the loss of a beloved
pet due to a stupid mistake that ANY of those people could have done
themselves. and this thing about saraferret is just so far out of
left-field and inappropriate that it should have been rejected.

it's just plain wrong to allow these kinds of posts. and it's been
allowed on far too many occassions since i've been on this list -
which isn't all that long (just over a year).

>As for Fred's post above: the FML is defined in a large part by
>the subscribers' wishes, but I don't agree in "mob mentality".
>
>All that being said, I personally believe sometimes E.L. posts things
>for no purpose other that to annoy people.
>
>I don't think it's inappropriate to say I've told E.L. that repeated
>attempts to post garbage, successful or not, will result in removal
>of his right to post. I suppose on consideration that's come a step
>closer. Not there yet, but E.L. might just achieve what seems to be
>his goal one of these days.

none of us are perfect and each and every day is a learning experience,
for all of us (whether we get it or not when things happen).

ed's posts rarely serve any real purpose to begin with. they ARE
made with the intent to annoy and/or to incite arguement. that's the
definition of a 'troll'. and being a troll is normally grounds for
being bumped off a group.

i agree with fred. ed needs to go. not only does he not contribute
anything useful by way of knowledge for others, he's just plain
offensive - this last post about saraferret makes that perfectly
evident.

i need to apologize for the bits of sarcasm that run through this. i'm
just really, really pissed off right now. i get like that whenever i
see people being treated like this - even if i don't know the person
being attacked.

it's just plain wrong to attack another person. for any reason. even
if, by chance, they've actually done something that could be construed
as putting them at fault for whatever happened. and that's certainly
not the case here...this post about saraferret is based on nothing
other than the twisted workings of someone's mind. it shouldn't have
been allowed through.

flaming should never be allowed...if there's doubt about a post -
possibility that it is flaming and is just worded slickly - send it
back to be re-worded/clarified. if it's perfectly clear it's flaming,
reject it outright. if it's basely drivel, reject it outright.

sometimes being a moderator requires taking a hard stand...that's hard
to do, i know.

ed does need to be barred from posting, though. that's perfectly clear
at this point.

[Posted in FML 6293]