[title changed at Galiel’s request]
I banned Galiel.
He was specifically banned for breach of trust. But I hope it’s obvious that I made a serious effort to allow him to discuss his disagreement with my policies, and to accommodate his personality.
I have received 14 separate emails urging me to ban him. I have received two emails where the sender claimed to have banned him personally from their site in the past.
I understand Galiel has his supporters, and he always raised legitimate arguments. So, if anyone wants to talk about the points he raised or register their dissatisfaction with his banishment, do it here.
I did not want to ban him. But I felt he left me no choice.
I find this sad.
He obviously has a talent to bring out the worst in others, and not to back down, which I suppose is very disruptive to a site.
As I wrote, I cannot fault him on the substance of his arguments and would not have minded if he stayed on personally.
Have you deleted his “goodbye” thread? It was instructive.
I would have liked him to stay as well.
and I have your attention…, it seems that I cannot see anymore who has recommended diaries anymore. Has this been taken out voluntarily? Or moved?
Thanks.
we removed the ability to recommend your own diary, and we accidentally removed the whole box in the process.
Hopefully this will be fixed tomorrow.
Now that really is too bad. I almost feel like we’ve airbrushed part of our history away. I imagine it was technical, that you could not ban the poster and leave their comments behind but still… that thread was the equivalent of one of the great debates the founding fathers had, for our infant republic.
I’m going to miss Galliel. It is always a shame to lose a powerful and impassioned voice but he needs to mellow out a bit. I think you did the right thing BooMan. I may not have participated in the threads but I did follow them and I always found you to be clear and obvious.
The left (not that what we do here would pass as the left anywhere outside of the US) has always been fractious. It is said of the Greeks that where you have three Greeks, you have four different political opinions because at least one of them will disagree with himself. It could be said of the left as well.
Anyway, I hope the best for Galliel and perhaps, one day, he can come back. Banishment need not be eternal.
You did the right thing. Thank you, and I’m sorry you had to deal with such stressful unpleasantness. It’s never easy. I hope Galiel finds balance, and wish him well but we have too many stresses in all our lives, and need spirited intellectual debate sans combativeness.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am speechless over the entire episode.
– and it is your privilege, but the timing puzzles me a little, given that galiel had just deleted his new entry of grievances and seemed to be entering into more constructive dialogue with the other side.
To be sure, experience might suggest that the ‘thaw’ was likely ephemeral. (Since he isn’t around to defend himself, I won’t embellish this point). Still, wasn’t the timing a little odd?
was a simple matter of me returning from Easter dinner and reading the thread.
– an hour or so ago he posted, then removed the content of, and eventually deleted a new entry complaining of site policy. He explained the latter actions by having moved on to constructive dialogue with diane and others – see diane’s Schiavo fallout entry for some of this.
I guessed something of the kind had occurred.
When all’s said and done, it’s your site, your community, and your trust.
I don’t agree with the banning of galiel and personally wouldn’t have done it myself. While his style of debate/interaction is not comfortable or appealing for some, I would assume that in this sort of venue everyone has the option of either engaging someone in the conversation or ignoring them.
I also think the points he raised, about the sacred cows and all that, probably won’t go away. I could be wrong, of course. Some people are perfectly content with sacred cows, others are not, and again… they no doubt have the option of either observing the requested guidelines or ignoring them, choosing to accept the flak for the latter.
the issues he raised. That’s why I opened this thread.
Thanks for putting up this diary for discussing these issues.
The only thing is, I am not sure there is anything to discuss. There is either a policy, or there isn’t.
I wouldn’t have a problem operating within the policy, either way, as I find it pretty pointless to engage religous people on their actual religious beliefs because those are based on belief and faith, and have little to do with reason. I greeted the Lt. and pretty much left it at that because, while I have major issues with the war, the lying going up to the war, the aftermath, etc, he’s just a cog in the machine and my issues are with the machine, not the cogs. I choose my battles, and do so according to my personal experience and personality.
I don’t think unspoken policies always work though, so spelling out the specifics in a faq or something might be worthwhile.
Two points for discussion.
Is it reasonable for us to have a special standard for a guest.
For instance, if I were to get Desmond Tutu to agree to answer your questions, would it be okay for me to set out special rules, like:
One question each.
No arguing.
Etc.
Number two: is it reasonable to have a standard of ‘don’t be a prick’ meaning, don’t do anything that would normally get you kicked out of a dinner party or punched in the face?
And if it is, is it reasonable to consider habitual attacking of people of faith, in a religiously themed thread of Dan’s, or anyone else’s, as being a prick?
Is there a good way to enforce religious tolerance and respect?
It’s your site, and if I feel strongly opposed to your rules, I can leave. I respect the fact that you care enough to ask us, however.
I’m not sure what happened with Pastordan’s thread – nor do I need to know – but I personally like the meditative flow of his threads, and the spiritual contributions of others. There are some instances – such as a give and take with Desmond Tutu – where I’d like to set aside all conflicts for that moment in time.
Is it reasonable for us to have a special standard for a guest.
For instance, if I were to get Desmond Tutu to agree to answer your questions, would it be okay for me to set out special rules, like:
One question each.
No arguing.
Etc.
Yes and no. I do realize what you were attempting to do with the invitation to the Lt. Well, sort of. I don’t think the guidelines of what you expected were set out all that clearly, but nor do I think anything that smacked of ignoring the “Please remember he is an officer, and treat him with the utmost respect.” exhortation occurred. People engaged him, some more intensely than others, but he held his own, I believe. I noticed that the ones who were the more insistent on answers to specifics were mostly former military, and that may have something to do with that.
However, if it had been said at the outset ” we have a special guest from the military, please ask him about life in Iraq, but not about the legality of the war. Please ask him about the good things going on there, but don’t mention the bad things, and don’t press for answers should he be evasive” or something like that, then possibly the questions would be different, as well as the participants. But when you have a fairly freewheeling mostly left wing political and conversation site, I think it was probably not unexpected that he was engaged on the issues that most concern many people.
Number two: is it reasonable to have a standard of ‘don’t be a prick’ meaning, don’t do anything that would normally get you kicked out of a dinner party or punched in the face?
I think your standard is reasonable (although again open to interpretation).
And if it is, is it reasonable to consider habitual attacking of people of faith, in a religiously themed thread of Dan’s, or anyone else’s, as being a prick?
Well… it depends on what you mean by “attack”. Questioning the faith or the basis for it? I am not sure why religiously themed threads would be any more off limits than any other threads, although I can understand the Sunday prayer one. But engaging the religious on their beliefs, if their postings are about religion… well I can’t quite see where that would be wrong, although of course lots depends on presentation and the civility of the discourse. I can’t see why the discourse itself should be something that is taboo, though.
Is there a good way to enforce religious tolerance and respect?
Well, enforcing tolerance and respect sitewide would be the way I would go. Not different standards for different topics or people, because ultimately I don’t think that will work. Again, I could be wrong.
Obviously your advice for the Lt. is correct.
I also want to be clear about something. And it’s a controversial point. But the only person I worried about when I promised the Lt. he would be treated with respect, was Galiel. In fact, if he had not been a member, I probably would not have offered to assure he was not abused.
I don’t think my comment to Galiel to give the guy a chance to get warmed up warranted the hysterical persecution complex Galiel exhibited.
But that’s up for debate. What mattered for me was that I had made a promise that he would be treated with respect, not that he be deferred to, or that he be above questioning. No one else was abusive. Mike Stark questioned him in a tough manner too.
And even though Galiel embarrassed me with his approach, I merely asked him to lighten up, and to let other people’s questions get answered.
Having said all that, I didn’t handle it well, which is why I am soliciting your advice.
I was going to leave it at that, but I have a tiny bit more to say, I find. I know you are trying here, and that none of this was pleasurable for you, including banning galiel. There are a couple of points, though.
I didn’t think your comment to galiel warranted the reaction either. (I also don’t think he was abusive, just very insistent). Then again, I wasn’t all that aware of the history between some of the people on here and stuff. galiel didn’t seem to think it was relevant, that he would be judged just on the present issues, but having had experience with existing communities splitting off into separate ones, I was less sure of that. Me, I have the disadvantage (or advantage) of not knowing any of you from Adam (or Eve) except for occasionally seeing your names fly by on kos.
I did soon realize, though, that some viewed galiel as standing at the edge of a cliff from the beginning of his time here and that the feeling was he would go over the edge soon (with some few [not meaning you] salivating at the chance to give him a push).
You can’t erase history, of course, and probably nor should you want to. I do think, though, that if there are standards of behaviour, they should be applied across the board. It’s difficult, I know, especially when attempting to both arbitrate the discussion and state and defend your own position. But there were definite instances where pretty nasty attacks were launched against galiel, with little or no comment at all on the content of those. Possibly that wouldn’t have helped, I don’t know and in the end he did work it out with one of the posters, which was good to see. But I do think that sort of thing has a sort of snowball effect.
I think the dinner party standard of behaviour needs to be fleshed out a bit, however, because if it had been my dinner party, galiel would have been at the table and we would have been having a good discussion, and the others would have been politely handed their coats.
Galiel was not banned for anything he said.
Well, that’s not true. He put himself in a position to be banned by what he said.
But, I tried very hard to control my anger and deal fairly with him, because I actually wanted to hear what he had to say. He’s extraordinarily talented.
But this is not an isolated instance. Just as I opened this box to respond, my email beeped. Another person is claiming to have banned them from their site, and has provided a link in case I care to see the carnage.
I’m not sure there was anything I could have done, in the long run, to keep him from destroying the community.
I was warned about that by several members the day he showed up.
I knew him from dKos, and I knew he was passionate. I didn’t fully understand how passionate until he came here.
Booman, you banned him after he and I had just achieved a resolution on some points and he actually apologized to me and I to him on some part of the discussion.
It’s up to you of course and I fully support whatever decision you make, but I think he was done with the fighting and achieved some sort of understanding of why some of us were angry as I did as well.
Could we give him another chance?
but I am glad to hear that you and Galiel made some progress and reached some mutual understanding. You both made many excellent points.
why so.
private correspondence. End of story.
Ok, I understand your position, but could I suggest in future that we troll rate the diary out, so that we can still see the hidden comments. Is that possible and can you do this and take out material you don’t want out there such as your email material.
In some ways this little waylay, has energized this community and I think we did well with it; witness he received no zero ratings. We were civilized.
I rather preferred the ending to be the conflict resolution which was somewhat valuable in itself.
Would the email writers to you concerning him care to explain their thoughts on this.
I am curious to hear why they felt that way.
that he received no troll ratings. He didn’t deserve any.
Or could he reregister in another name, or do you just not want to have him back whatsoever.
Could you put up a poll for this, curious to see what the votes would be.
You did what you felt you needed to do in the interest of the community as a whole. As guests in your “home”, we need to be respectful of your rules -particularly when they involve very specific, polite requests.
I guess I’ll stop looking for a response from galiel on Diane’s thread :-).
OK, your site.
Know you just checked in and made the decision.
Might be good to run a diary with poll prior to the official banning.
Allow some community feed back before death.
Not for mega-trolls that show up, but for those trying to engage in some bit of credible dialogue.
I agree with Nanette.
Galiel has the courage to express unpopular views. I admire that.
He also tends to be somewhat verbose in so doing, and I can relate to that.
I can’t help but wonder how many emails you have received from people who want you to ban me.
Galiel is much more moderate in his opinions than I am.
I have never received any emails complaining of the behavior of any other poster on this site.
And, other than Galiel, I have not sent any emails to any members of this community that complained of their behavior.
Not included in the 14 emails requesting his banishment are several that I received the day he showed up that warned me of his disruptive reputation.
I knew Galiel already, however, from dKos, and I knew what to expect.
I did not take part of the discussions re: the behavior. On some points I agree with galiel’s concerns but my own way of dealing with things I don’t agree with is to avoid them, unless I have a damn f*cking good argument to pursue them or have info the poster may not have. But arguing for argument’s sake is not my style and counterproductive, IMHO. So while I’m not religious, I do not find it necessary to crash one of pastordan’s diaries to espoused my personal opinions on the subject. If he puts up a diary asking for feedback that is a different story. Otherwise, it’s just plain rude.
On dkos before galiel was banned I found myself reading his posts and getting pissed at the tone. Thus I tended to skip them and move on. I guess his passion leads him to confrontation in ways that I will never understand and frankly, don’t want to. The remarkable intelligence behind his posts are unmistakable, but his debating technique is (to me) infuriating.
I had hopes he had changed over here. The initial posts seemed almost light-hearted in tone and I wondered if it was truly the same person whose posts I went out of my way to skip on dKos. I even took the plunge and responded to one. A shock to me was coming out relatively unscathed.
But then the old galiel emerged and once again I began to skip over his posts. (How I wish there was an “ignore poster” option in Scoop; a way to hide comments from posters you know will do nothing but annoy you.)
I’m sorry you had to ban him, but I do understand the reasons for doing so. When someone’s raison d’être appears to be to sow dissension, I can understand not desiring their presence.
I think galiel should consider starting his own blog. There are many people who would enjoy going head to head with him on the issues of the day. It would seem to be a perfect solution to his style of discussion which obviously doesn’t work well in a community setting.
My two cents.
Repeat after me: The preview button is your friend.
Any chance of a grammar check button?
when someone makes a first (nonconnected comment) on a diary…and someone follows that comment with a comment..why do all the following comments not stay in the order they were posted? I know some people start sub comments to other parents within the main comment. Some things when reading threads may not be the truth of the order of the comments by the changing that takes place with the comments. (did any of this make sense?)
is for comments to be ranked according to rating. I hate that but you CAN change back to strict chronological order. Just check the prefs.
I thought i was losing my mind. Regardless of what people think of my Introduction, questions, or comments that were addressed to the Lt. Most offense was taken to my statement within my comment “We all support our troops”. I was totally open to questions or comments or debates as to my intro and comments and anything else that may have transpired after the Lt. had time to respond to my first post. With what was stated up top of Diary as a question and answer with a special guest, I felt my first comment and intro to the Lt. were highjacked by Galiel’s response to my comment to the Lt. The thread does not represent the order that this happened.
For the record..I asked my questions, Galiel’s comment to my questions came next (which in my opinion was highjacking my questions and taking it entirely off topic and into a negative place to early)then finally after 15 hours later the Lt. checked in read my intro first and then Galiel’s comment following, (telling me why I shouldn’t write that “we all support our troops”. It was rather lengthy.) I was so pissed at that point that something that I was so excited about and looking forward to was ruined that I went off a bit.
I don’t know a lot about politics,(I’ve been at Dkos over 5 months) but boy am I learning. I worked my butt off for the Dems and Kerry this last election(made over 400 calls to Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, NM, on my own dime for the Kerry Org.) and I haven’t stopped since. Calling Boxer at least 3 times a week with suggestions or complaints, not to mention other Senators or congresspeople. I have also written letters and emails as I am sure a lot of us have.
Lately I have been so angry that the Republicans think they are the only ones who support the troops and we don’t give a shit about them. That was where I was going with my statement. I had no idea it was that debated or controversial as to the different meanings the statement had. I do NOT support Bush, Bushs War, nor anything he has done I can’t stand him or his Administration.(except the early Afghanistan invasion..I was in NYC on 9/11 blocks from the towers, I saw it all live). I feel he is the worst President that the United States has ever had and it will go down in the history books as such. I was not one who email Booman about Galiel’s banning. I posted my thoughts in regards to it on a live thread after the episode happened. Interesting research on the topic of my statement in regards to Galiel over at Dkos on a old diary entitled “Support the Soldiers/Hate the debate” with many Galiel comments if anyone is interested.
I am all for expanding conversations, debate and learning new things from others. The Diaries and discussions here have been terrific. I also don’t mind when things get crazy in discussions with passion and emotions…This just went to far, now is the time to nurture this site, get to know each other and inspire debate, conversation and see how we can make the democratic party better, learn from each other, connect and expose the Republicans for the liars, cheats and hypocrites that they are..along with what I hope will be a lot of other things. Since myself and comment was involved in this I felt it necessary to speak my peace…thanks.
The default setting is getting people into trouble. Comments MUST be viewed CHRONOLOGICALLY unless someone who understands what they are changing does so.
It blew my mind the first time I noticed as well. But … but … my comment was HERE… where did it go? Ahh! there you are. (I don’t remember giving you legs.)
And I was not in the middle of an emotional flame war, either.
Newest first, oldest first, ignore ratings? etc.
I’m not clear on what problems people are having. Has is just cropped up? Help?
The default setting seems to be that “ignore ratings” is NOT checked and therefore comments jump about depending on whether they’ve attracted ratings or not. I first noticed on the “Tell me about you” thread, where I my post went from bottom to near top. If you know that it’s the ratings it makes sense, otherwise it throws you for a loop.
The whole ‘comment preferences’ needs some clarification.
Hope that helps.
Thanks Athenian for following up …I am not that computer smart..however when things become out of order on a thread…it really can sway, not only the conversation, but also ones interpretation of the discussion and the truth based on the order. As I said..If the comment would have come after the Lt.’s response to me, I would not have had a problem in discussing and debating it, and maybe even being called out. Perhaps it could have been an eye opening moment for me as to making general statements. But it really threw me for a loop, and ruined my conversation with the soldier, and i had witnessed this behavior many times over at Dkos…..I hope this can be fixed.
I also had my diary do something like this, I posted first comment and awhile later it was halfway down the post and it didn’t make sense there.
No problem with all you said in your diary but this one line
“expose the Republicans for the liars, cheats and hypocrites….”
I just want to point out that we really do need to turn on the hate rhetoric towards reps. which I discussed some where today, and its probably dead end or maybe on my diary, but we need to separate how we feel about the leaders and how we feel about the ordiarry citizens called Republicans. they hate us, we hate them. what solution is there in that.
It’s like we are each sitting on the sides of a great river, with no way around, not planes or boats or bridges to get us to the other side. But all we have is the tvs and phone and internet to communicate. In all reality they are not all on one side of the great river and neither are we. So why not build bridges, build planes and build boats to get us to the other side and they to our side.
this issue seems to be at the crux of this whole discussion. We simply have to stop hating and start listening, find common ground to meet on, then go from there. Not dismissing their views out of hand.
Take the discussion out of us against them and bring it to my neighbor and I………
Oh well you can see more of my feelings about this on my diary Converting the red to purple.
I am sure you did not direct your “hate republicans” at my daughter who is one. But in a way you did. That is my point.
I find most of your statement valid, thoughtful and interesting, just wanted to bring up that issue with you and others.
And you are right..I do not hate republicans..My Dad is a Republican, along with a select few in my family and a few friends…I guess I meant BushCo and the wingnuts on Talk Radio..Hannity..Rush…FauxNews(you know the folks)….I do think we will see a lot more crossing over based on Bush and the disaster that he has and is creating. I had many phone conversations this past election with swing voters in many states..many were Republicans who’s minds were changed after our conversations…(they may have changed back in the booths however, do to Bush scaring the shit out of them with his war on Terror and duct tape et al.) As I am learning…I will watch my choice of words. Thanks again.
I make no secret of the fact that in last year’s election I voted for a Republican for Washington’s Secretary of State position. In that case I was voting for the man, not the party. He has repaid my vote by showing himself to be a man of integrity in the whole Washington governor’s race brouhaha, sticking to the law rather than bowing to pressure from either side.
There are a few decent Republicans out there. Unfortunately they are being overshadowed by the ones who are . . . well it’s bedtime, I probably shouldn’t get myself all worked up.
If you want to invite Bishop Tutu, but you do not want to subject him to possible impoliteness, start a thread and let people ask questions. Tutu does not participate in this thread.
Some posts will not be questions, they will be stuff like people asking him why he is an Episcopalian when everybody knows Presbyterians make better potato salad, and does he still have that coffee table with the ultra-shag fur on its legs.
You take those out. You give the Bishop the questions, and let him post his answers in a thread, which you lock.
Then, if da DesMan is still speaking to you, you post a rebuttal thread, lather, rinse, repeat.
That way you can protect Bishop Tutu, or General Boykin, or whoever the special guest is, from actual confrontation with people whose views are directly opposed to his, which obviously, is something that these folks could get if they wanted it, so it’s safe to assume they don’t, and at the same time, you can allow free flow of expression.
Then you start another thread for rebuttal,
I think that might work.
There are really two issues. One is: how to best get our questions answered.
Two: what about follow up?
I wish everyone would just have an innate sense that it is bad form to engage in a flamewar with a guest. But I guess that is a pipe dream.
And yes, I think it is a pipe dream. If they are posting on the site, people who are so inclined will tell them what they think.
Another thing you might consider is finding out in advance what people think about having a particular guest. And views will differ. Surprise!
For example, I would love to hear from Bishop Tutu, but I would not have said anything to the crusader if he had not addressed remarks to me. Other people did want to talk to him, and that’s fine. Some of them might not have any interest in Bishop Tutu.
If you don’t want “flame wars” with guests, you will have to either provide a buffer zone, or only have people on the board who agree with the guest.
And option B is not practical. If you had the crusader and Bishop Tutu posting at the same time, the gunman might very well have gotten much worse from the Bishop than he got from anybody here. 😀
but I just had a recollection of seeing ‘Desmond Tutu’s Potato Salad’ on a menu somewhere.
I’ll be interested to see whether Lt. C answers Melanchton’s question about his Guderian sig.
how things work on Slashdot when they have an interview. People submit questions, they’re rated, ten of the highest rated questions modulo good taste and politeness are submitted via e-mail to the interviewees, and then a discussion of the answers follows. Sometimes the interviewee participates in the post-interview discussion, sometimes they don’t.
Overall it seems to work quite well.
Hi Booman: Because I have never undertaken starting a site like this I can’t imagine the stress and joy that must come from such a major undertaking. That sounds like a set up for But……….it’s not.
I sometimes think that while I have very strong and definate opinions I can always seem to agree with both sides of any discussion, sometimes that good sometimes not. Which is why I seem to agree with all the comments here pro/con for galiel and your decision.
All of which means that I like most everyone here found galiel to be incredibly informative/interesting and a good critical thinker. I also believe he was to dogmatic at times and would tend to continue a discussion that was done. Although I do also believe we tend to learn the most from questions/comments and discussions that may make us the most uncomfortable.
So in my roundabout way I am trying to say I’m sorry galiel is gone but I don’t know what I would have done in your position and respect your decision.
In response to your question about respect on a site, reg. guests, etc. I have the following comment.
What about making this rule or whatever you want to call it.
What if the poster of the diary has the first obligation to see that the posters retain the respect we seem to want here. That if the poster of the diary invites a guest to participate, as I wish to do in the future with my conservative friend I brought here last week, that I as diary author have the authority to request a certain type of civility and demeanor on that diary and to be given the respect of the participants to moderate the direction it is going.
All during this ordeal with G. I thought this same thing could have happened with my guest last week and thankfully it did not.
Then if the situation gets out of hand for the moderator he or she can call on Booman or others to help him deal with the situation.
This policy (or any policy) could be stated in faq’s once it is all ironed out and maybe put in the corner of the site, link for site rules and we can easily point to it, in case of problems.
In any case yes, I think it is important for the diarist to be able state rules of the diary and be able to enforce that. In a sense, diaries are our little cubby hole offices, we feel in some ways they are our babies and we want our babies treated well.
A guest to a diary is like a friend in our house, is it not and should be treated as we would a guest in our house.
I am just throwing this out there for discussion.
It’s thoughtful of you to invite discussion on this.
Yesterday I came late to the party; I read the Lt. thread on which Galiel and others had posted. I read the beginning of his good-bye speech and was confused. My fault.Much later,for no particularly good reason, I posted a response on the open thread, which effectively asked Galiel to stay. I remembered his making a similar speech on Kos several months ago – I didn’t then know he was banned or why – and was curious to know where he had been spending time between blogs. I still am. And I wonder why he hasn’t started his own site.
He enjoys expounding and challenging posters who may not be aware of what they’re getting into with him. He’s brilliant and intimidating. Intimidating not because he’s so smart; but because, as many others pointed out yesterday, he can seem superior. He thrusts and parries and drops you if you make a comment he deems beneath him.
I don’t know if he could moderate his words; I suspect he wouldn’t want to. Was surprised to see, though, that he had claimed the role of victim in the matter. Twice.
You have the absolute right to demand respect and to extend or revoke hospitality as you see fit. You know much more about his history than I.
he is one of the best posters I’ve ever seen. But he is also as much of a missionary for secular humanism as any born-again is for Christ.
He will attack any sloppy thinking. And attacking can wear thin after a while.
But he was banned for posting private correspondence between us, including material I had deliberately edited out to save someone’s feelings. He put it back in.
If I can’t trust you, I can’t deal with you.
Thanks for answering. I didn’t know that he had made private correspondence public. That is a violation of trust. And amen.
As he said, from a stranger to a stranger, but I don’t mind passing along the request:
How about proposing a one-time special deal:
The ban is still on, with no caveats, but Booman grants me temporary access ONLY to discuss the issues on the “Galiel” thread. I will commit not to posting anywhere else, and I will also agree that if I post anything inappropriate or in violation of his rules (and he is the sole judge of that), he will revoke the privilege.
I don’t think it is right to make personal attacks on someone in as public forum and deny them the opportunity to defend themselves.
I have had a quick look at your blog and like what I see there. I am also not far from your position in this matter.
But I don’t think that the question being put to Booman is a fair one. Either way, he loses. If he agrees, he will become involved in a public debate in which people take sides, the very opposite of what he wants to achieve in growing the community on this site. If he says no, he appears unwilling to listen to argument.
Booman has not made “personal attacks” on the character of galiel but imposed the ban in relation to certain specific actions. Indeed, given his feelings, Booman has been very complimentary about some aspects of galiel’s contributions.
Look. I have no idea why a serving officer engaged in interrogation activities of the enemy in an active theatre of war should think it beneficial for him, his men or for us to engage in a dialogue on a liberal blog where many have deeply held convictions about the wrongness of the mission in which he is engaged. The time to do that is when he comes home.
It did not require Booman to ask that we treated him with respect. We do that automatically to every one on here and would do so particularly to someone at risk overseas.
I found the thread frustrating and difficult. Three times I wrote responses and three times I wiped them off the screen. What can you say to someone in that situation? How can you question forcibly his statements? All you really can say is you wish that person a safe passage home.
As I recall it, galiel did not over step the mark, If he was at fault, it was not realising that the discussion was going nowhere and he should have walked away as I did. The problems that arose, however, were not those concerned with that thread but galiel’s subsequent responses.
Agree or not, a decision has been taken. Frankly, it has been taken with a lot more openness and respect for the feelings of this community than I have seen elsewhere.
I am sorry galiel has gone but believe he made this inevitable himself. Now this latest message will only serve to prolong a debate that is unnecessary and divisive. Let it be.
Blogspot is free. Nanette, post its name when it is created. There are a number here who apparently will visit it and some who will engage in dialogue.
You have done a great job in widening the discussion on this thread in a way that will be helpful for the future. Thanks for that.
Thanks for adding your thoughts.
The question to BooMan may or may not be fair… it’s not my question though, I am just passing it on as a favor. He is free to ignore it or reply to it or whatever. He is under no obligation to explain his decision, I don’t believe. I have no problem putting the request out there, though.
I agree BooMan is in a difficult position and I have tried to indicate my understanding of that in my postings to him. He didnt have to open the matter up for discussion, or enter into the discussion himself, but he did and I appreciate that. Sweeping things under a rug just allows them to fester (if that is not a mixed metaphor, though I suspect it is). So, I’m also glad things were put out into the open.
If and when galiel lands someplace else (his own blog, or another site), if he lets me know where it is, I’ll be happy to pass that along as well.
I’ll refrain from characterizing Galiel’s behavior from now on.
He has contacted me also, anyone else?
I encouraged him to start a blog, but he hasn’t said.
I’m sure he learned some kind of lesson today about how he affects people and may have been ok for this site.
I feel a little sorry for him, but I know that he in a lot of ways caused this to happen.
I also appreciate that booman opened this up to discussion and that is admirable as was his handling of the entire situation, unfortunate tho it was.
I ducked into that thread to say “hi and be well” to the guest and saw the battle lines were already being drawn. I think there were twelve total comments at that point, and it was already an unpleasant place to be. Sorry I ran away like a coward, but it’s hard to know what to say when you can’t exactly apologize for another adult’s behavior. I think banning has to be the site owner’s decision, especially when it’s his name over the door. Payin’ the cost to be the boss. Awfully nice to be asked for feedback, though, as this site grows and establishes a style.
Maybe this is a dumb example, but when I taught preschool, we had “company manners” and “family manners.” When we had special visitors, the children were expected to raise hands to ask a question, speak one at a time, and Mrs. or Mr. the company. When it was “just us,” we used family manners–i.e., spoke freely, talked over each other (occasionally), laughed and giggled, and relaxed with each other in a casual manner.
Those kids were four years old, and we very seldom had to take any of them out of the room on company days. Seems like an agreement like that would be appropriate around here. I.E. “company manners” means be polite, don’t argue excessively or flame at all, say your pleases and thank yous, and make sure visitors know this site is a safe and friendly place. When we’re “just family,” we still expect people to not be jerks, but put up with more casual banter and chaffing and don’t get too irate about arguments. Prayer and guest posting threads would seem like a good place for company manners; while family manners would still allow for vigorous and forthright debate on “just us” threads.