On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Gentel <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
When your site is ready, send me the link and I'll post it on the
forum myself. Stop spamming us. Your goons have mass spammed a bunch
of a2k members as well. I bear you guys no ill-will and don't want any
forum conflicts, please tell them to stop. When you are ready I'll
share the link myself, but I ask that you guys stop recruiting on a2k.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:26 AM, John A. <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
Hey Robert! Great to hear from you, it looks like your forum is going very well! Suffice to say, a lot of things have happened over the past few weeks. I suppose it may not be a secret anymore, but yes, there is another philosophy forum/website/etc. in the works. It has been in the works for a while now and is almost ready to go online. I have to say it’s very exciting time and I think all of the members who wished to make a move to the new forum will be very pleased with the results. I have to say though, there was not an either/or ultimatum in any of the messages sent to anyone (at least by me). The members who were contacted are not forced to go from one forum to another the way the philforum community was dumped into able2know, but were simply given a choice as to another alternate place to share their views. Simply… some people can multitask and share on more than one forum and I for one intend to leave members that basic right even if you do not support it. No harm was intended towards you or your community, only the possibility of choice and the opportunity of more than one outlet to let their voices be heard.
In the time that philosophy forum was dismantled and assimilated into able2know, I have to say I have seen a true and beautiful spirit in the old community made manifest in these difficult times. I honestly took that spirit for granted while on the old forum, but now with the great outpouring of support and encouragement from many of the members, I have spared no expense to make sure these members have a home they can truly call their own and, more importantly, expect to be there waiting for them the next day they log on.
The “goons” you label with little evident civility are in fact very deeply committed members of a tight knit community that were violently uprooted from a place of philosophical refuge and carelessly injected into a generic forum etcetera site. I would also like to correct you in the respect that these members are not “my” goons but exceptional people all over the world with a love of philosophy and community who took it upon themselves to bring together the remnants of a fractured community. To many of those people, philosophy forum was more than a place to just “insert comment A” and “receive comment B,” but an intricate framework of friendships and collections of hard work that meant quite a lot to everyone involved. Is it so surprising that a reaction such as this would be the result of such a traumatic action? I might take offense at the fact that you have read private messages meant for other people (negating the meaning of the word private and seriously calling into question matters of privacy on your site which I can assure you will not be done on my site), called them “stupid simpletons” because after all, that is what “goon” etymologically means, and banning people for alternative congress, but I bear you no ill will either in the spirit in which you share that feeling with me. Which I do find amusing though because if you did bear no ill will, there would be no banning’s now, would there?
As to not recruiting on able2know, how on earth could I do that if I were banned (hilariously until 2020)? You actually give me far more credit than I deserve since many members have taken personal initiative in these matters. Simply… these “goons” have brains of their own and use them quite adeptly. You have, for all intents and purposes, rid yourself of at least one person who was not satisfied with your services, but who is to say that others are not dissatisfied as well? Are they not allowed to feel that dissatisfaction and seek better pastures? Suffice to say, if many members (including the so called goons) find themselves dissatisfied with what your site has to offer, they are fully within their rights to go elsewhere. And instead of having them walk away for good, all I am doing is giving them another place to walk to.
As to sending you the link to the new site, I’m actually all set on my end, but thank you for the offer. I have made deals with other philosophy forums for rss feeds that link to my site anyway, and the community project I have in the works is going to take a while to build together in any case, so a smaller/closer community may be better for the time being. In fact, even if a get a handful of members who find what was taken from them, it will have been worth every penny. I do what I do for them, not for any type of personal gain.
I am sorry if any of this comes off as disrespectful or ungrateful, believe me it is not intended and your contributions to the community in terms of actually facilitating the site are deeply appreciated. But was it wise to call those members who, from the latest email list fellow members have complied number in the hundreds, goons? You don’t think they would get offended at that personal attack when they caught wind of that sentiment… especially from the owner of the forum they contribute on? I don’t think that the response you sent me was very well thought out, especially in regards to the “goons” accusation. Personally, I think they deserve an apology. I know that if I were once part of a forum and the administrator was harassing ex-members (which I am) via email addresses not officially supplied except by personal correspondence not intended for the person by which they then use said email and then labeling their fellow friends in vulgar terms, I would be a little upset.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Robert Gentel <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
CC: A2K: http://able2know.org/topic/152716-24#post-4269262
I know you are excited about your project, but when your forum is going strong (I certainly hope it will) you will understand my sentiments. They spammed hundreds of members, philforum or not, interested or not for days. I wouldn't do this to you, and it was an underhanded thing to do (your litmus test for this is how you don't want it done to you), that is doubly so in that it was so wholly unnecessary (I was perfectly willing to help you right up until the moment that I saw just how many those few had spammed).
In any case, good luck with your site. I wish you guys well and for the record I do not force members to choose one or the other, only you and the others involved in spamming have been banned.
Reading PM's is already on shaky ground, publicizing them is over the line for sure.
May I ask, did you read my "private" messages ?
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:11 AM, John A. <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
I apologize if anyone did anything that in anyway made you feel upset, etc. I rest in the assurance that I trust these people with all of my confidence and praise the initiative they took to restore the old community back to the way it was. I still wonder how any of this is underhanded when the possibility existed that they could be on both sites. I know I would want people on my site who were as diverse as possible, even if that meant they would be coming in from other sites whenever they wanted. To tell the truth, if they did stick around my site, it would be because I offered them something they could not get on another site, whether that be quality, fraternity, etc. Seems a just and economical thing to do. My litmus test involves offering two choices and picking the better option based on principles adherent to individual (relative) views. Interestingly enough though, Salima (a very devoted member of the community who was banned) was apparently deemed on one side rather than another. Who is to say she could not frequent both sites? Evidently, forcing members to choose between one or the other is a relative conception dependent on the line you choose to draw.
But no worries on my end as well, and I hope your site continues to thrive. I suppose we have a difference in philosophy. LOL!
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Robert Gentel <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
CC: A2K http://able2know.org/topic/152716-24#post-4269290
You are a liar. You instructed them to create the "brain drain" campaign and to try to get a2k members that you wanted as well. You like to portray yourself as a noble user trying to serve a handful of dissatisfied users but you tell them you need scale to pay the astronomical costs you are quoting them.
If you are only providing for dissatisfied users why did you instruct them to go after others and create a "brain drain" (your own verbatim words) on a2k? Why are they looking for the users active on able2know? Why not the ones who aren't active?
Your self-image is not consistent with your self-interested actions and one day your own forum will prohibit such underhanded tactics as mass PM spam. We let people post dozens of times about alternative forums, we are not at all about limiting choice like you are trying to paint the picture of your and the handful of spammers being banned as.