![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, I love it! Illgrace thinks that she has caught me with my hand in the cookie jar! ROFL That's rich. For those interested in the continuing drama that is PC
I myself get weary at the distrust of scholarship and source material for some subjects. Yet many times have I read that such things don't count. That kind of observation will drive scholarly people away, it's true.
Also, people are free to present opposing scholarship However.even some peoples private experiences were derided.It got to the point where I was actually told *my* beliefs/experiences were of no account because they didn't fit with another person's 'trad' beliefs. Excuse me? There are some UPG's and beliefs that are 'True' (t.m.) and not up for scrutiny or examination for objective truth though purveyed as such?Then some of these same people would claim "oh no, I would NEVER deny someone Else's UPG or beliefs." I call bullshit. I called it then, I'll call it again now. This kind of thing is guaranteed to make many people feel unwelcome - people who could add immeasurably to the content of the forum.
The 'we' you speak of encompasses MANY people,(or should) , whatever their beliefs . This was never meant to be a 'club house' for just 'some' people, a 'we' and a 'them'. Seen enough of that on other forums. I was under the impression it was supposed to be more open and inclusive. Was this a wrong assumption?
Apparently *I* in particular post to (and I quote) 'Antagonize witchy folk'. That was news to me until people put it where if could be read by others.'Witchy folk'? I wonder who this could be referring to? Can someone define this and who is allowed to use this nomen? Or is it a 'limited club membership' that earns that 'title'? And those with the 'title' are the 'we' you speak of? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Debate is NOT antagonism, not everyone will believe what YOU (the impersonal 'you') believe or even find it particularly creditable. However, that shouldn't be a problem if this is really a place for everyone and debate is the coin of the realm. I don't care if others don't share my beliefs, that's not why I came.
It was supposed to be an open-minded forum for debate and discussion . People have even tried to get it back to that. But others have been working overtime to try and tip the balances. Yes, people DO read other places.
And what is this 'One half of the forum'? What are these two sides? I see people of numerous beliefs having conversation and debate. There doesn't seem to be 'two sides' and I'd be curious to know how you would classify them?
*I* see people actually working hard at both the technical side of things and actually posting topics ( or running between people keeping the peace (the hardest job of all) by our loyal and overworked Tribune.
It is my firm belief that a 'we' and and 'not one of us' mentality is a death warrant for a forum. Perhaps you have a solution?
Illgrace - 'IG'
Aww, how cute. No one told her that her beliefs didn't count. I love how she makes stuff up like that and then tries to twist what did happen to be someone else's fault.
And this part goes out to IG personally -
Hon, if I gave a damn that you read my LJ, I would have locked these posts. The fact that I leave them mostly open is to show you how little your opinion means to me. I'm not hiding anything, I am just not causing more train wrecks for your amusement. Get over yourself.
--Phae
[this part be quoting of me]I think it is more along the lines of the fact that despite how hard we may or may not have tried to make this a place for a wide variety of people, the truth is that there are only going to be certain people who are comfortable here.Who is the 'we' that knew this?I've gone over the back files many times trying to 'source' problems. From what I have read, there were a group of people here , whom, when things finally got sorted and some conscensus worked out, spoked the wheels of it with some 'what if' scenario and wasted the time of the people who put work into getting this up and running. Most of what took time to work out should have been technicalities, not personalities. I thought that might work itself out.
We all knew this coming in. I think that the fact that some of our friends fit into the 'not comfortable here' group is what stings. But it is rather useless to go pointing fingers all over the place. Unless one half of the forum or the other leaves, there is not going to be anything that can be done to change it now.
--Phae [end quote of me]
I myself get weary at the distrust of scholarship and source material for some subjects. Yet many times have I read that such things don't count. That kind of observation will drive scholarly people away, it's true.
Also, people are free to present opposing scholarship However.even some peoples private experiences were derided.It got to the point where I was actually told *my* beliefs/experiences were of no account because they didn't fit with another person's 'trad' beliefs. Excuse me? There are some UPG's and beliefs that are 'True' (t.m.) and not up for scrutiny or examination for objective truth though purveyed as such?Then some of these same people would claim "oh no, I would NEVER deny someone Else's UPG or beliefs." I call bullshit. I called it then, I'll call it again now. This kind of thing is guaranteed to make many people feel unwelcome - people who could add immeasurably to the content of the forum.
The 'we' you speak of encompasses MANY people,(or should) , whatever their beliefs . This was never meant to be a 'club house' for just 'some' people, a 'we' and a 'them'. Seen enough of that on other forums. I was under the impression it was supposed to be more open and inclusive. Was this a wrong assumption?
Apparently *I* in particular post to (and I quote) 'Antagonize witchy folk'. That was news to me until people put it where if could be read by others.'Witchy folk'? I wonder who this could be referring to? Can someone define this and who is allowed to use this nomen? Or is it a 'limited club membership' that earns that 'title'? And those with the 'title' are the 'we' you speak of? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
Debate is NOT antagonism, not everyone will believe what YOU (the impersonal 'you') believe or even find it particularly creditable. However, that shouldn't be a problem if this is really a place for everyone and debate is the coin of the realm. I don't care if others don't share my beliefs, that's not why I came.
It was supposed to be an open-minded forum for debate and discussion . People have even tried to get it back to that. But others have been working overtime to try and tip the balances. Yes, people DO read other places.
And what is this 'One half of the forum'? What are these two sides? I see people of numerous beliefs having conversation and debate. There doesn't seem to be 'two sides' and I'd be curious to know how you would classify them?
*I* see people actually working hard at both the technical side of things and actually posting topics ( or running between people keeping the peace (the hardest job of all) by our loyal and overworked Tribune.
It is my firm belief that a 'we' and and 'not one of us' mentality is a death warrant for a forum. Perhaps you have a solution?
Illgrace - 'IG'
Aww, how cute. No one told her that her beliefs didn't count. I love how she makes stuff up like that and then tries to twist what did happen to be someone else's fault.
And this part goes out to IG personally -
Hon, if I gave a damn that you read my LJ, I would have locked these posts. The fact that I leave them mostly open is to show you how little your opinion means to me. I'm not hiding anything, I am just not causing more train wrecks for your amusement. Get over yourself.
--Phae
Tags:
