[Marion Shore]

Having served as a Moderator I want to weigh in here. You need to understand that the Mods' decisions are never made without considerable thought, discussion and deliberation. So whether or not you agree with the decisions, please understand they are never easy or clear-cut, and are always made in good faith, with the good of Eratosphere in mind. Also keep in mind the commitment they've made in putting their time, effort and energy into keeping the Board going. And no matter what problems you have with them, I'm sure you'll conclude, as I have, that the help, support and camaraderie you've gotten from the Board far outweigh whatever disagreements you've had with its administration.

[Norman Ball]

Most poets, untapped little tyrants that they are, must resign themselves to the fact that only a select few among their ranks --Pol Pot, Stalin-- ever reach the pinnacle of poetic ambition: arranging whole societies to their petulent stanzas. To those for whom even homeowner assocation president eludes, a smaller confab will have to do. And the more distance the better. Poets bruise easily.

What a spectacle this thread is, a de minimus expose on control and its many teacup storms. The stakes are so low. Millions are not at risk of being sent to their deaths. The worst outcome is that a trove of journeyman poetry is averted as tomorrow's Solzhenitsyn's storm off in a huff.

This thread proves the periodic necessity of the gulag, separating the prattle from the essential word (the sacred province of poetry and, one would imagine, its ostensible practitioners.) My guess is this thread would shut down like a knife if some meglomaniac only cared enough to say 'boo'.

[Roger Slater]

Lo, my point about Exile was that you and anyone else were and remain welcome to share your views there. I never said your appearance was required. But if you shoot spitballs at the folks over there, some of whom have said good-bye over here or been led to believe that they will be censored if they speak their minds here, it might be nice to go to where the people are to shoot your spitballs at closer range. Instead, you stay away and complain that your point of view is not represented. Well, who will represent your point of view if not you?

Lots of the disaffected care very deeply about Erato and still have genuine regard for it. This is a lovers' quarrel, I think, which doesn't mean that the occasional dinner plate isn't shattered on the kitchen floor. There could be no quarrel without high regard, but it takes two to kiss and make up. So far, the reconciliation isn't going smoothly, with a moderator on this thread branding me a person who tells lies and no one on behalf of Erato showing any sort of sympathy for the views of members who for years have contributed their time, their hearts, their minds, and their money.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Lo, my point about Exile was that you and anyone else were and remain welcome to share your views there. I never said your appearance was required.

And no one ever said you did, Roger.

But if you shoot spitballs at the folks over there, some of whom have said good-bye over here or been led to believe that they will be censored if they speak their minds here, it might be nice to go to where the people are to shoot your spitballs at closer range. Instead, you stay away and complain that your point of view is not represented. Well, who will represent your point of view if not you?

But I have responded "over there," Roger.

I do take exception to "been led to believe that they will be censored if they speak their minds here," however, since the only place I'm finding which says that is "over there." As far as I can tell, from what Alex and MaryAnn have posted, the only thing that's going to be "censored" here is adhom remarks and cut and pastes of private emails and PMs. I see no reason anyone can't post here and air their general grievances so long as they can do it without getting all up close and personal and naming people by name and then proceeding to call them names. I understand that you and Stephen are having an "issue" and maybe it's perceived and maybe it's not, but I do know that it's counterproductive to continue to harp on it because the harping itself only serves to entrench both parties further into their own perception. Sometimes things like that are best left to private correspondence and the presence of a third party since it's not a personality contest and it's only symptomatic of a disease and does nothing to cure the disease itself.

This is a lovers' quarrel, I think, which doesn't mean that the occasional dinner plate isn't shattered on the kitchen floor.

You're a lawyer, Roger. What usually happens when two "lovers" start smashing dishes in anger? It's been my experience that a neighbor calls the cops and someone gets arrested and charged with either domestic abuse or battery. Reasonable people don't smash dishes. Angry, out of control people smash dishes. Generally a time out helps.

So far, the reconciliation isn't going smoothly, with a moderator on this thread branding me a person who tells lies and no one on behalf of Erato showing any sort of sympathy for the views of members who for years have contributed their time, their hearts, their minds, and their money.

Whose reconciliation, Roger? There seems to be several people in serious need of sympathy. I'm pretty sure it's going to take time to sort it all out. Screaming in the meanwhile only prolongs the sorting process. Alex has said, in another thread, that he's aware there are problems and that steps are being taken. He's also quickly apologized to David for something he agreed was wrong and that leads me to believe that if further apologies are necessary they'll be forthcoming.

Attempting to back him into a corner, needling him to abandon his moderators, threatening a group-leave, and other various strong arm tactics such as constantly reminding him that you've donated money to keep the playground open hardly seems like a good way to make changes.

A "donation" is just that. It's something given freely without expectations of favors, special attention or certain privileges in return. It doesn't buy a partnership, it doesn't give a say-so, it doesn't confer immunity. It simply shows appreciation and support.

As for "time, hearts and minds," what does that even mean? What has anyone invested here that they haven't received back fourfold?

For that matter, who's given more of their time, heart and mind than the moderators? The rest of us can come and go at will. We can get involved when we feel like it and leave when we feel like it. The mods, though, the mods are here through thick and thin - whether they want to be involved in it or not.

I see no sympathy for them.

None at all.

[Norman Ball]

Of the millions who perished in the Gulag, it's generally acknowledged most took grave offense to the relocation. Some even felt their sensibilities suffered in the move. Others endured and were better writers for it. What's being whisked away in the dead of night when you are the progenitor of necessary writing? A mere bump in the road. Unless it's a spoiled knitting project and it took you weeks to finish the left sock. Then all petulance is warranted.

While I'm at it, I'd like to speak up a little for ad hominem attacks as they've been taking a beating up here and can't speak up for themselves. Over the years I've read some detestable poetry here and elsewhere. This has led me, in some instances, to form an extra-textual detestation of the responsible poet. I'm not comfortable with stopping like some Stepford Wife at the poem itself. There is no UN-mandated demilitarized zone between the poem and the poet. Latitudinal partitions only invite future wars.

All feelings are personal. This is probably even moreso for poetry. However I will continue to abide by the guidelines, keeping my ad homs to myself even as I feel a tad disingenuous for not opening up with both barrels and letting some asshole really have it.

To those who hate my poetry, I permission you to hate me too. You already do. My poetry is too much of me that I can't imagine an honest stratagem for escaping your derision, nor would I ask you paste on an obsequious smile on my behalf. What I will say, my crappy comrade, is that guidelines notwithstanding, your hatred betrays abysmal taste. But that's your business.

[Roger Slater]

OK, Lo, I agree with you that there's no point going on and on making the same points, so I will squelch the almost irresistible urge to demolish each and every one of your counterpoints and give it a rest.

(Norm, I like you more than your poetry, but don't worry, I like your poetry just fine).

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

OK, Lo, I agree with you that there's no point going on and on making the same points, so I will squelch the almost irresistible urge to demolish each and every one of your counterpoints and give it a rest.

Kisses, Roger. You are a better man than I since I find counterpointing usually too irresistible to pass up. I think it's the thrill of actually having something to do with my brain besides add and subtract retirement figures and insurance costs.

I sometimes think we all love the arguement more than we hate whatever it is we are arguing about.

Anyhow, I really don't want to alienate anyone here although I know it is bound to happen. I really just want one of two things - either to be blessed sometime in the future as a fine and wonderous peacekeeper or, barring that, to win my side of the arguement either by actually scoring points or, if that's impossible, by wearing everyone else down.

I'm not so sure of my ability to do the first but I'm damn confident I can do the second. I've got 2 ex-husbands and a current one that will attest to that. (The wearing down part - not the valid point part.)

I honestly do care for all of ya - differences of opinion notwithstanding.

[David Rosenthal]

Originally Posted by Laura Heidy-Halberstein

I do take exception to "been led to believe that they will be censored if they speak their minds here," however, since the only place I'm finding which says that is "over there." As far as I can tell, from what Alex and MaryAnn have posted, the only thing that's going to be "censored" here is adhom remarks and cut and pastes of private emails and PMs.

None of my deleted posts fell into those categories.

Originally Posted by Laura Heidy-Halberstein

I see no reason anyone can't post here and air their general grievances so long as they can do it without getting all up close and personal and naming people by name and then proceeding to call them names.

I used to believe that too. But what I have witnessed with my own eyes (and described in general terms without naming people by name or calling anyone names) and what I have experienced personally (having that post, and others, deleted) have caused me to change what I believe, and have made everything I read "over there" seem utterly believable.

I also think you are mistaken to assume that people hadn't raised complaints through proper PM channels prior to this blow up. I think the blow up is largely the result of complainants' frustrations with a lack, or at least perceived lack, of serious response to their complaints. Which is to say that even if the lack of response was merely perceived, the blow up was not just a mass tantrum.

David R.

[Philip Quinlan]

I am raising this thread again to ensure that it does not drop out of sight just yet. Because I think that if it does at this stage it may be tacitly assumed in some quarters that "a little local difficulty" has fizzled out.

One thing that intrigues me is the notion of private vs public channels of communication.

If moderators wish to challenge the "validity" of a thread could they not simply post an anodyne one liner in the thread itself and pursue the rest of the debate in private?

I was pretty disgusted with the way 2 mods in particular repeatedly attacked a certain member of this forum for his (supposed) lack of facility in English. It looked like bullying at best and something rather unsavoury and better not named at worst. It was unnecessarily and unpleasantly done in public and, had I been the butt of it, I would have felt humiliated in the extreme. Matteradamn that the criticism was ill-founded and unenlightened.

If members cannot raise concerns in public without being censured (or having their posts deleted) how come mods can engage in this sort of behaviour?

Logging off again.

Philip

[Elle Bruno]

Hello Philip,

you write:
I was pretty disgusted with the way 2 mods in particular repeatedly attacked a certain member of this forum for his (supposed) lack of facility in English.

I welcome anyone to review the threads in question. Since you bring them up, they are in non-met and are Abid's poems.
I believe I gave good honest criticism on his poems, which included discussion of the difficulty writing in another language. I treated him with respect as I try to do with all the poets whose work I comment on.
Dee