LITTLE FIEFDOMS

(Muse... Since you've chosen to use this forum for attack, for what gain I know not, I cannot avoid a response, in the same pulic forum, when it is my ethic such discussion should have, and would have, remained private)

Already the disastrous results begin, as evidenced by the positive response to your blog entry here by none other than S_LINK! How does it feel to have him and Virginia and Jay and Dommie and the other nazis pleased with what you've said? Does it perhaps tell you something? Like maybe they've now gotten exactly what they want? Like the demise of a grand experiment, the purity of which we hoped to infect all of the Paltalk political rooms, the concept of free speech and equity and justice for all to experience? (BTW ASS_LINK, I've never had a conversation with a Paltalk redhat about the rooms, or about any of this, so I have no clue what your lying words even mean)
________________________________________________________________

What olive branch was offered in your preceding entry Muse? And where in my comment to Z’s posting did I EVER bring you “personally” into any of this? The entirety of my “comments” in this blog relating to your sudden choice and “hatting” of Virginia and Jay as admin, and all surround that issue alone, and have NOT taken you to task in any personal way. The absolute harshest thing I have said is the following, word for word. “Although I cast no vote for or against the inclusion of the people in question,” (Virginia and Jay) “I think you're fortunate to have many admin who considered these things and declared their disapproval. I think their decision was borne out very quickly by the negative responses of the ones they rejected.” I had just pointed out Virginia and Jay had both shown themselves to do whatever they could to undermine the entire concept of freedom of expression (and the chat room Banned), and had already proven they are willing to lie and deceive in order to do that. (Evidence the fact we caught Virginia and Dommie lying about the “fact” we, (I) were not banned from 2Way, even going to the extreme of a screen shot (a lie we disproved) on Virginia’s blog of 2Way’s ban list taken specifically to discredit the people from Banned, as well as the room itself. By obtaining the testimony of 2Way admin who were sick of Virginia’s and Dommie’s lies, along with my own evidence on cam in the room, viewed by many observers that I could not access the room because the owner had banned my entry, their lies were exposed. The vast majority of Banned’s admin (and roomies) already knew who and what Virginia and Jay are, had seen proof of it, and having observed a long history of deceit and lies from them, opted to save the room instead of seeing it disappear or worse yet, turn into what they all hated so much. To your credit, you relented and went along with them, but it's obvious residual resentment remains, and apparently, I'm to be the victim. However, you might have overruled their better judgment, but didn’t. For that I am personally thankful as much as I suspect the admin are relieved it didn’t happen.


The “only” thing I’ve taken you to task for in any of the words I’ve provided (inserted “only” into the comment sections and intentionally not this “main” section you have chosen to use, forcing me to respond) was your judgment in hatting Virginia and Jay when you knew full well they were not to be trusted, and in all likelihood would destroy the very precepts which had gained such appeal among ALL of the admin and ALL the visitors to the room we’d worked so long and hard to support. Even then, my reminder to you was gentle and without recrimination, opining only that you may not have considered the fact your decision to hat those two miscreants was not just a risk you took for yourself, but a risk that endangered the room, all the admin who had worked and believed in it, and the roomies who counted on us to protect the very ideals we made such a point of developing and championing. I believed then, as I do now, as room owner you have a responsibility to those you serve, and those who work along side of you. In essence, it’s THEIR room, not yours and not mine, and not any single individual's, but not only the creation of, but the right of ownership of all involved. Without their support, it’s a room without visitors, without content, and without soul. They make the room with their presence and participation, not us. It’s their room too Muse, and they deserve what was promised to them from the very beginning.

I’ve heard your “facts”, and unfortunately they don’t “square” with what I have observed with my own eyes and ears, and what has been testified to me by people with no interest in misleading, and no history of the same. However, I will not argue them in a public forum such as this, and was stunned to see a personal attack featured here on JC’s blog.
Why you chose to take this public is beyond my comprehension. You and I have exchanged email and PM’s on the “personal” issues I have with what I’ve observed of your recent behavior, and the actions you’ve taken that left me no choice but to turn in my hat in Banned and I will not cover the personal opinions about what I see inside you that I find less than pure as relates to your ownership of the room and more personal ethics I've questioned in private to avoid embarassment on your part. I remind you that no one has heard a word from me about any of these issues, and that any discussion on my part has been elicited only in response to your choice to speaking of it publicly, both here and in Paltalk. In addition, the ONLY person I've discussed the numerous other missteps you've taken or personal morality have continued to remain private, while for your own reasons, you wish to create this recipe for public disaster. However, the two issues that relate directly to the disagreement we had on specific room environment, that you seem to wish to position as the reasons I left, I will discuss here. Since they are detailed disagreements of room policy and security only, I will respond.

First, MagnumPotent. Once his deviance was exposed for everyone to see, I would not allow him to take the mic and spew his hatred of women by telling them of the sickness he wished to bring to them, in rape and physical violence. (I do not use his words and invective here as they promote and detail violence that is obscene) We all know I was pulled into a private meeting with a number of very hurt, very angry women who are offended (as I am) by his very presence in the room. They demanded, and rightfully so, that he be banned because of his pathologically deranged behavior towards women. We don’t ban people, nor do we bounce them. We dot people for violating TOS violations, and when someone is a constant disruption to the room, such as motherbruilesouix, we dot them them the moment they hit the room. Well mothers is an annoyance and she does indeed disrupt the room, often driving people from it, but she’s no threat to anyone, and her simpleminded ramblings on mic are just that, and nothing more. It was YOUR choice to dot her automatically when she comes to the room, and I supported it. I drew the line though when you not only would not go along with my decision to place Magnum in the same category, an automatic dot, but insisted he not be dotted at all, even though his history in Banned, as well as other rooms, demonstrates clearly his intent to intimidate and frighten every woman who comes in the room. Sorry, but that’s not acceptable to me, nor to any woman (or man for that matter) who has been the target of or even "heard" his hatred.

Second, what you describe as my annoyance at a “nasty PM” is grossly mischaracterized and you know it. In my emails to you, as well as PM’s, I’ve presented the specific room issue in this manner. If a room visitor is dotted for a TOS violation, an announcement to that affect is “typically” made in the room text, or perhaps in PM with the offending party. Whether such announcement is made or not, the dot is usually in place for five minutes. If a roomie PM’s the admin to ask about the reason for the dot, it is “always” explained to them as being a violation of TOS, and that the room must avoid violations or jeapordize its existence. If even after this explanation, the roomie persists, we reconfirm what we have said, and reconfirm the dot is for 5 minutes only. If after that, the roomie becomes abusive toward the admin, depending on the severity and longevity of that abuse, it is either ignored, or in the cases of those who clearly demonstrate by horribly abusive language, threats, personal attacks, racial and sexual innuendo, etc. that they have no intention of participating in the room in a civilized and “non-TOS” manner, I believe the admin have every right to dot them for the duration of the day. The admin are there performing “volunteer” work for the enjoyment and participation of all the roomies. They receive no pay, often work silently in anonymity, for hours on end sometimes, and often we are not thankful enough to them in any public way. The last thing I’d ever allow any admin working with me, is the additional burden of having to take such abuse, and especially when it’s obvious the roomie in question has every intent on ruining the room by disruption with the very TOS violations that Paltalk will use to remove the room charter. We already ask more than enough of our admin. We were indeed fortunate to have thick skinned admin who are able to withstand attack from the mic when a roomie doesn’t agree with their political opinion. They’re strong admin and can take that. However when the abuse in PM becomes personal, threatening, and dangerous to the room itself, I trust the admin’s judgment to make that call. If we have questions, we can always ask, but the least we can do is support the admin, and assume their own integrity and wisdom leads them well. To be frank, your demand that the admin “must” endure such abuse, is unacceptable to me, and I’ve told you as much in our “private” conversations.

While the balance of your blog entry here is at best misleading and colored, I will not respond here in public. I’ve actually gone outside of my comfort zone to respond in this forum as much as I have. I believe any personal issues should remain personal and private, and until your entry here, that’s the way it was. Were I to desire to respond to each and every of your “points” with proof of my own, I could easily do that. This is NOT however, the place for such dialog. While my response here deals with “room specifics” only, and doesn’t reach the level of accusation you make against me, it’s the best I can do (being human) to avoid what has already been made messy when you chose to bring this out for all to see. You know how I feel about what has occurred and you also know any judgments I may make are based on behavior and not words. Apologies from you for offences I’ve spoken to you only in private about, are not necessary. A change in perspective, actions and commitment are. That’s enough for you to know Muse. Now that we’ve done “exactly” what Dommie, Virginia, S_Link, Jay, wished for with all their hearts, perhaps we can cease the stupidity of false pride and ego, and get on with the ideals that are so much more important than any of this. I could care less what venue is used to pursue the course of free speech and uplifting expression, as long as it happens somewhere, and the more the better. I'd like a hundred safe and uplifting free speech rooms on Paltalk, and so should we all.