In Reply to: Answers for you posted by WC (gen coord) on July 18, 2004 at 15:45:38:
WC,
I attempted to send you this reply privately to avoid causing further embarassment to anyone, but your wc@exfamily address bounces e-mail.
You wrote:
"It should not matter whether Miguel has or hasn't used multiple handles. It was completely within our guidelines to use multiple handles. It still is."
I have no problem with posters using multiple handles, as long as they are not doing it for the reasons you detailed in your policy announcement:
* have several turns at the same local topic, especially in the same thread
* to manipulate readers into believing you have more support for your position than actually exists
* play mind games -- using the cover of anonymity and changing names to stalk other posters, confuse them, badger them or cause them grief
You also wrote:
"Let's put it this way: You wouldn't be wrong to suspect 95% of the posters having used more than one name."
I totally agree with the above statement. I also have used a different identity on one or two occasions. But we aren't talking about the 95% of us who use multiple handles in an acceptable manner. We are talking about the small minority who have repeatedly abused this privilege in the manners described in your policy announcement.
"Yes, Alan, please interpret this: I am saying you could be correct and/or incorrect. Do you find that unacceptable?"
I'll accept your very diplomatic answer. I think we have an understanding now. I'm glad to see that you intend to enforce the policy against abuse of multiple handles with impartiality.
I do, however, see some favoritism displayed in the following statements you made to me regarding an exchange between Miguel and me:
"Alan, those remarks were uncalled for and very ungracious."
"Please take the "over your head" issue up with Miguel. It has nothing to do with me/us."
So Miguel can insinuate I am stupid with his supposed knowledge of things "way over your heads" and you say nothing to him? He can accuse other posters of hating him, of calling him a doom-sayer, of trying to "show him the door" and you don't intervene to tell him his post was "uncalled for and very ungracious?" Sorry WC, but that doesn't look very impartial.
Have you not read the recent posts where Miguel flies off the handle, falsely accusing two other posters of telling him to go out the door, or claiming they had called him names? Even after those posters apologized to Miguel for things they weren't guilty of, he continued to rail against them.
You advise me to take it up with Miguel? Well after this kind of irrational behavior, I have no interest in trying to engage in reasonable debate with him. He doesn't play fair, and when he's loosing a debate, he gets angry.
Alan