Roger Burns wrote:

>I'm afraid you have been misinformed.  I am the founder and
>manager of the five gated groups that you refer to, and I'd hate
>to think that anyone would give an impression that ill patients
>are not welcome in their own on-line support group.  In the groups
>that I manage, only flamers and spammers are barred from posting.
>People from Mary's group are by no means barred from the other
>groups, except for individuals who may attack fellow participants
>publicly in the groups or who post commercial advertisements, per
>the groups' rules.  One of the gated groups that I manage on this
>topic is virtually unmoderated, at [log in to unmask]
>/ alt.med.cfs-open which anyone can post to (even flamers and
>advertisers) as long as the postings are on the topic of the
>illness.  No one has ever been barred from that group.

Well, Roger, since you've chosen to respond in this forum:

Why don't you tell the group why I am not permitted to post to
CFIDS-L, and have not been permitted to do so since October; and
why I am not permitted to post to CFS-L and have not been permitted
to do so since February?

From your own messages (and those of your moderators) -- all of
which I have saved -- the reason is (a) in the case of CFIDS-L
because in the context of ways to moderate CFIDS-L, which is an
activist discussion group and which you claim in your own FAQ is
run as your posters wish, I mentioned the way that WECAN is
moderated.  I cannot recall whether I also discussed in that
particular post the way the H-Net lists are run, but I have
mentioned before that I moderate one of the discussion lists there
as well.  These are alternatives.  When the group is told "this is
not possible" and "that is not possible", then you may consider it
a flame to tell them -- yes it's possible -- I do it; I've seen it
done; I've had instruction in how to moderate a list this way -- I
consider it offering helpful information.  However, that's a
judgment call.  Let's just get clear what the nature of this was.
And I have the original posts if anyone wants to see them.

The others were not "in my group" -- some I did not even know
before hand.  They objected as well to some of the moderating
policies, and in one case the "sin" was accidentally posting a
private message publicly, which you then proceeded to do yourself
the next week or so.

One of the major objections was the arbitrary nature with which you
enforce your own rules.

And some of us were asking for a committee of appeal.

As for CFS-L, the reason I am not allowed to post (according to
your own moderator) is that I sent a message that I wrote myself,
which was a book review split into two posts that were each between
100-120 lines.  Since I wrote them, I thought they were within the
list rules that said that it was forbidden to post messages longer
than 100 lines unless it was a post you wrote yourself.  However,
it was pointed out to me that the actual wording of the rule is
"one-time" post, and since I had posted this book review (which you
yourself put on your own web site, so I presume there was nothing
offensive in it) in several places, it was ruled "prepared text"
and I was set to nopost and have not been permitted to post since.

I fail to see whether either instance was either a flame or a
commercial spam.  Perhaps the first is a judgment call, and any
description of a moderating style different from your own is, in
your opinion, a flame.  The wording, however, was quite calm and
instructive (and I still have the post).

I also have the post that you sent to the moderators of your own
list, Roger, which you have already admitted in writing to having
composed.  Would you like me to post that here as well?  How about
those posts Marc wrote?  I can send them.  We can let these
listowners judge for themselves precisely who was flaming whom.

BTW, your lists are not moderated -- they are RETRO-moderated.
(That is, a person is scolded or "disciplined" after the fact.  A
common source of scoldings is forgetting to change the keyword in
the topic header.)

As for the non-moderated lists that you run, they are not
respectable because they are chock-full of spamming and flaming.

If you want to get "into it" here, Roger, out in the open, where
all can see, and all the evidence can be laid on the table, I would
be delighted.

NOTE:  I have not asked anyone here to get me reinstated to your
lists. Nor do I wish to see your lists damaged.  However, I believe
that open alternatives are a good thing.  I believe that open
discussion is a good thing.

>Unfortunately, illness does not automatically confer a saintly
>character on all of its victims, and so the spirit of
>"competition" can, sadly, prompt some people to seriously
>mischaracterize other groups that they are not the managers of.

Thou dost protest too much.  To repeat, shall we post here the
message where you slandered WECAN and my own integrity?

BTW, Roger is himself a member of what he calls "Mary's group".  We
do not ban people without a vote.  Although several people have
requested that he be banned because of things he has done
personally outside the group, it has been concluded that the
process itself might be more disruptive than permitting him to
remain.  We are not going to play the game the way he does.  Note
also:  although Roger is a member of both WECAN and Sasyfras, has
has not (as of July, last time I checked) included information
about either in his supposedly all-encompassing FAQ on internet
resources for people with CFIDS.  We have asked Roger publicly to
explain this, within the group, and he has refused.

Roger, I would like very much to coexist with you.  There is much
that you do that is positive for PWCs.  However, this little game
you have been playing for over a year now is not amusing and not
productive. And it's not "his opinion vs. mine."  If someone could
help provide a forum where we could debate this in a responsible
way, using evidence and not innuendo, and get it finally resolved,
I would be very happy.

Mary Schweitzer
http://pw1.netcom.com/~schweit2/home.html