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