I agree with Kat and Cass and Perkins.

The following post here dw "Spike's Bitches 27: I'm Embarrassed for Our Kind." Nov 17, 2005 11:13:31 pm PST where dw flat out REFUSES to acknowlege his offending Kat and others, is a direct breech of our community, along with the laundry list as shown by Kat.

Thanks Kat for taking the time to provide all the links. Attempts to deal with this in thread clearly have failed. My feathers have been more than ruffled, which takes a lot with my calm demeanor. (not last night)

eta: ok, now I have skimmed the conversations from last night and don't feel that dw's comments were out of line. To me he was clearly speaking about his personal experiences and not stating blanket statements about teachers.

It appears to be an oversensitivity based on the original major offense. dw's posts last night would not have caused any problem had he not offended previously. There were no personal attacks last night.

The question isn't really whether he was being offensive with his original statements last night. I thought they were kind of over the top, particularly the "drinking, writing detension slips and planning their retirement" line, but I think he did mean them to be directed only at his own experience. The disruptive behavior is his continued refusal to accept that his remarks offended people, apologize for the unintended offense and then let it go.

I'm not sure what happens when the poster decides to leave the community before 10 secondses are posted. Anyone?

I'm not sure what happens when the poster decides to leave the community before 10 secondses are posted. Anyone?

People leave and come back and leave and come back. I think a warning is a warning and how a person responds to it is their own business.

I agree a warning is in order, is "sheesh, learn to apologize for fuck's sake" a warning?

So I guess that makes me fourth, or fifth.

I'd like to ask that we try not to let this escalate. If the response to a warning is a snotty post I suggest we let that slide in a heat-of-the-moment way. If the response is a succession of snotty posts that's a different thing but I think any cooling-off period we can muster would be a good idea.

I can't even remember if we need secondses in order for someone to be warned.

Well, if you want to be all reasonable and stuff.

(that was directed to Trudes)

I agree a warning is in order, is "sheesh, learn to apologize for fuck's sake" a warning?

So I guess that makes me fourth, or fifth.

And me a fifth or sixth.

I don't want Susan or dw to leave the community, and I'm sad that they felt they had to, but I also think we need to complete the process.

As far as I remember, the procedure is that if ten Buffistas feel a person needs to be warned, a Stompy Foot, posting under an "Stompy Foot" ID will post a warning.

Oh, then count me as a second. (Which would make me, what? A seventh?)