I've got a couple of things to add that may or may not be helpful. I'm sorry. I've been away from the computer all day.

When Zoe posted in Bitches, she was perfectly coherent. She posted that she felt she had violated the rules of the Catholic church and wanted to know what she could do to make up for it. At that time, I and several other posters tried to encourage her, soothe her and help her to understand that she hadn't done anything seriously wrong. We gave her options, as we understood them, because we thought it was of serious concern to her.

I got the impression that, since we didn't react with horror and disgust, we weren't very interesting, so she went to play elsewhere. I could be wrong, absolutely, but my point is that she was coherent, she was aware of an offense, and she displayed contrition. She's quite capable of doing that.

When the christianity joke thing came up in Angel, I posted to her immediately after Stef did, with, I hoped, some similar gentle soothe -- reaching out to her type of thing -- and got no response. I had hoped that she would recall her positive statements in regard to Christianity and consider how she appeared to her readers -- then be willing to moderate her post, delete it, apologize for offending, whatever necessary. Considering the fact that she's had several e-mails over this current situation and that I believe people have reached out to her to attempt to train her in the past, I don't think she's willing to be trained.

I agree with regard to the demon-behaviour, and that this is an instance where the system in place should work. There are other posting boards where she'd fit in better (and probably get a lot less attention, but that's not our problem).

If the way this works is going to a vote, fine. If it's consensus, I'm consensed. I like what Nutty and Msbelle proposed wrt the boilerplate and the proposal.

Are we going to be patient until the voting process runs its course?

I know this was more hypothetical than not. However, can I say, whether this had been Allyson or any other poster, I think an offense has a shelf-life.

I think that the folks who are upset are upset because I have clarified, and perhaps that clarification has made it more obvious to them that I see Zoe as subhuman, and not worthy of respect, or that my lack of respect for Zoe in the instance of my smacking her around equates to a lack of respect to the board.

Ergo, my not being sorry about kicking Zoe, means I am not sorry for the damage to the Buffistas caused by my vigilantism (is that a word?).

I also see some disappointment from folks like smonster, that perhaps I am Not a Nice Person.

I'm here, though, and willing to talk about it.

BIG DAMN BAD: My love will follow you wherever you go, Fred. And by "love," I mean "vengeful zealots."

...LET HER GO.

I read it as a joke too - that she's riffing on Matt's post, badly, to say that we (by which she's including herself) will follow Fred and get rid of her. She's saying "Enough Fred, already! Let her go! No more Fred! If I have to go kill her myself, along with my band of Buffistas!"

Could it not be that, from the context? You were more involved in the conversation than I was, and I try to stay out of Angel to avoid spoilage, so I totally might be getting the wrong end of the stick. Is she a Fred fan?

What were the B2 choices again?

Smonster--I agree with you. I think most people's problem with Zoe is not the posts (I was not enraged by the gay sex posts, for example, I just felt kinda sorry for her small horizons) but I am angered when the fact that others were hurt or offended doesn't seem to matter. A while ago Victor posted some stuff about Slash that upset a lot of posters and he apologized for upseting them--even though he was stating his opinion. He doesn't have to change his opinion or apologize for holding it, just apologize for posting it in a way which hurt people around here. So we are talkign about two different things--which I hope this post clarifies although I fear it hasn't.

bless Cindy and her fast hands. Can someone double check me on my days for discussion and voting. I couldn't remember the number of days for both.

I like "Like Sartre, only longer."

Ha! I like this, too.

Or, outside the literary:

"Like Goya, only sunnier."

"Like 'Brazil', only sillier."

"Like the Patriot Act, only with singing and dancing"

Is it just me, or is the last post in Light Bulbs from March 27th?

[ETA I seem to remember Bureau 3 being suggested as "Like Tim, Only Bloodier!"]

She's saying "Enough Fred, already! Let her go! No more Fred! If I have to go kill her myself, along with my band of Buffistas!"

She's changed her opinion from one moment to the next, but recently, she stated that she thought Fred should go back to Texas. I believe it's in response to a recent promo where she thought Fred was getting too close to Angel.

However, I don't think that's really the issue, since she was asked to clarify and chose not to. She has actively engaged in dialogue before, clarifying and discussing her position, so she can. We shouldn't have to guess at the most innocuous meaning, hoping that she's not trying to offend. I'm not saying we should jump at the most offensive meaning either, only that, if someone is asked to clarify, that they do so.

For the record Allyson, I respect you more for clarifying your stance. I don't see it as disrespecting the Buffistas as a whole at all.