if someone is asked to clarify, that they do so

To me, this is the crux of the problem. She's vague and ambiguous, fine, people aren't going to always get her. Fine. When they don't, and one of the possible meanings is offensive enough that someone spoke up (Steph, in this case) that person deserves to be respected enough to receive a clarification. So despite what I said earlier about thinking it was a joke (I still think it was, albeit not a great joke), the refusal to clarify (assuming she's still on the board right now) is offensive.

FWIW, I don't like the idea of saying something outrageous hoping to hurt someone. I also don't like bragging about doing it after the heat of the moment has cooled, or referring to that person in question as subhuman and not worthy of respect. I consider those cruel, hateful, vile things to do, and I agree they should ellicit a warning, whoever has posted them.

Agree that the "vengeful zealots" thing reads as an attempt at a joke.

assuming she's still on the board right now

Yes. Talking about a metaphorical gag that has been placed on her, and saying the Angel thread is full of parrots or the undead.

Well, Allyson, I'll just add one more thing to what I already said:

A few days ago, when the war started, Raquel posted that some of her coworkers were watching the bombings on TV while making popcorn and making jokes about it, and I was squicked. One thing is admitting that a war is the lesser evil and that sometimes, as much as it sucks, it's the only choice to remove a bigger threat, and another to actually cheer while watching a bombing on TV.

In your case, it's not that you are making popcorn while watching the war; you're writing a book called "How I killed a million of iraqui babies for the good of mankind" and promoting it in talk shows. Are you entitled to that view? Well, yes. Are people going to have a problem with it? Well... you already know that.

(And sorry for comparing something so serious to our little problems, but Bush/Rumsfeld style vigilantism is the best analogy I can come up with to explain why I think her position is wrong).

Umm, I was just reading a thread, hit next, and got the HR suspended page. I got back here through a link on another page.

But it is troubling that she didn't clarify, when asked by someone who didn't see it as joking, Lyra.

Post # 3571 in Un-Americans:

The whole entire Angel thread is full of echos.

Or possibly parrots.

They're definately undead anyhows--working on the ALIVE part.

I asked Zoe to clarify, because I didn't understand what she said. She went back and edited the post to include:

add: I'd probably speak more clearly if some will remove this (metaphorical) gag - Please.

So, she seems to think she's been gagged, but she STILL will not explain things she's posted recently that folks have asked for clarification on, nor has she joined the discussion here. That says "doesn't care about the community" to me.

(edit - xpost w/ ita)

Sorry ita, I thought the proposal was supposed to be posted in Light Bulbs before we could discuss it. Since that is not the case, never mind my silly question.

I thought the proposal was supposed to be posted in Light Bulbs before we could discuss it. Since that is not the case, never mind my silly question

But it has been -- that's certainly the way I thought it should work.

Perkins, I had the same thing--couldn't get to Buffistas at all for a few minutes.

I've got tons of thoughts on the Zoe thing, but if I get going on them now, I won't make any progress on my novel today. If it's still being discussed in a day or two, I'll weigh in. All I'll say for now is I'm definitely at the end of my personal tether where she's concerned, but hate the idea of suspending someone without a really clear smoking gun, because I don't like the precedent it would set. So color me conflicted.