Jesse, did my snail-mail ever reach you?
Xander ,'Beneath You'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Ooh, I think it did, but I lost track of your board name vs. your real name. You live in Chicago?
Yep. Gina here.
What was I thinking? What monster have I loosed into our world?
I think you had your eye on your shiny Head of the Guard uniform and weapons.
Sorry to xpost, but I can't remember where I read the most recent Jen K left because of X thing....
I know that some people say Jen K left because of X or Y, but in the absence of her coming in to explain, can we not continually bring up the reasons she left? I'm sure Allyson being kinda a bitch was part of it. But I sense, and from David's comment I infer, that it was one of a few reasons. So I am weirded out that we are attributing motives to her without her presence especially since there is no way to confirm the reality of our assumptions about those motives.
I think that sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, Kat.
I would also like to "second" Kat's comment.
Can we please not bring up Jen K to support or refute any arguments around here? Pretty much none of the people who have brought her up as an example of anything were directly involved in what happened, and really have no idea what all was involved in her leaving.
Allyson was involved, and has a right to comment, and when she does so, she speaks only for her end of things, but anybody else should only ever speak about it to the extent they were involved, if at all.
And this also serves to illustrate why bringing up nameless lurkers in support of an argument is so frowned upon and reacted to so poorly - any interpretation of someone else's unspoken position is invariably hopelessly polluted by the perspective of the interpreter.
Good gravy, people. We can't speak in generalities but we can't speak in specifics without an affadavit?
Aimee and I both expressed our impressions of Jen's leaving. David expressed his. Believe either or both or neither or form your own opinion. Or drop Jen a note.
This is a discussion, not a dissertation.
We can't speak in generalities but we can't speak in specifics without an affadavit?
The point of all of it is to just generally not speak for other people, but only for yourself.
All we'd be doing is engaging in speculation, Trudy, and what use is that? How can you use it to sway someone's mind, or use it as ballast?