Its so very quiet around here. All my friends are off doing other things or resting after surgery. I have a local filmmakers mixer tonight, along with going to go see my former band play. I was also hoping to muster up a date this weekend, but the conditions have to be just right for me to cross paths with this woman again, so *crosses fingers*.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
So yeah, my responce to her powertripping rant was a little snide. However, it was no less rude than the post/thread that inspired it.
Please please, join the group - if you can - and read it for yourself. Don't let either one of us mold your opinion.
thanks for paying attention and letting me know I'm not the only one that notices,
On the subject of the photographs, unlike lurkers, they belong in the group and they will remain in the group so that people who participate in group events can view pictures of the events they attended. It's not that the photographs are too personal, it's that why should someone who didn't even want to show up for this event have the right to look at how much fun we had? To me, and the other members I've discussed this with it's an invasion of privacy, and that is why I've had to try and come down harder on the members who still don't seem to get what the group is there for.
It also *IS* my job to worry about the other people in the group. There is a designated amount of responsibility that goes with managing a group of members that by definition, are going to be attending get togethers and meeting eachother personally. This si something that's been explained to me by those who run this site. And I'm not one to fall short of protecting the integrity and authenticity of the group I am responsible for. I have a responsibility to insure each member will be safe at all functions, and I can't garuntee something like that when there are people in the group I've never met or spoken with (see lurkers). I hope that makes sense to you.
In other larger regions where there may be 150+ members, a person is not even allowed to be accepted to the group unless they've been to an official event and invited by another established member. As you can tell, I haven't been this strict with my policies. All I ask is that the people I *HAVE* allowed to join show up for events once they're in. I don't think this is too much to ask since, once again, that's why the group is there.
In caddok's case, he wasn't a lurker. He was just a member who didn't contribute to that specific conversation appropriately. He was booted under that reason alone. Not because he "has a job" or whatever he says it was about. And I have no misrepresentations about that fact. The unfortunate part was that caddok wasn't even part of the problem I was trying to remedy. Everyone knew he worked a schedule that didn't always permit him to come out with us. And in fact it was clarified complettely that the problem was with the people who never came out because they didn't want to, not because they couldn't. If he'd payed more attention to the other posts on the topic before *HE* got all bent out of shape, it probably would have saved everyone a lot of grief. He created an entirely different problem with the way he addressed me and the rest of the group in that thread.
I hope this sheds some light on the subject for you.
[Edited on Sep 05, 2003]