Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Unusual Posts

<i>I don't understand what happened, why you did not at least try to read the book and join in and contribute.</i>

 

As I explained to Bentley several times, I wasn't able to get the book timely (one of the few times interlibrary loan failed me), and by the time I could get it the discussion was so far along and so many hundred posts written that it didn't seem feasible to try to catch up.  And I don't discuss books I haven't read.

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Thankyou B&O


Timbuktu1 wrote:

....It's a shame.  You deserved better.

 

I can't help wondering where B & N has been through all of this.   Is there anything I should/could do? 


You are right T - Bentley and Oldesq deserved much better than this.  They have been excellent moderators of this board and have put a lot of volunteer work into it.  I guess all that genuine participants here can do is to PM the B&N Administrators to complain about what has taken place here and to give B&O our sincere thanks for their sterling efforts. 

 

  

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Thankyou B&O

Thanks Choisya, I've done that.   I'll repeat to Bentley and Oldesq, this has been the best experience i've had on B & N.  

 

And I'd like to thank you as well, for everything you've contributed.  I really appreciate all of it. 

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Thankyou B&O

 

And I'd like to thank you as well, for everything you've contributed.  I really appreciate all of it. 

 

Thanks for those kind words Timbukto. 

 

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:

Thanks Choisya, I've done that.   I'll repeat to Bentley and Oldesq, this has been the best experience i've had on B & N.  

 

And I'd like to thank you as well, for everything you've contributed.  I really appreciate all of it. 

 

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,372
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Opening Ceremony


bentley wrote:
What I find distasteful frankly are the folks who cannot find the Off Topic Cafe and do not care about the folks who have cared enough to try to make a go of the board and set things up nicely for everyone.  I think these folks have no interest in historical fiction, historical romance or Mary Tudor; they are just trying to cause trouble here and I wish they would go elsewhere.  They are not introducing themselves, taking part in any of the conversations that are on going, not taking part in making any recommendations to the book lists, or even taking part on voting for non fiction history books of their own selection.  They simply come here to cause trouble.  That is my pet peeve and if you are looking for a setting of pace; that is my two cents.

Otherwise, these folks must be pretty obtuse if they can't tell what we are reading here and/or what is coming up.  Just take a look at the number of views on these threads (they are done either by plants or folks just trying to cause trouble) who have no interest in what we are trying to do here or in taking part in a meaningful way.  Frankly, both Oldesq and I are discouraged by this.  So many of these sites are just a hodgepodge of threads that go nowhere and on this site we do have Off Topic Cafes and hope that irrelevant or Off Topic discussions that have nothing to do with the books will be handled here.  


 

I happened to come here today because I was trying to navigate the new site, and noticed a topic as listed that said something like "HAVE YOU NOTICED?", and wondered what it was about.  I didn't find it, but came across these discussions, so I felt I would like to put my own two cents in.

 

I find the above quote to be rather insulting.  It implies that anyone who is not interested in the specific work being discussed must be a troublemaker, and also that anyone who is not a regular participant enough to want to get involved in all the introductions, etc., must be a troublemaker.

 

I have rather limited interests in historical literature, but that does not mean that I have no interests at all.  Specifically, I am most interested in the Plantagenet and Tudor periods.  Once in a while, I would stop by here, since this board was listed as a place to discuss the genre.  Some time back (apparently before the volunteer moderation began), I noticed a request for book recommendations on Mary Tudor.  Since this was up my alley, I responded, even though the post was from several months prior, and I didn't know if the person would still be checking.  There was never any other activity on the thread until lately.

 

More recently, there was a new thread about Henry VIII, so I responded to that one, as well.  The person started asking me about historical fiction, which I said I was not that interested in, although I did have a few books in that area.  The result was that I was, as I considered it, "smacked down", both on the board and by several PMs, in which I was informed that, too bad if it disappointed me, but the group wasn't discussing Henry VIII, and that I should either read the current selection (which I had no interest in) or confine myself to the off-topic threads.   That was enough for me, and I haven't been back again until now.  Yes, I did feel that I was driven off.  I am not a troublemaker, just someone who has an interest only in specific historical topics and was willing to talk about them with others who were also interested.  In neither case was I the one who originated the threads; I only responded.

 

I am not interested in reading through pages and pages of off-topic posts just to see if someone has brought up something that I am interested in.  And, anyway, it seems, according to the initial posts on those threads, and also from some of the comments here by the volunteer moderators, that even the off-topic threads are really supposed to be relevant to the work being discussed on the board.

 

Well, I've gotten that off of my chest.  If someone still wants to think I'm a troublemaker for daring to be interested in the Tudors and not in Herodotus, so be it.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Opening Ceremony


dulcinea3 wrote:

bentley wrote:
What I find distasteful frankly are the folks who cannot find the Off Topic Cafe and do not care about the folks who have cared enough to try to make a go of the board and set things up nicely for everyone.  I think these folks have no interest in historical fiction, historical romance or Mary Tudor; they are just trying to cause trouble here and I wish they would go elsewhere.  They are not introducing themselves, taking part in any of the conversations that are on going, not taking part in making any recommendations to the book lists, or even taking part on voting for non fiction history books of their own selection.  They simply come here to cause trouble.  That is my pet peeve and if you are looking for a setting of pace; that is my two cents.

Otherwise, these folks must be pretty obtuse if they can't tell what we are reading here and/or what is coming up.  Just take a look at the number of views on these threads (they are done either by plants or folks just trying to cause trouble) who have no interest in what we are trying to do here or in taking part in a meaningful way.  Frankly, both Oldesq and I are discouraged by this.  So many of these sites are just a hodgepodge of threads that go nowhere and on this site we do have Off Topic Cafes and hope that irrelevant or Off Topic discussions that have nothing to do with the books will be handled here.  


 

I happened to come here today because I was trying to navigate the new site, and noticed a topic as listed that said something like "HAVE YOU NOTICED?", and wondered what it was about.  I didn't find it, but came across these discussions, so I felt I would like to put my own two cents in.

 

I find the above quote to be rather insulting.  It implies that anyone who is not interested in the specific work being discussed must be a troublemaker, and also that anyone who is not a regular participant enough to want to get involved in all the introductions, etc., must be a troublemaker.

 

I have rather limited interests in historical literature, but that does not mean that I have no interests at all.  Specifically, I am most interested in the Plantagenet and Tudor periods.  Once in a while, I would stop by here, since this board was listed as a place to discuss the genre.  Some time back (apparently before the volunteer moderation began), I noticed a request for book recommendations on Mary Tudor.  Since this was up my alley, I responded, even though the post was from several months prior, and I didn't know if the person would still be checking.  There was never any other activity on the thread until lately.

 

More recently, there was a new thread about Henry VIII, so I responded to that one, as well.  The person started asking me about historical fiction, which I said I was not that interested in, although I did have a few books in that area.  The result was that I was, as I considered it, "smacked down", both on the board and by several PMs, in which I was informed that, too bad if it disappointed me, but the group wasn't discussing Henry VIII, and that I should either read the current selection (which I had no interest in) or confine myself to the off-topic threads.   That was enough for me, and I haven't been back again until now.  Yes, I did feel that I was driven off.  I am not a troublemaker, just someone who has an interest only in specific historical topics and was willing to talk about them with others who were also interested.  In neither case was I the one who originated the threads; I only responded.

 

I am not interested in reading through pages and pages of off-topic posts just to see if someone has brought up something that I am interested in.  And, anyway, it seems, according to the initial posts on those threads, and also from some of the comments here by the volunteer moderators, that even the off-topic threads are really supposed to be relevant to the work being discussed on the board.

 

Well, I've gotten that off of my chest.  If someone still wants to think I'm a troublemaker for daring to be interested in the Tudors and not in Herodotus, so be it.

 


First,  the board had moderators who were following the B&N standard set within Epics and Literature by Women.
Secondly, we discussed via PM the standards that had been set by the moderators (Oldesq and Bentley - me) and you stated you understood.  You were quite apologetic as I recall; and you had for the most part never visited before nor were you interested in participating in the My Early Life discussion or Herodotus.  We explained what we were trying to accomplish and the confusion that was created.  You said you understood and we pointed out that we were following the standards set up on other sites without any moderator tools whatsoever.  
Third, the extract above is taken out of context from a variety of notes back and forth. In fact, based upon the off line discussion you implied that you would post in the Off Topic Cafe; I noticed that you did not once again after our discussion and most likely that was not by accident.
Fourth, if you visit Epics and Literature by Women which I suspect you participate in or have visited, then you already know that NO ANCILLARY POSTS of any kind are allowed by the moderators on either site; additionally you could not even open up a thread if you wanted to.  We were following as I explained to you privately and you said you understood from my recollection the standards set elsewhere by B&N for moderator led discussions.  It is really odd that the folks who just kamikaze in and out and have never participated in any of the discussion have the only negative comments to say about the free and long hours that Oldesq and I expended.  If you seem to feel that you would like to post freely without posting on 8 weekly threads that have been set up for discussion; the 20 odd supplemental threads that have been set up on a variety of subjects or in the 2 Off Topic Cafes, I find your explanation a little hard to understand.  Likewise, I wonder why you do not have the same problem on Melissa's or Laurel's sites where you cannot add any threads at all.  Only the discussion leaders can add them.
Fifth, I think at this juncture for you to pile on and never having benefited from the wonderful conversations and discussions the readers of the voted upon selected titles had is troublesome as others would agree.
Lastly, Oldesq and I prefer not to participate any longer or offer our time and assistance. Frankly, the History Board was defunct before our very hard work and efforts.  And the folks who really appreciated and got a lot out of the boards were actually the ones who did not come here to throw stones on how things were run but having participated and having gotten so much out of the organization, discussion threads and comraderie offered to all. 
You, however, did not participate in any way at all, except from what I can see below pile on after the fact.  Oldesq and I really could care less at this juncture since we know that you participated in Literature by Women and you personally nor anybody else is allowed to open up any ancillary threads at all on that site (the discussion leader is the only one who does that and they have use of the moderator tools). I think your comments fall in the same category as another poster who was OK with the rules on Literature by Women and Epics and never said a peep there; but over here seemed to have a lot of negative things to say and in our opinion just wanted to stir the pot.  What good does your comments do anyone after the fact?
Oldesq and I no longer care to moderate for the benefit of anybody at this point aside from being asked to reconsider which we will not do.  I think our decisions have everything to do with the piling on comments by folks who never really participated AT ALL in any of the discussions on this board; but have tried to make this a personal vendetta against folks who were following the very same procedures you seem happy to follow on Literature by Women without the benefit of the moderator tools which would have prohibited you from doing what you say you absolutely MUST do.  For any of those of you who do not understand, I already had what I thought a pleasant discussion with dulcinea3 already and she seemed to understand; so I personally find her posting at this juncture rather odd.  In fact, I personally offered to help her, answer any of her questions and mentioned that I was only a PM away if there was something that Oldesq or I could do for her and to help.  We explained how difficult gaining any organization had been and the uphill climb that we experienced getting this to work.   Of course, dulcinea3 did not mention any of the above.  Now dulcinea3, please by all means post away on anything you like; aside from the fact that the new ADMIN concurred rightly so that this is not a place to discuss fiction of any kind including historical fiction and historical romance.  If you doubt my words, then please reach out to him (Jon_B).  
Now I got something off my chest too.
~Bentley 

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους: Thankyou B&O


Timbuktu1 wrote:

Thanks Choisya, I've done that.   I'll repeat to Bentley and Oldesq, this has been the best experience i've had on B & N.  

 

And I'd like to thank you as well, for everything you've contributed.  I really appreciate all of it. 

 

 


Thank you Timbuktu, those who participated and understood the processes and what we were trying to accomplish had your kind of experience as did both Oldesq and I.  In fact, I appreciate your kind words very much.  
~Bentley 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,372
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:


bentley wrote:
First,  the board had moderators who were following the B&N standard set within Epics and Literature by Women.
Secondly, we discussed via PM the standards that had been set by the moderators (Oldesq and Bentley - me) and you stated you understood.  You were quite apologetic as I recall; and you had for the most part never visited before nor were you interested in participating in the My Early Life discussion or Herodotus.  We explained what we were trying to accomplish and the confusion that was created.  You said you understood and we pointed out that we were following the standards set up on other sites without any moderator tools whatsoever.  
Third, the extract above is taken out of context from a variety of notes back and forth. In fact, based upon the off line discussion you implied that you would post in the Off Topic Cafe; I noticed that you did not once again after our discussion and most likely that was not by accident.
Fourth, if you visit Epics and Literature by Women which I suspect you participate in or have visited, then you already know that NO ANCILLARY POSTS of any kind are allowed by the moderators on either site; additionally you could not even open up a thread if you wanted to.  We were following as I explained to you privately and you said you understood from my recollection the standards set elsewhere by B&N for moderator led discussions.  It is really odd that the folks who just kamikaze in and out and have never participated in any of the discussion have the only negative comments to say about the free and long hours that Oldesq and I expended.  If you seem to feel that you would like to post freely without posting on 8 weekly threads that have been set up for discussion; the 20 odd supplemental threads that have been set up on a variety of subjects or in the 2 Off Topic Cafes, I find your explanation a little hard to understand.  Likewise, I wonder why you do not have the same problem on Melissa's or Laurel's sites where you cannot add any threads at all.  Only the discussion leaders can add them.
Fifth, I think at this juncture for you to pile on and never having benefited from the wonderful conversations and discussions the readers of the voted upon selected titles had is troublesome as others would agree.
Lastly, Oldesq and I prefer not to participate any longer or offer our time and assistance. Frankly, the History Board was defunct before our very hard work and efforts.  And the folks who really appreciated and got a lot out of the boards were actually the ones who did not come here to throw stones on how things were run but having participated and having gotten so much out of the organization, discussion threads and comraderie offered to all. 
You, however, did not participate in any way at all, except from what I can see below pile on after the fact.  Oldesq and I really could care less at this juncture since we know that you participated in Literature by Women and you personally nor anybody else is allowed to open up any ancillary threads at all on that site (the discussion leader is the only one who does that and they have use of the moderator tools). I think your comments fall in the same category as another poster who was OK with the rules on Literature by Women and Epics and never said a peep there; but over here seemed to have a lot of negative things to say and in our opinion just wanted to stir the pot.  What good does your comments do anyone after the fact?
Oldesq and I no longer care to moderate for the benefit of anybody at this point aside from being asked to reconsider which we will not do.  I think our decisions have everything to do with the piling on comments by folks who never really participated AT ALL in any of the discussions on this board; but have tried to make this a personal vendetta against folks who were following the very same procedures you seem happy to follow on Literature by Women without the benefit of the moderator tools which would have prohibited you from doing what you say you absolutely MUST do.  For any of those of you who do not understand, I already had what I thought a pleasant discussion with dulcinea3 already and she seemed to understand; so I personally find her posting at this juncture rather odd.  In fact, I personally offered to help her, answer any of her questions and mentioned that I was only a PM away if there was something that Oldesq or I could do for her and to help.  We explained how difficult gaining any organization had been and the uphill climb that we experienced getting this to work.   Of course, dulcinea3 did not mention any of the above.  Now dulcinea3, please by all means post away on anything you like; aside from the fact that the new ADMIN concurred rightly so that this is not a place to discuss fiction of any kind including historical fiction and historical romance.  If you doubt my words, then please reach out to him (Jon_B).  
Now I got something off my chest too.
~Bentley 

 


As I recall, I told you that now that I understood your rules, I would not violate them again.  I have not; I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that I have.  I have not posted again from then until now, and I am posting, as ordered, on one of the off-topic threads.  I never said that I was going to open up a discussion about Henry VIII in an off-topic cafe, so to accuse me of not doing so is a bit ridiculous.  Quite honestly, my response to the first of your two posts, in which you instructed me at length on how the site is to be used, was a bit sarcastic, albeit politely veiled.  I don't recall anything being said in our exchange about how other boards are moderated, although you say that I acknowledged that; I don't believe that I did.

 

I have not said anything negative about you or Oldesq's job at organizing the book discussions, so, once again, your accusations are pointless.  And then you go on again to complain about my not participating in the Herodotus discussion!  Can you get it through your head - NOT EVERYONE IS INTERESTED!!!

 

"You, however, did not participate in any way at all, except from what I can see below pile on after the fact.

...

I think our decisions have everything to do with the piling on comments by folks who never really participated AT ALL in any of the discussions on this board..."

 

Look, I only innocently tried to participate in two threads that interested me, and I was ordered not to do so, because it was not allowed.  I did, in fact, participate in a straightforward way on two threads related to historical literature, and make relevant posts to the topics of those threads.  Apparently, because these threads were not sanctioned by you, this is the same in your eyes as never having participated at all.

 

The reason I decided to post on this thread is because being driven off like that really bothered me, and since it seemed that others were expressing similar views, I thought I would express my own feelings on the matter.

 

The way other boards are moderated seems of little relevance to me.  Contrary to what you say, I actually did post a topic on the Literature by Women board once, which was related to the book being discussed.  I was also told there that it was not allowed.  I decided to stay because they discuss many of my favorite authors.  That does not mean that I am completely happy that we cannot post ancillary topics.  Here, because my historical interests are limited, I chose to move on.  Quite honestly, I much prefer the way the Mystery board is run, where we have a moderated discussion on specific books, and at the same time we can discuss mysteries in general, as we have a love of the genre.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

dulcinea3 wrote

Quite honestly, I much prefer the way the Mystery board is run, where we have a moderated discussion on specific books, and at the same time we can discuss mysteries in general, as we have a love of the genre.

 

 

I regret that this whole situation got blown way out of proportion.

 

The simple reality is that there are two kinds of boards on this site.  One, call them Type A, where moderators have close control of what is discussed and how threads can be created and managed.  The Epics and Literature by Women boards are of this type.  These are in the minority.

 

Two, call them Type B, which, like the Mystery, General Fiction, and most other boards, are open boards, where there may or may not be a moderator managing a "main" discussion but the boards are open to others to discuss simultaneously other books or topics relevant to the board.

 

The problem is simply that BN set this history board up as a Type B board.  The volunteer moderators wanted it to function as a Type A board, but BN hadn't done that and declined requests to change the board that way.   You got caught up, as did others, in this conflict.  

 

I believe it's a shame that the volunteer moderators couldn't have simply continued their discussion under the acceptance that this was a type B board, and let other history buffs discuss their own interests freely.  But it's also a shame that this conflict had to blow up and cause such hard feelings and consternation, and certainly short term and perhaps long term damage to the quality of the board.   But this is BN's forum, and they have the right to make the rules, and it's our job and our privilege to engage in the most interesting discussions we have within the context of the rules and structure BN has set down.

 

Personally, I'm enormously grateful to BN for providing this forum at all. My life would be less rich if it didn't exist.  Even though I might make different decisions about how it should be run, I accept that it is theirs and that I should accept and follow their rules and procedures. 

 

And I'm also enormously grateful to all the volunteer moderators, including Oldesq and Bentley, who volunteer their time and efforts to make these boards and discussions as well organized and interesting as possible.  

 

I appreciate them all.  And I'm sorry that this conflict over the management of this board has come to the unfortunate end it apparently has.  

 
_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:



As I recall, I told you that now that I understood your rules, I would not violate them again.  I have not; I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that I have.  I have not posted again from then until now, and I am posting, as ordered, on one of the off-topic threads.  I never said that I was going to open up a discussion about Henry VIII in an off-topic cafe, so to accuse me of not doing so is a bit ridiculous.  Quite honestly, my response to the first of your two posts, in which you instructed me at length on how the site is to be used, was a bit sarcastic, albeit politely veiled.  I don't recall anything being said in our exchange about how other boards are moderated, although you say that I acknowledged that; I don't believe that I did.

 

I have not said anything negative about you or Oldesq's job at organizing the book discussions, so, once again, your accusations are pointless.  And then you go on again to complain about my not participating in the Herodotus discussion!  Can you get it through your head - NOT EVERYONE IS INTERESTED!!!

 

"You, however, did not participate in any way at all, except from what I can see below pile on after the fact.

...

I think our decisions have everything to do with the piling on comments by folks who never really participated AT ALL in any of the discussions on this board..."

 

Look, I only innocently tried to participate in two threads that interested me, and I was ordered not to do so, because it was not allowed.  I did, in fact, participate in a straightforward way on two threads related to historical literature, and make relevant posts to the topics of those threads.  Apparently, because these threads were not sanctioned by you, this is the same in your eyes as never having participated at all.

 

The reason I decided to post on this thread is because being driven off like that really bothered me, and since it seemed that others were expressing similar views, I thought I would express my own feelings on the matter.

 

The way other boards are moderated seems of little relevance to me.  Contrary to what you say, I actually did post a topic on the Literature by Women board once, which was related to the book being discussed.  I was also told there that it was not allowed.  I decided to stay because they discuss many of my favorite authors.  That does not mean that I am completely happy that we cannot post ancillary topics.  Here, because my historical interests are limited, I chose to move on.  Quite honestly, I much prefer the way the Mystery board is run, where we have a moderated discussion on specific books, and at the same time we can discuss mysteries in general, as we have a love of the genre.

 


Hello Dulcinea,
If you intend to pile on and quote extracts, I will continue to respond as I have a right to do no matter if you like it on not.  Like I said, You have never participated in any way so maybe you do not understand how positive an experience it could have been for you.
I do see that you have participated frequently in Literature by Women and they have the same rules and in fact the B&N software enforces the rules.
I think your posting after the fact and piling on when you have never been a participant odd and I must say negative to those who have enjoyed what Oldesq and I have done.  You are of course entitled to your opinions.  But as long as you post extracts, Oldesq and I have a right to say what is on our minds too.
I remember the exchange that I had with you only too well; via PMs.  It was unremarkable and you were markedly more pleasant than your previous note.  
It was as I said in my previous note; that is the version that I recall.  If you had something to say to me then; you could easily have said it via PM than posting your rather negative comments here after the fact.
In fact, you yourself indicated that possibly some might find your comments troublesome and I for one did; since you are not and never have been at any time a participant here.   So why now after the fact do you want to stir the post and make matters worse.  What positive outcome do you think that you will achieve?   
I could care less if anybody participates in the Herodotus discussion; maybe you haven't noticed; neither Oldesq or I plan to either.  If you want to, please do.  We won't be there.  :smileyhappy:   But if you like to, go ahead if there is one.   And as far as all caps, I do not need you to shout; but maybe that was not your intention.  
I would also suggest that if you have any problems with Literature by Women threads or Epics or any of the other reader moderator sites of which this was one (although we were strictly volunteers) ; that you make your complaints known there.  I think this is just a piling on after the fact by someone who never was involved at all even though you were personally invited by me and welcomed to participate; we explained the procedures we were using, how they were like the ones you were used to on Literature and Women and why.  I am sorry that you do not seem to remember.
I did not see the previous poster expressing similar views; in fact Everyman himself did not feel he was driven off, so I think you are alone in that viewpoint.  In fact, every person was welcomed and we explained the procedures, processes that we were following and why.. as well as the history of the board itself so that you would understand the frame of reference.
I did hear from TWJ as well asking for us to reconsider (which of course we will not); so I think you stand alone.   There have been no other folks posting negative comments like you have.
However, if you would like to stir the pot some more, please do; but do not quote me or I will respond in kind.  Not everyone is interested in your stirring the pot either.
~Bentley 
 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,372
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

You can repeat as many times as you want to that I have never participated on this board in any way, but my posts stand in those two threads for all to see.  They will see that I did in fact participate in good faith, responding and trying to be helpful to the people who started those threads.  I have nothing to be ashamed of there.  I don't think anyone would consider my posts on those threads to be "troublesome", and I most certainly never indicated that they might.

 

I think it is a bit strange that you seem to be saying that I was the first person to say anything, when I read about three or four pages of this discussion before I posted.  I was only affirming what others were saying.  I believe this is what you are referring to when you repeatedly say that I am "piling on".  How could I do that, if there were nothing to "pile on" to?

 

I have no doubts that you and Oldesq did a wonderful job of organizing and moderating discussions on specific books, and I never meant to imply anything else.  My complaint was the rather overbearing way in which all other historical lit discussions were quashed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:


dulcinea3 wrote:

You can repeat as many times as you want to that I have never participated on this board in any way, but my posts stand in those two threads for all to see.  They will see that I did in fact participate in good faith, responding and trying to be helpful to the people who started those threads.  I have nothing to be ashamed of there.  I don't think anyone would consider my posts on those threads to be "troublesome", and I most certainly never indicated that they might.

 

I think it is a bit strange that you seem to be saying that I was the first person to say anything, when I read about three or four pages of this discussion before I posted.  I was only affirming what others were saying.  I believe this is what you are referring to when you repeatedly say that I am "piling on".  How could I do that, if there were nothing to "pile on" to?

 

I have no doubts that you and Oldesq did a wonderful job of organizing and moderating discussions on specific books, and I never meant to imply anything else.  My complaint was the rather overbearing way in which all other historical lit discussions were quashed.


Dulcinea3,
You have not participated in this board on any  book discussion at any time.  We all know about your two posts in ancillary threads; because you have told us that multiple times.
Second, we welcomed you via PM and offered our assistance and you were remarkably more pleasant than these latest posts; you chose not to participate in the discussions (that is OK too); but you did not participate in any of the books historically here.  We also explained that this was a volunteer co-moderated site emulating Epics and Literature by Women (following the same procedures).
If Oldesq and I ever knew that we were not going to follow those procedures then I doubt we would have participated in the first place; we have a finite amount of time to devote.  We also requested on behalf of other interested participants a separate non fiction site not associated with NYHS to avoid any confusion.  Nobody got any response; yet we received permission to moderate My Early Life which we did.  It was very difficult trying to clean up the mess that the board was left in (abandoned) and we did a credible job.  Your personal attacks are not welcome by me since the folks who understood and discussed the processes ahead of time were comfortable with them.  
If you are referring to others (please enumerate).  Are you referring to Everyman? He explained his version above.  Are you referring to Choisya and Timbuktu (they have been very complementary)? Are you referring to TWJ who sent private notes to both Oldesq and I asking us to reconsider? Who are you referring to that has been so mean as to continue to pile on against two people who did their best without moderator tools and without any support whatsoever from B&N.  Please identify these mysterious people who have posted here.
We used the same practices as Epics and Literature by Women and I welcome you to comment to both Melissa and Laurel and the First Look reader moderators about their overbearing ways when frankly they are the ones doing the work and spending the time and not you.  When folks volunteer their time to moderate they must be responsible to the threads and to the board; they have a finite time to devote.  Any one can see why the reader moderator boards have the rules that they do.  They only make sense to move the discussions along and to make it easier for the moderators to do their jobs.  Even the ADMINS on this site have moved posts and have cleaned up ancillary threads when NYHS was resident here.  The point of the matter is that you feel you can come here and throw your weight around after what occurred showing us complete disrespect after the fact and after this issue has ended.  
And I will respond to you each and every time.  If fact, now you have been here more after the demise of this board than before.  I guess you are happy with the result even though others are not.  I am not particularly pleased either because the real participants; folks who came here to discuss the books that they are reading have been the injured parties and the two moderators that helped out.
It appears that you want to openly attack me etc.  Go ahead and I will respond in kind.  Also if you like the Mystery board better and like how that is handled better than Epics and Literature by Women; I am sure that you are welcome to go wherever you would like.  We all have that choice; but coming here to complain about us is unwelcome by me considering you are another one who has never complained on the Literature by Women site and if it wounds you so much that you cannot post your ancillary threads; by all means complain there too.  Maybe you will be able to accomplish what one person was able to accomplish here; maybe those moderators will quit too.  I think you have to ask yourself what positive contribution did you make here? I can honestly say none.
~Bentley 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,372
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

I guess that the previous several pages were all a hallucination on my part; I thought I was continuing a discussion that had already started.

 

I never posted any ancillary threads here, only responded to them because they interested me.  As for a positive contribution, if the person requesting suggestions for biographies on Mary Tudor has come back to see if there were any responses, then they might think that my giving them several suggestions was a positive contribution; the person who posted the thread on Henry VIII seemed to be interested in continuing the discussion, so I think that they also would say that my contribution was positive.

 

I assume you are using the royal "we", since you are the only one with whom I had contact over the matter, either here or via PM.  If I am somewhat less pleasant now, I am responding in kind.

 

Just whom were you referring to as "troublemakers" on your post that I originally quoted, if it was not the people who participated in those two threads?  And I think there may be one more "ancillary" thread.  I found being referred to as a "troublemaker" quite insulting, as I never did anything wrong here and was never uncomplimentary or negative towards you in any way, on those threads or via PM.  Talk about disrespect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

Dulcinea3,
I think your post after the fact was piling on and you were indeed very disrespectful.  I am defending our efforts and honestly we have heard from you more in the last day than the board has ever heard from you in its entire history.   I feel you have attacked me personally and the moderators as a whole.  
The matter was closed before you showed up again and you yourself knew in fact how this might be taken (you only have to look at your closing comments); there was no question you were getting in your swipes against the moderators and the same rules that were being followed on the Literature by Women board you frequent all of the time.
Now after the moderators closed up shop; and after the matter was closed; you show up today for the first time to have another go at it, at them and at me!!
I did not think you were a troublemaker when you never contributed to My Early Life (I had never heard of you before your 4 line post on an ancillary thread); nor did I think you were a troublemaker when you did not understand the rules of this board; I communicated with you via PM and alerted you to what we were trying to do and why; this was very much like you were reminded of the rules of Literature by Women by that moderator: rules which by the way you have abided by (same rules) unlike here; and I might add that before your first post here I had thought that you were pleasant and you were most apologetic at the time.  
I think these posts and their attacks on me show what a troublemaker might look like "to me". That is my opinion.
You have to remember that this matter was closed; the moderators had moved on and were not coming back; so why the swipes now.  It is pretty obvious why! 
"We" referred to the co-moderators....(Oldesq and myself were co-moderators - you are even not familiar with that fact!). 
Like I said, dissembling has many disguises and I am surprised you have not been able to ruin the wonderful Literature by Women board by now; but then again the reason you gave for being quiet there was that the books interested YOU.
The only difference between that board and here (the rules were the same) is that the B&N software prohibited you from doing what you wanted over there and still does; and B&N stated up front over there that they felt that the ancilary threads took away from moving the discussion of the book along.  
The main difference was enforcement and software on the part of B&N.  Other than that we were following the same rules relying solely on the goodwill, common sense, cooperation and intelligence of the participants.  We did not get this from you; but we did get it from the readers of the selection.
As far as I am concerned, I have responded to you and there is no need to keep reopening the past; this situation was already closed and in the past when you decided to reopen it.  We the moderators had moved on; before you started to reopen the wound.  You are once again late to the party and I think the lights will be turned out soon but we (Oldesq and myself) have already left of our own accord.  
~Bentley 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
dulcinea3
Posts: 4,372
Registered: ‎10-19-2006

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

The discussion was going on into the wee hours of the day on which I posted, and you had been having the discussion for almost three days.  When you said that the people who had posted on the Tudor threads were troublemakers and further accused us of having no real interest in the Tudors at all and only posting on those threads to stir up trouble, that was just too much.  In my opinion, your outrageous accusations constituted much more of a personal attack than anything I have said.  Even the things you have said about my in your replies to my posts are much more insulting and rude than I have been.  In addition, I see that you have been unecessarily rude and insulting to others, such as the new admin, and Everyman.

 

As a person who was personally affected by the issue being discussed (whether we could post on other topics), and was being maligned like that, I certainly felt, and still do feel, that it was my right to respond, say what had happened, and how it made me feel.

 

On another thread, I see that you have now accused me of saying negative things about your book discussions themselves.  Please point me towards these alleged slurs.  I do not believe I have disparaged your book discussions in any way; in fact, I said that I thought that you and Oldesq had most likely done an excellent job at organizing them.  My only complaints have been about your treatment of people who wanted to discuss other topics relating to historical literature.  It appears that B&N totally sanctions such discussions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Dame of the Land of Oz, Duchess of Fantasia, in the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia; also, Poet Laureate of the Kingdom of Wordsmithonia
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Όμορφη συνομιλία με πολλούς φίλους:

I see you are still posting away and try to fan the fires of discontent.  I think it is pretty clear what fire you are stoking; think about it..you have never posted but two posts on ancillary threads that were non contributory to any current or past book discussion here and each were about four lines long.
You seem to be remarkably animated about trying to pile on me.  Like I said your statements and intent are quite clear, meanspirited and cruel.   Never mind being untrue.
~Bentley 

 

Contributor
Ray_Osborne153
Posts: 16
Registered: ‎12-31-2008
0 Kudos

How do you get a book discussion going on American Presidents?

[ Edited ]

I would like to get a book discussion going on John W. Dean's new book, Warren G. Harding (The American Presidents Series by Time Books. ISBN-13: 9780805069563

 

How does one do that? be nice to invite the author to the discussion to.

 

Thanksin advance for your help.

 

-Ray Osborne

Live from Cape Canaveral.

 

 

 

 

 

Message Edited by Ray_Osborne153 on 01-08-2009 06:51 PM