Capitol Hill Blue Forums Science and Technology Health, Medicine & the healing Sciences Congress must reverse Fermilab cuts

G'night BamaMama - may our "hopes" and dreams be fulfilled.

One last thing, where in the world, Rick, is that Emerald Bowl being played in San Francisco? I think it is a converted tennis court.

All of these minor bowls have been good match-ups so far in that the games have been close.

That Maryland head coach has been seriously chowing down on some supersized meals. As I turned off the TV the game was about to begin the 4th quarter with a 14-14 tie.

Our son who lives in Houston works with some graduates of LSU. They just don't understand when he tells them that his mom only loves it when her team is winning 35-0 and still doesn't want the opponents to make any 3rd down conversions.

Nite, Nite

Kathy

It's being played at ATT&T Park - home to the SF Giants.

Phil, apparently you have been elected spokesman for the moderators on this issue. And they all agree that the rules as written and as interpreted are totally inflexible. That the wishes of board members are not to be considered once you have made your collective decision. My concern is that the health of this forum has suffered because a decision was made in anger. You picked the fight with Hatrack. You got pissed. He got banned. Fermi got banned because he was caught up in the middle. An innocent bystander, so to speak.
Moderators, in my opinion, should remain moderate. Much like the cheap shot you just took at Issodhos (and Irked) you were firing away at the Senator and calling one of his political heroes(former President Reagan) a murderer. At this point a moderator should have stepped in, instead the moderator at hand threw fuel on the fire and everyone got burned.

Bryan was one of the few individuals I have known in my life who espoused many opinions that are considered "inflexible" and yet was willing to examine his opinions, and more than that, to allow a group of very intelligent, articulate and persuasive people to examine his opinions. And comment on them.

He had a lot of courage.

At the time he was banned, we were having a PM conversation about . . . err, the issue at hand. He had just got through asking me, IMHO in all sincerity, why his stated position caused such an angry reaction. I truly believed that he truly didn't get it, and replied to him honestly.

I don't know where that conversation might have gone. I regret that.

Or, as Oscar Wilde once said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

Greger - So far as I know, no one has "elected a spokesperson" for the moderators; if they did, they did not ask me. Further, no one asked me my opinion of your statement of the rules. I very much doubt that I would give an answer.

Please do not assume that you know how all the moderators stand.

My understanding is that the issue of banning can best be resolved by the person who was banned, and I've left the issue at that.

I'll suggest to all that past history, including discussions between mods, admins, and past ranters y'all are ranting about were not simple thumbs up/thumbs down discussions. The rules, the history (not one simple event) and the discussions among all parties led to the decisions made.

As I recall, there was an initial point to this thread, and at least two of three "on topic" responses. It'd be nice to stick to that point.

The point to this thread is and has always been Fermis Banning. The actual title was a bit of subterfuge to bring an uncomfortable situation out into the open. You may sweep it under the rug if you wish but it will not soon go away.
The one single event regardless of all rules, discussions etc. was the banning of Hatrack and Fermi. We have asked politely that you reconsider your decision. We have been told that "it just doesn't work that way folks". Inflexible. We have chosen to speak for our friends because perhaps they are too hurt or angry to come begging to you for reconsideration. You voted them off the Island, only you can vote them back on. You can vote my ass off the island for insubordination and it won't make a bit of difference, I'm a newb here anyway. Hell, vote us all off the island and the moderators win! Toys and prizes all around! but no one left to moderate.

With so many skilled lawyers on the mod board, one might think that at least the appearance of impartiality would be considered.

If one of the mods was an actual very angry participant in the "discussion" that lead to the bannings, one would certainly have hoped that such an individual would have recused him/herself, or been recused by cooler heads, from any further diciplinary proceedings, rather than possibly take on a role of judge, jury, or prosecutor.

But maybe we as a society are just getting accustomed to a more Gonzales style appearance of fairness as a standard, though recognizing that RR is certainly not bound by any such guidelines.

You are making many assmptions without any evidence. The deliberations of Moderators is private and will not be discussed here.

I will say that I never act as a Moderator when I am personally involved.