I just removed that comment Micheala, but this is just the kind of thing that comes from Peter's "banter" with other posters which is why I want to end all this right now.
This is the kind of thing that comes from many of your posters flaming me, and Peter first and foremost, and I will not tolorate it!!! You are letting some of your posters say whatever they like, while at the same time censuring Peter. His comment which you deleted this morning was not offensive in any way, and in fact was an attempt at peace making, and you deleted it!
I told you I was standing down today, and now you are doing the same thing you accuse the government of doing when people don't fight for their freedoms, you are limiting Peter's freedom. I don't fight and you take away freedoms.
Gosh, must this go on Michaela? I told you why I deleted Peter's post- because he stated his intention to:
"continue to defend those under attack undeservedly, and banter with those that verbally attack me".
Well I've had quite enought "banter" here- this is not a forum for "bantering" each other and I intent that it will be stopped if I have to ban everyone who continues to do it.
Does this statement really deserve banning? "continue to defend those under attack undeservedly, and banter with those that verbally attack me".
How about banning those who attack? He only responds to those who attack, as is always what happens to me, Nat! Ban me! Ban Melissa! Cindiee! Nicky! Meredith! I mean come on Nat, these have all given plenty of grief here. This didn't used to happen! An it isn't because of Peter! People have been giving me plenty of shyte for some time now. Why is that?
Well thats the thing, Michaela, it seems to be you and Peter vs. everyone else here. I don't recall Melissa or Cindiee or Nicky or Meredith flaming each other. The problem seems to be between everyone else and you or Peter. Does this suggest something?
It suggests that if you are a conservative you aren't a card carrying member of the club! So get the hell out or we will all be nasty with you! This is what it says to me. Y'all don't want to hear from anyone with a differing point of view.
hey michaela,
i've been gone for awhile and i'm interested to know what conservative perspectives you and peter have that others on this forum disagree with.
Michaela, the purpose of this forum is to discuss brafreedom and topfreedom-
not to "banter" with other posters which Peter clearly stated he intended to do.
Peter may enjoy verbal jousting- but I don't, and I don't think others here do either.
I have never seen peter's or michaela's posts as offensive, nor a general opposition of them both vs the other regular contributors.
Expression of disagreement with former posts is an elementary right in a forum. Of course the tone can get a bit stronger when one strongly disagrees, or feels personally attacked.
As the forum owner you may sometimes want to calm down, or ask people to return on track. Deleting posters should be very exceptional... I did not see the one(s) you deleted, but I have never seen one of peter which deserved deletion.
Before you elevate Meredith to sainthood you might want to take the time to research what was going on when Peter called him a warped confused man. You and Meredith have deliberately taken one statement Peter made out of context so that you can make a case against him. This statement was made after Meredith had called me un-American and a tyrant. The conversation went on very long and Meredith read into my statements what he wanted and twisted absolutely everything I said to confound, accuse and attack me. Peter joined into the conversation in a most intelligent manner and finally in exasperation said what he said. Meredith is no saint and you are not looking at both sides here.
You think that Peter and I are the reason that breast freedom is not discussed here any longer. This is not true. We have been involved in many conversations where politics and religion get discussed at length, and we have purposefully stayed out of some of the political conversations so that we would not be accused of being the ones keeping the forum off topic. Do the research and you will see. We are not the only ones who can’t stay on topic around here.
But you seem to want to have a forum where only liberal posters participate. I don’t see why there can’t be differing views in any and all discussions, and you have said it your self many times, religion and politics play a huge role in body freedom. It would be pretty dull around here if everyone said exactly the same thing every day.
As for Peter’s remark to Meredith, if you were to do more research you would also see where Peter was called many things by many people. And not because he flamed them first, but because he disagreed with them. You left L’s remark to Peter on the forum for two days before I said something to you about it. If I hadn’t said anything you might have just left it there. How is that supposed to help this forum? Was Peter just supposed to ignore everyone’s insults and slams? You would not ignore it you were the one being flamed.
If you do not consider what I am saying in this post, or delete me again, than you are no better than the FCC. Maybe someone here might be interested in what I have to say, but if you delete my post how can any of us come to any understandings?
I saw Peter's post, wrote a reply, and posted that. The new display didn't show either Peter's post or my reply. I had saved the page before doing the post, just in case something got lost, so I have looked back at what he and I wrote.
His post had six paragraphs, some long, and the only thing I see being criticized was the final, rather short paragraph. The rest of it appears to SUPPORT Nat's position, and I can't see any reason why Nat just didn't remove the final paragraph.
Peter started by saying:
< There has in the past year or so on this forum a tendency to lean towards the very thing we are trying to battle here, intolerance. >
I strongly agree with this, and I thought that Nat also agreed with this. I read the entire post carefully, couldn't find any paragraph that I disagreed with, and said so in my reply. (Which got lost; I was tired and didn't save things quite right.)
My criticism was that Peter, while recognizing the problem and stating it clearly, was also contributing to it. I'm sure that I'm guilty of that sometimes too.
I agree with Nat that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. But that is the same thing that Peter was saying. They just disagree about how it should be fixed, and I think that they are both wrong.
Note what it says when you enter the forum:
< This is a forum for those who believe that a woman should have the same body freedom as a man and should not have to confine her breasts in cloth bags called bras or hide them when a man is free to enjoy the warm sun and cool breezes on his chest. >
To promote this body freedom, BFF needs to do several things, and it used to do them better than it has recently.
1. It needs to offer advice and support to new posters who need it. The more women who get rid of their bras, the easier it will be for BFF to promote its cause. This hasn't been working well lately.
2. It needs to examine the causes of the lack of body freedom for women, and what can be done about it. I've never seen this work well, and I think that one of the big problems is a lot like one that I remember from the Vietnam war days. Then, there were a lot of people with the "My country, right or wrong" attitude. Today, its become "My party, right or wrong." There need to be more people like one of my friends, who said that the people who said "my country, right or wrong" were confusing their government with their country. He thought that the only way he could be loyal to his country was by opposing its government.
3. It needs to find some way to encourage legal action where that is appropriate. I've never seen that happen. For example, I live in Washington state. Here, we have had, since 1973, a constitutional amendment banning government discrimination based on sex, and most discriminatory state laws were repealed in 1973. However, some local ones are still on the books and I've never seen a topfree woman in public. A good attorney should be able to do a lot for women here, but haven't seen anything happen since 1973.
Understand that it was not this post that I had a problem with, but many that had come before. I had decided long ago that Peter was disruptive to this forum. He seems to like to "banter" (his word) with other posters and has cause several to leave, the last being Meredith. I would have banned him long ago if doing so would not have blocked Michaela, who I assumed used the same computer. When she indicated via email that she didn't intend to post anymore, I saw no more reason to keep what I saw was a disrupted influence.
Note that I do not taking banning posters casually. In the 8 years that I have run internet forums (several besides this one) I have only banned two other posters. It takes a lot to get me to the point I will do this, but Peter has done it.
When I saw the post in which Peter said he would banter with attackers, I thought he meant to engage them in playful conversation... isn't that what banter is, playful conversation, done with good humor?
You really consider someone calling someone a warped old man as offensive???
wow to me that is incrediably intolerant. To me it's just someone's opinion... no biggie. And I could see that as being very playful in some cases. (maybe not this case - but some)
but I do agree the tone of a conversation or post has much much more influence as to what is offensive than the actual words are.
Of course if you want the forum to stay on topic, simple include that in the outline for the forum - state specifically what your looking for, what's allowed, what is not allowed, what topics or etc. are not permitted... this I would imagine would do several things ...
1) it does give those who come here and post a sense of what
is acceptable
2) it keeps the forum on topic
3) it states and allows the forum moderator the authority and
clear direction to delete a post or poster if violations occur.
BFF has always been a informal conversational forum and I don't mind if we occasionally stray off the topic of breast freedom if it's something posters are interested in discussing. When I go to my local ham radio club meeting we often stand around chatting about the weather, or sports, or cars, or whatever is on people's minds, in addition to ham radio, and I think that is typical of most clubs.
But one thing I do insist on is that we treat each other in a civil manner. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to gage emotion and intent with written words over the internet, and I allow for that, but when I judge that someone has crossed the line I'll blow the whistle and call a foul- to use a sport metaphor.
We had a rocky time here for a few days, but I think we clear the air and all is well now.
Yes, I agree with you about many of Peter's past posts. My problem was that this was one of the few times when I thought that he was in the right, and I didn't think that was the right post to remove.
My primary concern then and now is getting BFF back to where it is more useful to women who have become interested in either not wearing a bra or going topless and who are looking for a support group. At the same time, I see the need for promoting legal challenges to discrimination against women in this regard, or anywhere else it occurs.
Do you think that it would be useful to split BFF into two related forums, one devoted to the short-term goal of supporting women with their current problem--I remember this was more common when I started reading BFF in late 2003 than it is now--and the other devoted to the long-term goal of improving the legal status of women in regard to breast freedom? I'm not at all sure that it would work, but I think that something needs to be done.
BFF was a big help to me when I was trying to get my wife to stop wearing a bra; I couldn't have succeeded without the information I found here. If I'd found it a year later, I wouldn't have found it useful, but the resource list would have directed me to what I needed. I would have been glad to find that, but wouldn't have set a bookmark for BFF.
And yes, I do understand that you don't have an easy job moderating a forum. I wouldn't want to do it.
When Michaela and I found this forum, it was completely different. More practical and less political. It offered more nuts and bolts so to speak and that was great. Theories are great and have their place, but activism and support are what changes things(hopefully for the better)
I forgot to thank you last evening for removing the comment. Thank you! Though I don't agree to the reason it was made. Perhaps it could be that there are rude people in the world? Peter isn't rude. If you only knew him, you would see this. He is a peace keeper and a care giver. He also happens to be named after the Apostle Peter who was a man given to passionate reactions. Remember the ear removal in the garden when Jesus was arrested? My Peter is aware of how he resembles that quality. He is working on that.
Michaela, you should have gone into law! You would have made a great defense attorney!
I will give Peter another chance because I think it was unfair of me to have not warned him before taking action.
But I really am tired of all this fighting among posters and if it starts up again I going to crack the whip on everyone who is doing it.
So consider Peter unbanned, warned, and on probation and we'll see how things go.
Thank you Nat! I do appreciate you reconsidering this. I do hope that whenever 'anyone' gets bantor-ie they will also be corrected, as this was my reason for writing to you that email epistle yesterday. I do NOT like the attacks and creepyness that has been going on here any better than you. I love to have these great discussions about all the things we talk about, even if we disagree. I just like folks to mind their manners. Please remember that you and Peter discussed emailing each other the last time there was a snafu. He would like you to do that still should there ever be a problem.
