Hi Dave,

As I said in my previous post the damage has been done and we lost a good member and the discussion is moot for that reason alone.

I just want to clarify 2 points.

1. My reference to Mark's being antagonistic towards you was in regard to what you wrote

Quote:
When you put it on the wall, in the public space, you are inviting comments, and there have been a few mentions of your antagonistic posts to me personally.

2. You said:

Quote:
But I will say that if someone had been antagonistic towards YOU, I would have asked them the same questions.[/quote] If anyone was antagonistic towards me I wouldn't expect you to say anything since I am quite capable of taking care of myself.

Shalom,

Peter

[quote]

Peter,

Really? You read the entire situation? Then you would know that I was not the one that Mark was being antagonistic towards, but others. I just asked why he was acting so towards them. You would also know that his questions were answered, by 2 people with more knowledge of that area than me.

It's easy to take things out of context, and by quoting only part of this situation, that is exactly what ya'll are doing here. Marks questions WERE answered, by Diane, the blog manager, and by Bogdan. HE still chose to go off on a tiffy and act like a child.

Now, I've tried to lay this to rest at least 3 times, and ya'll keep bringing it back up and pointing the finger at me. That's fine, believe what you will. YOU were not involved in the situation, I was. Yes, it could have been handled better, by everyone involved. But I will say that if someone had been antagonistic towards YOU, I would have asked them the same questions.

You may not have liked how I handled it, and that's fine. But enough is enough. Point fingers at me if you want.

Quote:

Hello Evelyn & Dave,

Dave, I too saw the posts Evelyn pasted in here (and a few earlier ones) and the subsequent “discussion” between you and Mark. One thing stands out in my opinion and that is that the questions Mark raised weren't answered. I didn't know you were a moderator but don't you think a moderator's job is to answer questions if asked?

Instead of answering the questions you claimed he was being antagonistic towards you which is a way of changing the subject and making it a personal issue rather then a discussion on the issues Mark raised.

As I said in my first post here I definitely have a feeling of deja vu. Since Mark left there is no need IMHO to continue this discussion since the damage has been done and ALP lost a good member.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:

Mary,

That is ONE situation out of several. You would have to scroll back even further to see the other postings. There are conversations that were not on the main wall about this also. Bogdan knows about this situation, and he also talked to Mark about it. There is no "bad" guy here.

You are drawing your conclusions from this ONE posting, and if this is all you saw, then I can see where you drew that conclusion from.

However, there was more to it than just this one conversation. But, it is over and done with as I said. Let's move on and stop beating a dead horse.

Quote:

David is this the wall conversation you were referring to?? I had to scroll through a lot of posts before I found this and I am only pasting in the posts between you and Mark with the others names deleted, and to be honest, I found this very telling. You're right, we need to move on but first I wanted everyone to see this and let them draw their own conclusion, just as I did.

Quote:
Mark Dewey: 5 days ago

Word for Word Copied Articles Are Being Accepted!
I will start a new topic of discussion about the Blogs platform. I seen the new article by Dave and noticed how well and to the point this article was and as fas as I know it was an original. But here is the issue I am now seeing and to my understanding all articles submitted will have first checked for quality and delivering on the topic. This is a little questionable but the real reason is copied articles that are all ready online and put here and that is now a copy. Did you not do your search to see if this is not already online? I had a feeling about one contributor that was doing just that. Making new Blogs with copied and some word for word that is online already. To me that falls into the exact violation that was not supposed to happen. Are you just missing this or does it not get checked out? So this understanding even though I write and publish an article of information I can then bring it here and make publication again? I doubled and tripled check this as to making sure I was right before posting. no names at this time but if you want to see the proof, I will show you.

Mark Dewey: 5 days ago
If articles where checked to make sure they where not already publicized, There would be several that did not follow the rules. Are you not doing your job or how is this happening?

David Rowland: 4 days ago
Mark, not trying to start a fight, but it seems like you've got a problem with ***** for some reason? A lot of your comments make it look like your angry at *** for some reason? The same with a lot of your comments about another person here also.
If you want to question whether someone is doing their job, wouldn't it be better to do so in a private conversation first to find out what is going on, instead of interrogating them on the wall like you think something ulterior is going on?

Mark Dewey: 4 days ago
David this is exactly why things start. If you have something to say about the topic go for it, if you don't stay out of it. When I said are you not check or looking into this is it because I looked once and to my understanding if the article was already posted it was not aloud. But as *** has explained that it does not mater how many times the article is posted elsewhere it can be published again here. so I questioned why and if it was missed. To ******, I am not reading anything with what ever you are thinking it is the fact that these are considered a copy of work placed else where. If this is aloud and is the case then the next issue is duplicate content being published in more then one place and that will effect ranking for one or more sources. Bogdan did the same thing a while back and jumped in and started something that was not true. I cleared all issues and aired all problems with doing this to the parties involved and was not put in your lap as it has nothing to do with you.

The point is it is duplicate content and how is this right, was it missed, or it does not mater.

David Rowland: 4 days ago

Mark, I did have something to say about the "topic" of the way you posted. If you don't want others to comment on something, then don't put it on the wall, ask it in private. When you put it on the wall, in the public space, you are inviting comments, and there have been a few mentions of your antagonistic posts to me personally.

You guys wanted me to continue as a moderator, so yea, I am saying something about it. I'm not saying don't ask questions, or make comments, I'm asking you to consider HOW you ask them so that they don't sound so antagonistic towards folks. I would think you would understand that Mark.

Mary,

This happened on the chat wall, over several days. I am not going to spend my time trying to find the posts. If you really want to search the wall for posts about it, that is up to you, but frankly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I have better things to do with my time than to search back thru several weeks of postings on the wall to show you where he was being antagonistic.

Bogdan knows about the situation, as do many other people who post on the wall every day, and read the wall every day. Instead of beating a dead horse to death, let's just move on. Mark will either come back, or he won't. I don't hold a grudge against him, and neither does anyone else.

We all need to move on, and let by gones be by gones.

Quote:

David can you please tell who Mark was targeting? If you don't want to name names would you please tell me where I can read about this, for instance give me the dates, forums or where ever it happened?? You're portraying a whole different side of Mark from what I've witnessed. Seeing is believing and to be honest I would have to see it for myself so please point me in the direction where this was supposed to have happened. Thank you.

.

Quote:

Mary,

That's not quite how things happened. Mark was targeting some folks with some pretty antagonistic comments, and people called him on it. He got upset and made himself a member of the "shunned club" by his own actions.

Yes, he has been very helpful in a lot of ways, but that doesn't excuse bad behaviour. He was acting poorly, he got called on it, and HE chose to stop interacting here. No one forced him to delete his posts, tell people not to use his images, make his profile private, and stop interacting with anyone at all here. HE chose to take those actions, not us. We told him we didn't want him to leave, HE chose to do so.

Hello Evelyn & Dave,

Dave, I too saw the posts Evelyn pasted in here (and a few earlier ones) and the subsequent “discussion” between you and Mark. One thing stands out in my opinion and that is that the questions Mark raised weren't answered. I didn't know you were a moderator but don't you think a moderator's job is to answer questions if asked?

Instead of answering the questions you claimed he was being antagonistic towards you which is a way of changing the subject and making it a personal issue rather then a discussion on the issues Mark raised.

As I said in my first post here I definitely have a feeling of deja vu. Since Mark left there is no need IMHO to continue this discussion since the damage has been done and ALP lost a good member.

Shalom,

Peter

Quote:
In this place where people don't like to see ads/sellers, we seem to be sold a line of goods from time to time that have nothing to do with advertising. I think I'll start a blog around here somewhere, I'm a great original writer.