mrchad9 wrote:And Bob, I respect much of what you have done here... but I never suggested anything close to a wrecking ball. I said if you didn't build a page you shouldn't have rights to it. BIG difference. You are intentionally distorting my comments just as Scott distorted my ideas when we were discussing a dynamic section for open user additions. You didn't see me intentionally distorting your views. And you are the only one that played the 'it needs to be this way or I'm leaving' card. My opinion of your approach has changed. Just not good form I think.
You have every right to disagree with me, but I object to your statement that Scott and I, and anyone else for that matter, are intentionally distorting your statements, just as I object to your publicly deciding what Brian Kalet's motives are for having certain pages.
To me, you are trying to apply a wrecking ball because you seem to want to apply your idea immediately and retroactively with no fair warning and no fair chance. It is that aspect to which I object. Scott and I have principled objections to some of your ideas, and since you stated them openly, we are responding openly in turn; I would have preferred to see this issue raised in a private forum or through email among the staff, not this way. You seem to be taking our principled objection as a personal impugnation, which it is not.
If we are misrepresenting you, perhaps it is not due to malice or stupidity but due to the way you have presented your positions.
And I am not taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach. If SP is going to move in a direction I don't feel comfortable with, then I feel I should be out of the way. Getting out of the way is different from trying to stop it. I have stated my opinions. My preference is to follow Matt's idea and start right now from scratch. If, instead, we just start taking pages from active members without making a fresh start and giving them a fair chance, then I just do not want to be a part of that.