|
In Reply to: What is your part in all this Alan? posted by I read it on November 14, 2004 at 12:33:37:
Well, first of all, I didn't say it was "friends" of Acheick who requested that she come back to post on this board, it was the coordinators, and if you read through the posts made by Roger and WC, you will find where they invited Acheick to have her farewell message posted, as long as she was willing to respond to posts from others.
You ask what is my "agenda?" Only that Acheick and Kathy get a fair shake from WC. It was never the intent of either of these ladies to hurt this web site, nor is that my intent.
These ladies have valid concerns about the direction of exfamily.org, but their voices have been suppressed.
A third party posted Acheick's farewell message, but it was "temporarily" removed with the explanation that the coordinators first wanted to hear from Acheick that she had authorized public posting of her farewell message.
Fair enough, but after Acheick contacted the coordinators and told them it was okay to post it, WC suddenly changed his mind. Now Acheick would have to be willing to respond to posts regarding her farewell message.
When Acheick indicated a willingness to do this, WC threw up yet another obstacle. Now both Acheick and Carol would have to be willing to engage in board debate about these issues. Of course, Carol wasn't willing to come back, and WC knew this. He said as much in one of his posts.
Then as a final obstacle, WC makes use of the non-disclosure rule to bury everything.
Acheick revealed nothing in her latest post that violated a non-disclosure rule for staffers, and her message was mostly positive about exfamily.org, yet WC arbitrarily deleted her message.
This deletion of her post has caused Acheick to decide never to post on exfamily.org again.
When three staffers resign from exfamily.org within a few days of each other, that's not a good sign. I want to see this organization continue and flourish, but the actions taken by WC are counterproductive.
