[Imc-web] Re: Your Off Topic Posts

[Mike Lehman]

Anna,
I am unsure what "commission" you are referring to in this comment you made:

"I can't predict whether I would chose to continue to post my comments 
on IMC board or to wait for the upcoming commission, which is fast 
coming to investigate the more that unhealthy attitude of this board, 
and its more than undemocratic and simply not permissible ways of 
editorial handling."

If you are referring to what "BobbyLee," who is in fact Jack Ryan (a 
person who is a banned troll on UC IMC), had to say, I can tell you he 
is full of crap and not to be believed about anything. He certainly has 
no authority to investigate us, even if he had the courage to make his 
identity public.

The UC IMC Steering group is the only one that has authority to hear any 
complaints you may have. That is why I have invited you to address it a 
number of times already and am inviting you again to address it. The 
next meeting will be at 8pm on Jan. 20.

You are wrong when you assert that the IMC "...IS PUBLIC DOMAIN, not 
PRIVATE DOMAIN..." We are NOT a public or government organization and 
your use of the website is subject to the rules we make, not how you 
wish they were.

As for written policy, obviously policy has to be written in a general 
fashion to cover a wide range of cases. I can tell you, again, that 
according to current interpretations of our website policies, you are in 
violation, as I have repeatedly told you and as you have just as 
repeatedly ignored.

You have concerns about how the policy is applied to others. The 
Steering group, again, is who you have to take up your concerns with. 
 From what I have seen, there is no one else who has repeatedly and 
consistently dissed your posts. It is true that a number of people have 
posted various objections which is their right since we allow comments 
to every article, but the number of just out and out insults has been 
minimal and those who have done so have not made it a practice to post 
such comments to each and every one of your posts, which is what you 
have been doing that, in fact, violates our policies.

I can also tell you that is is very likely that most of the comments you 
most object to, and of which I have even hidden some, were in fact made 
by the same Jack Ryan/BobbyLee who you think is supporting you. He is a 
troll and your responding to him just encourages him, although his posts 
are now deleted when they are observed.

I'll also note here that we usually don't apply our policies, even if 
someone obviously violates them in any individual post, unless there is 
a clear and consistent pattern of violation. That is why the occasional 
violations that you claim others are culpable of do not result in 
snactions on them, because they do NOT make a _habit_ of such 
violations. Since you HAVE established such a clear and consistent 
pattern of violations, despite my repeated warnings about it, that is 
why YOU are faced with sanctions. We prefer to be flexible at first, but 
if that doesn't bring results, then, yes, we can be harsh and that is 
where we are at with you.

I can tell you that people are allowed to object in comments to the 
factual errors that your posts are rife with and we will do nothing 
about that. Any people who develop a habit, like you have towards many 
of our volunteers, of repeatedly posting false and libelous comments 
will be treated just the way you are. In most cases, the comments that 
you find objectionable are far more truthful than the many baseless 
accusations you make against others.
Mike Lehman


Anna Epelbaum wrote:

> Mr. Mike Lehman:
> In number of addressed to you personally e-mails, as well as, in some 
> discussions with you through the board's comments, I have indicated a 
> number of times following:
> 1. at the very least 98% of all my comments are "ON TOPIC", which might 
> be easily conformed by any unbiased beholder;
> 2. I have never found in your board's rules the description of 
> "policies", which, according to your (and sometimes other editors notes) 
> I have been violating;
> 3. You  explanations in writing about these rules are obviously 
> inapplicable to many other people and their comments, and, specifically, 
> to the people and comments, which are attacking me and /or main cause, I 
> and my husband have been promoting on this web. Therefore (among other 
> reasons), I am not able to consider them as a legitimate instruction;
> 4. Summarizing all of the above, I can't predict whether I would chose 
> to continue to post my comments on IMC board or to wait for the upcoming 
> commission, which is fast coming to investigate the more that unhealthy 
> attitude of this board, and its more than undemocratic and simply not 
> permissible ways of editorial handling. In any occasion, I felt myself 
> obligated to submit you this current reply to your e-mail.
>            Anna.
> 
> 
> */Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>/* wrote:
> 
>     Anna,
>     If I have to hide another one of your off topic posts, I am going to
>     take the matter to the Steering group to ask that you be permanently
>     banned. You have received numerous warnings and explanations about how
>     to avoid these violations of our website use policy. If you choose to
>     continue to ignore the rules, you will suffer the consequences.
>     Mike Lehman
>