Irreconcilable Differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
Genna said:
Damn, but you all make it hard to stay out of this thread.

I don't think it's productive for members of this group to snipe at
each other and take sides in this matter. Many of you will still be
here long after this matter is forgotten. There are only 2 people who
know what actually happened. If you want to blame anyone, blame the
principals involved.

Whoever said that Susan was only asking for a vote of confidence from
this group is absolutely correct. Based on her performance alone, she
should have been given it. My only objection has been to the false
characterizations that Susan has made about me and the manner in
which she misrepresented the issue to the newsgroup.
Click to expand...

It is good to see you are big enough to take some responsibility for your
part in the whole mess. I never thought there was more to the issue than
some childish behavior. Hopefully Susan will also realize there is a part
of her that created this blowup and atones for her behavior. My experience
has always been that I blame others for my problems first and eventually
realize that I am responsible for my life. Some day I'd like to hear you
two got over this whole problem and went out shopping together. Let go and
Let God.
 
John Corliss said:
I totally disagree. Carolyn is implying that because the argument is
between two women, it would best be mediated by a woman. That's
sexism. To say that one sex is better than another in any given
situation is sexism. Period.
To prove this, let's say that the argument is between two guys like
S.O.S. and Stephen Burns (not bloody likely, but just say.) A woman
offers her services to intermediate, and a guy steps in and says that
because the argument is between two guys, he would be willing instead
to mediate because he has a guy's view and the argument is between two
guys.

Do you see my point now?
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you took my comment in that way. I did not mean to imply
that a woman's point of view was either better or worse than a man's point
of view, only different in some respects.

Carolyn
 
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:08:11 -0400, badgolferman wrote...
Some day I'd like to hear you
two got over this whole problem and went out shopping together.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread there was an accusation about a sexist comment.
That had nothing on this latest one!

:-)
 
jo said:
»Q« wrote:




Sure. It is slightly unusual for someone who has no authority to issue
third party cancels to casually admit to doing so, though...
Click to expand...

No, I was saying that I canceled *my* post, the one that Cruising
Chrissy was refering to.
 
Paul said:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:08:11 -0400, badgolferman wrote...


Earlier in this thread there was an accusation about a sexist comment.
That had nothing on this latest one!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are right. It was not meant to be that way. My intention was
to suggest they could get together and do something different than deal with
the website. Hopefully no offense was taken by Genna or Susan. The rest of
those who were offended, don't take yourselves too seriously.
 
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:08:11 -0400, badgolferman wrote...


Earlier in this thread there was an accusation about a sexist
comment. That had nothing on this latest one!

:-)
Click to expand...
Hell, I like to go shopping...for cars, golf clubs, and computer stuff.
 
badgolferman said:
Perhaps you are right. It was not meant to be that way. My intention was
to suggest they could get together and do something different than deal with
the website. Hopefully no offense was taken by Genna or Susan. The rest of
those who were offended, don't take yourselves too seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps they can do some ship welding together, or drive some
demolition derbies, or....

;-)
 
Carolyn said:
I am sorry that you took my comment in that way. I did not mean to imply
that a woman's point of view was either better or worse than a man's point
of view, only different in some respects.
Click to expand...
While one could perhaps find an illustration of incredibly
hair-splitting mild sexism in your initial comment, one would have to
look very hard and consider intent. It was a silly thing to claim, and
had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
 
Tramp said:
|The only thing you do NOT have access to is the main page for the simple
|reason that it would give you access to the Control Panel which contains
|my financial information.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly clear that the ONLY place you don't have access is the
control panel.
Click to expand...

Genna says that Susan has no access to the root directory of the site
_because_ that would give her access to the control panel.

The file(s) being talked about is/are in the root directory of the site, so
Susan can't change this herself.
 
|Genna says that Susan has no access to the root directory of the site
|_because_ that would give her access to the control panel.
|
|The file(s) being talked about is/are in the root directory of the site, so
|Susan can't change this herself.

Not true. Genna says in this post <T2ayc.43314$Gx4.12915@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> which can be found below.

|That is not the case.
|Susan has had access to all of the pages. The only page she cannot access
|directly is the index page:
|http://pricelessware.org
|
|Giving her access to that would indeed give her access to private
|information. But I fail to see why she would need to have access to that
|page in the first place.
|
|As a matter of fact, the directory structure of the site was changed when
|Susan came on board, specifically so that she would have access to
|everything.

Susan has access to everything but one page and the page in question is
not needed to manage the site.
 
Mister said:
While one could perhaps find an illustration of incredibly
hair-splitting mild sexism in your initial comment, one would have to
look very hard and consider intent. It was a silly thing to claim, and
had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

Once again, *the most obvious way to detect sexism is to put the shoe
on the other foot*:

Imagine the uproar if the following occured -----

Let's say that the argument is between two guys like S.O.S. and
Stephen Burns (not bloody likely, but just say.) A woman offers her
services to intermediate, and a guy steps in and says that because the
argument is between two guys, he would be willing to mediate instead
because he has a guy's view and the argument is between two guys.

If you can't grasp this most basic of techniques, well...

Sexism sucks no matter which sex it originates from. There's nothing
"incredibly hair-splitting" or "silly" about it whenever it occurs.

And as for it having nothing to do with the subject at hand, WYFP?
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:
Click to expand...

What you are saying is:
It is Genna's site because _she_ pays for it, so she can do whatever she
wants with it.
Yep.

Susan can move "her" files where she wants bevause it is "her" files.
Click to expand...

Yep.

< snip >

I see from another post that she at long last has done the obvious.
Looks like my advice was correct all along. :-)

Regards, John.
 
The file(s) being talked about is/are in the root directory of the site, so
Susan can't change this herself.
Click to expand...

Easy for her to do if she gets a site of her own. I doubt Susan would
NOT have copies of files she has put on Genna's site.
 
Susan is very good at what she does and did.
Period.
Do a good job John Fitzsimons!
Click to expand...

No need for me. There is nothing stopping Susan continuing doing what
she was. Except herself. Her choice.

All she needs is a different web site. :-)
 
John Fitzsimons said:
Easy for her to do if she gets a site of her own. I doubt Susan would
NOT have copies of files she has put on Genna's site.
Click to expand...

Susan's done a better job of representing this group than Genna EVER
did.

IMO, Susan should be given carte blanche concerning the Pricelessware
site. She's dedicated herself to the cause in a way Genna and SOS never
did.
 
Yep.

< snip >

I see from another post that she at long last has done the obvious. Looks
like my advice was correct all along. :-)
Click to expand...

Well... 'Bout time you were clear. I didn't think you didn't like her. Now
I can see you thought the best. It wasn't obvious at first.
Sorry for the sniping. Long live alt.comp.freeware!

dszady_at_spymac_dot_com
 
Genna said:
From the onset of this situation, YOU have acted in bad faith.
From the onset of this situation, YOU have been unwilling to discuss any
specifics that could have brought a quick resolution without the need for
DramaFest Summer 2004.
From the onset of this situation, YOU have insinuated unethical behavior on
my part (all the while cushioning it in back-handed compliments)
From the onset of this situation, YOU have misrepresented the facts to this
newsgroup.

Accept responsibility for your part in the mess of it all, Susan.
YOU are not a victim.
Click to expand...

Please Genna, you should have understood by now that this is exactly the
discussion Susan does not want to go through.

Are you trying to make her bail out?

You could give a very positive contribution to this situation by backing
down, no matter if you think it is right or wrong.

For the good cause, the pricelessware list, for the peace of mind of
Susan, and to avoid a long and complicated discussion here in acf.

With all the paranoid nuts present here it would no doubt become a dirty
mess, and it would make Susan bail out. We would have to search for
years to find somebody who could do her job half as good as her.
 
Back
Top