[ProgSoc] [ADMIN] HTTPS on www, webmail

Andrew Halliday mail at andi.id.au
Thu Aug 25 13:13:43 EST 2011


John, the problem I had was not your message, but the delivery with significant insult.

Thank you for clarifying the timeline of events. I doubt I'm the only one who managed to miss out some of those details.

Thanks also for your ongoing contribution. Perception is reality and mine is now better informed thanks to your reply.

 I don't think you should be kicked out. I think that abusive behaviour however is unacceptable, and no matter the justification, should not be tolerated. I'm sorry to say I've seen a lot of that coming from you over the past few months. All I said is that if you didn't find a constructive way to deal with the problems you were facing in progsoc and continued to resort to hostile, abusive behaviour, I would consider supporting action to address that behaviour. An extreme and remote possible outcome of that is termination of membership. There is a vast gulf between consideration of something and active support of it.

Jedd, like us all, had a month to deliver his ten bucks. Communication has never been a forte of uni societies either. Why is this still an issue?

Ceasefire mate, you're better than this.

-Andi 

On 25/08/2011, at 10:11, John Elliot <jj5 at jj5.net> wrote:

> On 25/08/2011 11:52 AM, Andrew Halliday wrote:
>> Why does that make you special, John?
> 
> It wasn't my account that got fragged, it was Jedd's.
> 
> And it's not as if Jedd just disappeared of the face of the internet or refused to pay his membership fee. He asked nicely for his account not to be locked while he found someone to give $10 to.
> 
>> Membership of progsoc has required payment of dues since before I signed up 9 years ago. It's ten dollars for goodness sake - hardly going to break the bank.
> 
> I have a life-long membership for service as the club's president.
> 
>> Over the years the membership have put up with your often offensive nature.
>> 
>> You are now seemingly not curently contributing to progsoc whilst undermining it and abusing it's members out of what seems like a petty desire for revenge on exec.
> 
> How do you figure? Over the last month I've posted the most to the list, and been the most significant contributor to the wiki.
> 
>> I encourage you to change your attitude to something more constructive and positive, else consider your options under section 4.4 of the constitution. You have contributed to progsoc, but so have many of us, and many of us have paid our ten bucks each year because it's the way things are run. That the policy of locking was finally enforced (after clear communication and reasonable, multiple warnings) I thought showed integrity by exec, which has so far been lacking in your response to an otherwise insignificant administrative matter.
> 
> I find it pretty hard to see how I'm not constructive or positive, given what I've done over the past month.
> 
>> So I suggest you deal with your angst or I won't be the only one suggesting termination of your membership under clause 4.3.2.
> 
> Lame.
> 
> What happened here?
> 
> First, I was insulted.
> 
> Then, I asked for an explanation.
> 
> Then, I was ignored.
> 
> Then, I explained how the insult was not justified.
> 
> Then, I was ignored.
> 
> Then, I complained about being ignored.
> 
> I don't think the way I handled the situation was unfair by any stretch. To the extent that I was hostile, I was hostile *toward hostility*. I don't want the list to be a hostile place more than anyone else, and frankly I find your insinuation that I should be kicked out to be pretty hostile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Progsoc mailing list
> Progsoc at progsoc.org
> http://progsoc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progsoc



More information about the Progsoc mailing list