Real Scn Fair Game

[Alanzo]

I think he man would be a great moderator.

But if Paul becomes a moderator then I want to be a moderator too.

Do moderators wield the BAN HAMMER?

 

[Lurker5]

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I think Strat should be moderator. Things might still be crazy but at least the spelling and grammar will be correct.

 

[Voodoo]

Is there anyone here who would like to moderate - NOT ANONYMOUSLY - and have every single one of your decisions scrutinised, complained about, questioned for authenticity, sneered at for having an agenda?

C'mon try it. It's a heap of fun.

It's not necessary to reveal the identities of your moderators. Most online forums don't reveal their mods' identities for the exact reasons you cited above. It's a job best done under the cloak of anonymity.

 

[strativarius]

I think Strat should be moderator. Things might still be crazy but at least the spelling and grammar will be correct.

I've got me own board where I'm the SuperAdmin. I'm not interested in being a mere moderator, that doesn't satisfy my craving and lust for power and absolute control. There's nobody else there but I can live with that, at least there are no spelling mistakes.

 

[Emma]

As soon as the standard for moderation changed to include previously banned people the board was used as a blog to reinterpret exness as a cult

I hear what you say, but I don't agree. For every thread Alanzo started Veda started at least 2 to counter. For every Alanzo post, there were 10 to counter. It was simply the ideas that were unforgivable. These ideas are not radical. They are criticisms that you & I might consider unwarranted, he does not. I had to decide whether I wanted to police thought or not. I decided not to. Otherwise we are no better than communist China. I still don't understand the over the top hysterical reaction to him or his posts. And the idea that he's "destroying the board" is ludicrous. ESMB has 42000 threads. Anyone reading a thread Alanzo started is not going to be swayed by one opinion. And it was just that, an opinion. But these are opinions that ESMBers won't allow to be voiced. I still don't understand why these opinions are considered so dangerous.

So yes, I got the shits because all of a sudden I am not trusted to moderate my own board. Yeah it's insulting to be told at the 11th hour that you aren't doing it right.

It's not necessary to reveal the identities of your moderators. Most online forums don't reveal their mods' identities for the exact reasons you cited above. It's a job best done under the cloak of anonymity.

My point was that I have not had the comfort of moderating behind the anonymity shield. I wanted a fair playing ground.

 

[Free to shine]

I hear what you say, but I don't agree. For every thread Alanzo started Veda started at least 2 to counter. For every Alanzo post, there were 10 to counter. It was simply the ideas that were unforgivable. These ideas are not radical. They are criticisms that you & I might consider unwarranted, he does not. I had to decide whether I wanted to police thought or not. I decided not to. Otherwise we are no better than communist China. I still don't understand the over the top hysterical reaction to him or his posts. And the idea that he's "destroying the board" is ludicrous. ESMB has 42000 threads. Anyone reading a thread Alanzo started is not going to be swayed by one opinion. And it was just that, an opinion. But these are opinions that ESMBers won't allow to be voiced. I still don't understand why these opinions are considered so dangerous.

It's not so much Alanzo's opinions about an apparent issue, it's the manner of presentation.

People are always going to react to patronising insults, no matter how disguised or cleverly worded. Alanzo's glee about 'shaking up the tribal sheeple' only serves him because of the reaction and attention it gives him. Some people are like that.

Manipulative ways of telling people what they think, what they should think, how wrong and stupid they are etc isn't well tolerated for long anywhere and is called out, as has been happening. Genuine and well presented opinions don't get that reaction.

It leaves a bad taste when so many threads are hijacked to attack Mike Rinder and I understand why people don't like them possibly being the first thing to be read on an archived board. (I know they may not after things have been moved around). It just so happens that Rinder/ Karen/Leah/Ortega etc are Alanzo's flavour of the day to get a reaction, and they happen to coincide with scientology's hit list. If I was a newly UTR lurker I would be very, very confused and I think that's why Veda and others work so hard to counter.

I mean seriously - we know that in the past THE CRUSADE has always been whatever would create the best flames at that time. The subject is almost irrelevant, as long as there is an outcry and attention. IMO that's why people have reacted. Not because his opinions "are dangerous" or don't deserve discussion, but because the real intent appears to be to hurt and insult both the subjects of those opinions and the people who disagree with him.

 

[Lurker5]

I keep wondering if Emma will be A's next target, once this board is shut, and she - and we - can't respond, defend, here. He'd do it on his blog, and delete anyone who disagreed, or argued with him. He's done that before, all of it, including attacking Emma, behind her back. I find it cowardly. The Marty 'clone' - or is it klaun?

 

[He-man]

I keep wondering if Emma will be A's next target, once this board is shut, and she - and we - can't respond, defend, here. He'd do it on his blog, and delete anyone who disagreed, or argued with him. He's done that before, all of it, including attacking Emma, behind her back. I find it cowardly. The Marty 'clone' - or is it klaun?

Does it really matter? I've started bookmarking all different spaces on the net I can find, and others check them too, any attack will most likely be "imported" to NESMB and be countered there? Not sure of P&B's stance on imported drama but I suspect it won't fly as such - Since it would concern the Ex community as a whole.

Also, nothing would stop Emma from posting an answer here on ESMB herself if she wants to.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I hear what you say, but I don't agree. For every thread Alanzo started Veda started at least 2 to counter. For every Alanzo post, there were 10 to counter. It was simply the ideas that were unforgivable. These ideas are not radical. They are criticisms that you & I might consider unwarranted, he does not. I had to decide whether I wanted to police thought or not. I decided not to. Otherwise we are no better than communist China. I still don't understand the over the top hysterical reaction to him or his posts. And the idea that he's "destroying the board" is ludicrous. ESMB has 42000 threads. Anyone reading a thread Alanzo started is not going to be swayed by one opinion. And it was just that, an opinion. But these are opinions that ESMBers won't allow to be voiced. I still don't understand why these opinions are considered so dangerous.

So yes, I got the shits because all of a sudden I am not trusted to moderate my own board. Yeah it's insulting to be told at the 11th hour that you aren't doing it right.

My point was that I have not had the comfort of moderating behind the anonymity shield. I wanted a fair playing ground.

I think Free To Shine beat me to punch on much of this in that following post.

I have said that I think any ideas could be discussed reasonably by anyone but at some point there becomes a distinction between reasonable discussion and a crusade. Probably the thing that makes it a crusade is a deliberate refusal to duplicate the other position and answer pointed questions while using rhetorical devices to demean the other position instead of common sense and deliberately trying to create division and conflict. One person doing this for a few weeks might not redefine the board but if the board is being used for something that is inconsistent with it's original stated purpose long enough then maybe it does. The original board had moderation and banned people so if it no longer does that then maybe that does constitute a significant redefinition of the board, if not immediately but over time. I'm not blaming you and given the circumstances I don't necessarily disagree with your decisions and with the clock ticking down it's not like it matters. I'm just trying to state the new reality as i see it.

What would the policy be if I as a known OSA staff member, taking orders from Miscavige and assigned specifically to disrupt ESMB and to attack Mike, Leah, Karen, Tony and other prominent critics and the ex-community in general posted all of Alanzo's posts? Would the fact that my underlying motivation to destroy opposition to Scientology change the context or would the posts still just be considered unpopular opinion? Or what if someone, anyone just wanted to portray Scientology critics as a cult for their own personal or psychological reasons and they pressed this in every possible way endlessly?

Alanzo hasn't done a very good job of explaining his position. His experience is mostly from post Hubbard Mission involvement and he was never in the Sea Org yet he seems to blame the Sea Org and Miscavige for everything while being an apologist for Hubbard, pre-Miscavige Scientology and non-SO orgs while saying people who were in the Sea Org lack understanding of the Mission and non-SO experience. For anyone who has an in-depth understanding of Scientology that makes no sense yet for him it's enough to blanket categorize critic's opinions as group think. He had a personal realization about life and livingness outside of corporate Scientology and now we are supposed to buy into his vision?

All this brouhaha has illustrated that there are fault lines and conflicting interests in the ex-community or non-Sciocorp community that can be exploited to create conflict, drama and division. It seems that Alanzo has some kind of alliance with Gerry's camp. Gerry has valid grounds for being critical of Mike and my impression is there is a rift between Gerry's camp and Mike's camp with Leah, Karen and Tony and others being Mike allies. But how does this become Alanzo's banner to wave? I also support a lot of people with many different grievances against Scientology abuse including Gerry but I don't think you will find me using that as a basis for characterizing anti-Scientologists as a cult or tribe, or being biased or some other intellectual doublespeak that only serves to give oneself moral authority to wage a crusade and reform the other side. Maybe I missed something. Does Gerry support Alanzo's Anti-Scientology Cult rhetoric or are they only aligned toward getting Mike to expose more about his time in OSA?

I think I get that you and Karen have had a falling out. I like both of you and I don't like to see this but I can respect it. But from where I'm sitting it looks to me more like Alanzo is exploiting that for his own personal purposes. Again if his opinions were presented as opinions instead of a crusade then maybe I wouldn't have that impression.

If I'm getting the wrong impression then maybe Alanzo needs to do a better job of using all those communication drills to communicate instead of playing head games. And this isn't just about Alanzo - it's "What's around comes around". It's precedent. If Alanzo has perfected the Bridge to Total ESMB Trolling then eventually others will figure it out and the troll to non-troll ratio can become so much troll that there would be little worth coming here for all those people for whom ESMB is supposed to be a safe place to evolve out of the cult.

I know I'm going long and I probably shouldn't get into this because it will be interpreted as going political but this reminds me of the alliance between the left and Islam. They should have absolutely nothing in common. They should be philosophically diametrically opposed in everything except they share a common enemy - free enterprise and non-socialist democracy. In other words, if you can identify the points of common interests and opposing interests then you can exploit these while navigating them without getting moderated. Of course neither side is up front with their end game. You can't have the left's version of socialism and Islam's version of Sharia coexisting on an equal footing so each must figure that they will outdo the other in the end when only two sides are left, wink wink. So what's the end game to portraying Scientology opposition as a cult? On the surface it's obviously an attempt to frame the opposing sides with moral relativism. It seems to me that moral relativism applied to a pro vs con Scientology debate would result in Scientology gaining credibility and the critics losing credibility to balance the scales, as it were. Alanzo seems to want to discredit post-Hubbard Scientology while retaining pre-Miscavige Scientology credibility and to do either he needs to discredit the critics. Am I not supposed to make this observation or connect any dots? I'm only supposed to consider each post on it's merits and respect it as an honest if only misguided opinion without ulterior motive or larger context?

On the anonymous thing. This isn't like other forums. This is an ex-Scientology forum which means there is a 2 -3 billion dollar corporation that wants to identify and prevent people from speaking out with a long history of breaking the law and doing real institutionalized gaslighting and gang-stalking and they have people dedicated to conducting internet activity. Even your own home has been compromised and your computers have been confiscated by them. I may not need to know who all the moderators are but I personally need to know who the owner is, that I trust them, and that they at least know and trust the other moderators. I have never felt a lack of trust about you or the other moderators here but the risk is real. Some people may not care about the risk but the people who are newly progressing out of the cult and self-censorship probably do.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

Another thought on anonymous moderation.

When I first started posting on ESMB I didn't know much about Emma but I knew a lot about Karen and I knew if Karen trusted the forum then she knew who ran it and trusted them and that was enough for me.

So I guess the people behind the scenes can be anonymous to a degree as long as there are known people who other people trust to know and trust the administration. But maybe that just isn't practical. I mean, how difficult can it be for OSA to find out who owns a website?

That gets me thinking, if a site isn't moderated then couldn't OSA or someone else put something on the site that would give them actionable grounds so they can get into the life of whoever runs it? So a completely unmoderated forum wouldn't work purely from a legal standpoint would it?

 

[Free to shine]

I keep wondering if Emma will be A's next target, once this board is shut, and she - and we - can't respond, defend, here. He'd do it on his blog, and delete anyone who disagreed, or argued with him. He's done that before, all of it, including attacking Emma, behind her back. I find it cowardly. The Marty 'clone' - or is it klaun?

You're not wrong. This comment lays the groundwork for a repeat pattern. I've seen it all before. (My bolding)

What you don't understand Tanchi, and I have been around long enough to see, is that for some reason - and I don't know why - no one makes it out of anti-scientology alive.

That's why your next target is going to be Emma herself.

Just watch. It's already beginning.

https://exscn.net/forum/threads/ruminations.50663/page-6#post-1227058

 

[Veda]

I hear what you say, but I don't agree. For every thread Alanzo started Veda started at least 2 to counter.

-snip-

Respectfully, I disagree with your math.

 

[Alanzo]

Respectfully, I disagree with your math.

Math requires no respect.

Or disagreement.

 

[PirateAndBum]

I think Free To Shine beat me to punch on much of this in that following post.

I have said that I think any ideas could be discussed reasonably by anyone but at some point there becomes a distinction between reasonable discussion and a crusade. Probably the thing that makes it a crusade is a deliberate refusal to duplicate the other position and answer pointed questions while using rhetorical devices to demean the other position instead of common sense and deliberately trying to create division and conflict. One person doing this for a few weeks might not redefine the board but if the board is being used for something that is inconsistent with it's original stated purpose long enough then maybe it does. The original board had moderation and banned people so if it no longer does that then maybe that does constitute a significant redefinition of the board, if not immediately but overt time. I'm not blaming you and given the circumstances I don't necessarily disagree with your decisions and with the clock ticking down it's not like it matters. I'm just trying to state the new reality as i see it.

What would the policy be if I as a known OSA staff member, taking orders from Miscavige and assigned specifically to disrupt ESMB and to attack Mike, Leah, Karen, Tony and other prominent critics and the ex-community in general posted all of Alanzo's posts? Would the fact that my underlying motivation to destroy opposition to Scientology change the context or would the posts still just be considered unpopular opinion? Or what if someone, anyone just wanted to portray Scientology critics as a cult for their own personal or psychological reasons and they pressed this in every possible way endlessly?

Alanzo hasn't done a very good job of explaining his position. His experience is mostly from post Hubbard Mission involvement and he was never in the Sea Org yet he seems to blame the Sea Org and Miscavige for everything while being an apologist for Hubbard, pre-Miscavige Scientology and non-SO orgs while saying people who were in the Sea Org lack understanding of the Mission and non-SO experience. For anyone who has an in-depth understanding of Scientology that makes no sense yet for him it's enough to blanket categorize critic's opinions as group think. He had a personal realization about life and livingness outside of corporate Scientology and now we are supposed to buy into his vision?

All this brouhaha has illustrated that there are fault lines and conflicting interests in the ex-community or non-Sciocorp community that can be exploited to create conflict, drama and division. It seems that Alanzo has some kind of alliance with Gerry's camp. Gerry has valid grounds for being critical of Mike and my impression is there is a rift between Gerry's camp and Mike's camp with Leah, Karen and Tony and others being Mike allies. But how does this become Alanzo's banner to wave? I also support a lot of people with many different grievances against Scientology abuse including Gerry but I don't think you will find me using that as a basis for characterizing anti-Scientologists as a cult or tribe, or being biased or some other intellectual doublespeak that only serves to give oneself moral authority to wage a crusade and reform the other side. Maybe I missed something. Does Gerry support Alanzo's Anti-Scientology Cult rhetoric or are they only aligned toward getting Mike to expose more about his time in OSA?

I think I get that you and Karen have had a falling out. I like both of you and I don't like to see this but I can respect it. But from where I'm sitting it looks to me more like Alanzo is exploiting that for his own personal purposes. Again if his opinions were presented as opinions instead of a crusade then maybe I wouldn't have that impression.

If I'm getting the wrong impression then maybe Alanzo needs to do a better job of using all those communication drills to communicate instead of playing head games. And this isn't just about Alanzo - it's "What's around comes around". It's precedent. If Alanzo has perfected the Bridge to Total ESMB Trolling then eventually others will figure it out and the troll to non-troll ratio can become so much troll that there would be little worth coming here for all those people for whom ESMB is supposed to be a safe place to evolve out of the cult.

I know I'm going long and I probably shouldn't get into this because it will be interpreted as going political but this reminds me of the alliance between the left and Islam. They should have absolutely nothing in common. They should be philosophically diametrically opposed in everything except they share a common enemy - free enterprise and non-socialist democracy. In other words, if you can identify the points of common interests and opposing interests then you can exploit these while navigating them without getting moderated. Of course neither side is up front with their end game. You can't have the left's version of socialism and Islam's version of Sharia coexisting on an equal footing so each must figure that they will outdo the other in the end when only two sides are left, wink wink. So what's the end game to portraying Scientology opposition as a cult? On the surface it's obviously an attempt to frame the opposing sides with moral relativism. It seems to me that moral relativism applied to a pro vs con Scientology debate would result in Scientology gaining credibility and the critics losing credibility to balance the scales, as it were. Alanzo seems to want to discredit post-Hubbard Scientology while retaining pre-Miscavige Scientology credibility and to do either he needs to discredit the critics. Am I not supposed to make this observation or connect any dots? I'm only supposed to consider each post on it's merits and respect it as an honest if only misguided opinion without ulterior motive or larger context?

On the anonymous thing. This isn't like other forums. This is an ex-Scientology forum which means there is a 2 -3 billion dollar corporation that wants to identify and prevent people from speaking out with a long history of breaking the law and doing real institutionalized gaslighting and gang-stalking and they have people dedicated to conducting internet activity. Even your own home has been compromised and your computers have been confiscated by them. I may not need to know who all the moderators are but I personally need to know who the owner is, that I trust them, and that they at least know and trust the other moderators. I have never felt a lack of trust about you or the other moderators here but the risk is real. Some people may not care about the risk but the people who are newly progressing out of the cult and self-censorship probably do.

Gosh dang it, I wish I could write like that!

 

[Dulloldfart]

Gash dang it, I wish I could write like that!

Indeed. But you're providing a platform for TOBB to write like that, and the rest of us too. So you get your own warm and fuzzies.

Paul

 

[PirateAndBum]

Indeed. But you're providing a platform for TOBB to write like that, and the rest of us too. So you get your own warm and fuzzies.

Paul

true

 

[Free to shine]

Gash dang it, I wish I could write like that!

I know! It's like settle in with a coffee type writing. As a relatively uneducated 2nd gen I have learnt so much from TOBB (thanks mate) and a few others about how to present ideas. And I second what Paul said.

 

[Emma]

I think Free To Shine beat me to punch on much of this in that following post.

I have said that I think any ideas could be discussed reasonably by anyone but at some point there becomes a distinction between reasonable discussion and a crusade. Probably the thing that makes it a crusade is a deliberate refusal to duplicate the other position and answer pointed questions while using rhetorical devices to demean the other position instead of common sense and deliberately trying to create division and conflict. One person doing this for a few weeks might not redefine the board but if the board is being used for something that is inconsistent with it's original stated purpose long enough then maybe it does. The original board had moderation and banned people so if it no longer does that then maybe that does constitute a significant redefinition of the board, if not immediately but over time. I'm not blaming you and given the circumstances I don't necessarily disagree with your decisions and with the clock ticking down it's not like it matters. I'm just trying to state the new reality as i see it.

What would the policy be if I as a known OSA staff member, taking orders from Miscavige and assigned specifically to disrupt ESMB and to attack Mike, Leah, Karen, Tony and other prominent critics and the ex-community in general posted all of Alanzo's posts? Would the fact that my underlying motivation to destroy opposition to Scientology change the context or would the posts still just be considered unpopular opinion? Or what if someone, anyone just wanted to portray Scientology critics as a cult for their own personal or psychological reasons and they pressed this in every possible way endlessly?

Alanzo hasn't done a very good job of explaining his position. His experience is mostly from post Hubbard Mission involvement and he was never in the Sea Org yet he seems to blame the Sea Org and Miscavige for everything while being an apologist for Hubbard, pre-Miscavige Scientology and non-SO orgs while saying people who were in the Sea Org lack understanding of the Mission and non-SO experience. For anyone who has an in-depth understanding of Scientology that makes no sense yet for him it's enough to blanket categorize critic's opinions as group think. He had a personal realization about life and livingness outside of corporate Scientology and now we are supposed to buy into his vision?

All this brouhaha has illustrated that there are fault lines and conflicting interests in the ex-community or non-Sciocorp community that can be exploited to create conflict, drama and division. It seems that Alanzo has some kind of alliance with Gerry's camp. Gerry has valid grounds for being critical of Mike and my impression is there is a rift between Gerry's camp and Mike's camp with Leah, Karen and Tony and others being Mike allies. But how does this become Alanzo's banner to wave? I also support a lot of people with many different grievances against Scientology abuse including Gerry but I don't think you will find me using that as a basis for characterizing anti-Scientologists as a cult or tribe, or being biased or some other intellectual doublespeak that only serves to give oneself moral authority to wage a crusade and reform the other side. Maybe I missed something. Does Gerry support Alanzo's Anti-Scientology Cult rhetoric or are they only aligned toward getting Mike to expose more about his time in OSA?

I think I get that you and Karen have had a falling out. I like both of you and I don't like to see this but I can respect it. But from where I'm sitting it looks to me more like Alanzo is exploiting that for his own personal purposes. Again if his opinions were presented as opinions instead of a crusade then maybe I wouldn't have that impression.

If I'm getting the wrong impression then maybe Alanzo needs to do a better job of using all those communication drills to communicate instead of playing head games. And this isn't just about Alanzo - it's "What's around comes around". It's precedent. If Alanzo has perfected the Bridge to Total ESMB Trolling then eventually others will figure it out and the troll to non-troll ratio can become so much troll that there would be little worth coming here for all those people for whom ESMB is supposed to be a safe place to evolve out of the cult.

I know I'm going long and I probably shouldn't get into this because it will be interpreted as going political but this reminds me of the alliance between the left and Islam. They should have absolutely nothing in common. They should be philosophically diametrically opposed in everything except they share a common enemy - free enterprise and non-socialist democracy. In other words, if you can identify the points of common interests and opposing interests then you can exploit these while navigating them without getting moderated. Of course neither side is up front with their end game. You can't have the left's version of socialism and Islam's version of Sharia coexisting on an equal footing so each must figure that they will outdo the other in the end when only two sides are left, wink wink. So what's the end game to portraying Scientology opposition as a cult? On the surface it's obviously an attempt to frame the opposing sides with moral relativism. It seems to me that moral relativism applied to a pro vs con Scientology debate would result in Scientology gaining credibility and the critics losing credibility to balance the scales, as it were. Alanzo seems to want to discredit post-Hubbard Scientology while retaining pre-Miscavige Scientology credibility and to do either he needs to discredit the critics. Am I not supposed to make this observation or connect any dots? I'm only supposed to consider each post on it's merits and respect it as an honest if only misguided opinion without ulterior motive or larger context?

On the anonymous thing. This isn't like other forums. This is an ex-Scientology forum which means there is a 2 -3 billion dollar corporation that wants to identify and prevent people from speaking out with a long history of breaking the law and doing real institutionalized gaslighting and gang-stalking and they have people dedicated to conducting internet activity. Even your own home has been compromised and your computers have been confiscated by them. I may not need to know who all the moderators are but I personally need to know who the owner is, that I trust them, and that they at least know and trust the other moderators. I have never felt a lack of trust about you or the other moderators here but the risk is real. Some people may not care about the risk but the people who are newly progressing out of the cult and self-censorship probably do.

Hi Blue, that's a great post, but long so I won't reply to every point.

Re: Alanzo, yeah all I can do is allow or disallow the argument. I can't control how it's presented or the predictable outcome of an argument presented in a way that can only inflame. So there I get caught in the no-man's-land of "Is this argument legit or trolling? If this argument was coming from someone else without the history would it be received differently? Does the phrasing of the argument matter in my decisions, or is it just the argument that is important? Do I let the court of public opinion decide? What is bullying? If the OP is inflammatory are inflammatory replies ok? What is purposeful inflammation and what is pure emotion? Are social parahias allowed?" I have had to make those decisions in about 90% of the posts recently. It would be easier to just delete every post that wasn't fluffy, but even then, where is the line drawn?

I can see that I've been inconsistent in so many ways over the years, I have no excuse except that it's bloody hard to find a balance of free ideas and light moderation.

I wanted the last weeks to be a free exchange of ideas from anyone in the community that has ever been a part of ESMB over the last 12 years. That's really all I wanted when I unbanned everyone. It didn't work out that way.

Re: Anonymous moderation. I agree that the moderators can be, and were anonymous (at the time). But I could never be.

 

[Emma]

It leaves a bad taste when so many threads are hijacked to attack Mike Rinder and I understand why people don't like them possibly being the first thing to be read on an archived board. (I know they may not after things have been moved around). It just so happens that Rinder/ Karen/Leah/Ortega etc are Alanzo's flavour of the day to get a reaction, and they happen to coincide with scientology's hit list. If I was a newly UTR lurker I would be very, very confused and I think that's why Veda and others work so hard to counter.

Don't worry about it. I have a lot of housekeeping to do. I will probably make "final posts" on the threads I think are most valuable to lurkers so they appear first in the searches.

I keep wondering if Emma will be A's next target, once this board is shut, and she - and we - can't respond, defend, here. He'd do it on his blog, and delete anyone who disagreed, or argued with him. He's done that before, all of it, including attacking Emma, behind her back. I find it cowardly. The Marty 'clone' - or is it klaun?

I don't actually care. I have my health, my daughter, my family, my friends and my cats. Nothing anyone says on the internet can touch those things.

Also, nothing would stop Emma from posting an answer here on ESMB herself if she wants to.

Except I won't. One thing I learned in the corporate world, is that when a person leaves, all of a sudden all their mistakes are openly discussed and the person usually vilified or scapegoated in some way, maybe to cover up other's mistakes, or because it's socially acceptable to bitch once they are gone. I've seen it over & over again in business. I'm 100% sure that will happen and I'm ready for it. It's already happening. My handling is to just leave and never look back.

Respectfully, I disagree with your math.

Ok. Disagreement is allowed.