Hey Gareth why did you and Amy lie about reasons for those mass-banning those years ago?
I don't recall ever lieing about the reason for a ban, but then if i'm a liar there is of course no point in listening to me is there?
It depends entirely, doesn't it Gareth? Sometimes justifications, right or wrong, paint a picture from the poster, that the person interviewing them can not paint. Sometimes it is good to see how someone manipulates truth. Sometimes we are amazed at honesty from a place of dark deceit.
But hey you "don't recall"? Let me help you with at least one instance and we can work from there.
You supported the lie that Amy sprouted publicly that Rossco was organising a group of people to attack Amy and yourself. That was of course Bullshit, but Amy endorsed it publicly. Rossco always went straight to the source of the problem, Amy, at every instance without organising anything with any one. Also without involving himself in things like the gagging avatar thing or whatever. This is whilst you were doing your best to distance yourself from any direct involvement.
When Rossco was banned this was the reason given, that he was the ringleader to these actions. She stated she had proof given by Pm but could not publish it. This too was bullshit as there was no proof, because there was no truth behind the allegation. It was just a sneaky manipulative lie that she could tell, whilst pretending to hide behind the good form of allowing the non-existent "whistleblower" anonimity
There was no whistleblower. No Pm. Just a very angry lady, to whom you are married, wanting to force her will and make a somewhat plausible smear and ban on Rossco. She was prepared to lie to get it.
Why did you go on a banning rampage?
People were acting like idiots, a lot came back anyway once the drama had settled down.
Oh bullshit a lot came back. Most that did have seen what the place is and left again, because it is not the place it was in the past. It has become the place they were fighting for it not to degenerate into. A whiny self-absorbed den of emos. (Yes there are a few very noticable exceptions. But exceptions are exceptions)
People were not acting like idiots. Your wife Amy was, and you either know this or you too are acting like an idiot.
She was busy being a mum and and spending most of the little time she spent on AFF, in the AFF Chat.
You were busy with other stuff like Second Life, and that competitor to Second Life, you were wanting to make and such.
AFF was left to its own resources with a couple of mods with limited powers, and so while you and Amy were off not being a part of the environment and culture, it started to build and evolve. We self monitored and moderated and took charge of the forum. We scared off trolls. We quelled disagreements. We took on activism. We were a thriving little community.
Then in came your wife, saying "OK time to take back AFF from you lot. You need to do things my way." We basically told her to stay out of things as she was not a part of the culture nor had any idea of who was who, and what or what had or had not happened. Amy, decided to force her will and most of the site bucked. She made stupid pronouncements, changed posts, misrepresentaed, lied, banned members and then suddenly 40 members left and you locked down the forum and edited or deleted thread after thread to save the forum from being seen as for what it was, and what happened. A convenient rewrite.
I call this a big lie.
Why did you condone Amy's stupidity and unnecessary behaviour?
Define "Amy's past stupidity" and then we can talk about it.
I think I did this above rather well, but all you need to do is look at how she behaves on there at any time she flounces in. It is similar to what I wrote above. She is a walking definition of the word 'Liability"
Why have you let the AFF of old which was full of a close-knit activist forum turn into what it is now?
Truthfully, disillusionment with the idea of being more than just another forum, ASAN have taken the role I wanted for AFF and so long as someone is doing the work that needs to be done i'm not too concerned.
You want to know my opinion? I think when 40 of the forums active members left, the forum was left with very few active and non-whiny helpless emos. I say what had been built up over so long had gone. I think that it would take years with a hard effort to get a culture or an environment needed to get to where you were in the past. I think you probably appreciate that were you to, Amy and perhaps yourself, would only fuck it up like you did then.
Of the activists that you had you were basically left with two. Skyblue and KenG.
Of the other active posters, Guess Who, Alison, Marcia, Windy....who else? 40 others which generated a lot of posts and interaction simply disappeared all within a week. Not really one of your better moments, huh?
Why did you erase and rewrite much of its history? Why did you rely on lies to sell the post-banning AFF? Do you honestly believe that a dozen bannings and 40-50 members leaving your site and an effort to then rewrite much of your own history, and locking down the place, is believable on the concept of "You just got rid of a few trolls"?
See above, I suspect you're not looking for an answer to this one but rather (even if unconsciously) trying to make a point of some sort.
Again not at all. I am wanting to see how you answer this. I am curious after the passage of time how you will come at such a premise. It may make me laugh, agree, clarify, or question your sanity...might do all of these at once.
Why, in doing this, are you prepared to treat your existing membership with contempt? Why do you allow Amy to flounce in like she does from time to time after no real contact with any part of AFF but the chat, and fuck everything up (like the time of mass-bannings)? Why do you both (well ok mainly Amy) accuse the members of lying when they tell her uncomfortable truths? Why do you think all of the above conduct makes your site a site worthy of consideration to anyone wanting to be involved in Autism?
I'm not going to answer when I stopped beating my wife.
This i know is an old chestnut you like to bring out but it is really a poor anology.
Why? Apart from the fact that I do not suspect that you beat your wife (You look pretty weedy and I am sure she could take you), it is not a good one in terms of the exaggerated proportion of the premise being linked to what I said. But more importantly, your wife, not you is really the one i am looking at. Sure your actions to not react against her stupidity, and support her idiocy, does not hold you in great light, but the instigator is your wife. Your anology has you as the perpetrator. You may want to rethink when the anology works and when it doesn't.
