EyeJacker
05-06-2001, 08:19 AM
I feel the need for some clarification, if allowed I will attempt to do so.
Let me start by saying it has never been my intent to attack anyone personally. I have, on
the other hand, felt that policy, politics and the performance in exercising one’s duties, is
fair game.
I have no malice toward anyone, Zach, Scott, Mike, TBOMN or Buddy to name a few
that may have thought so. I apologize to any and all that may have taken my postings as a
personal attack.
I enjoy the WC and respect its proprietors for their creativity and dedication. Never have
I felt disrespect for them as persons. It is a creative, informative and entertaining site and
for that, I commend them. Manageing this board is an big resability. I have on the other
hand been critical of their roll as censors. I fully understand their ability to do so. It is an
awsome responsibility. I do not like censorship as an act, however my disdain should not
be interpreted as a dislike of the Censors. I festered some when I perceived the censor
active because the “Eyjacker” was the author, rather than the content of his message. I do
feel that, during the maelstrom, that may have happened. Still, I have no anger to the men
at the button, but the button itself. I do not know them and consequently would not be so
pretentious as to judge them as individuals. Besides, as I uderstand it , that is someone
elses job.
Then there is, Mike, a fisherman I hold in highest esteem! As a man, I know him not,
but I have no reason to believe he isn’t a standout there also. However, excercising the
powers of his office is another manner. I did tee off on what appeared to be an
insensative, if not somewhat arrogant posting, more concerned with “Processing Dues”
than “Due Process”. That may not have been the intent, but it was the appearance. Again,
I did not mean to attack Mike personally, nor do I believe I did. However, in my attempt
to harpoon this posting , question the invocation of his official title and the PR skills
revealed, may have been a bit too spirited. I still believe it was not well conceived or
executed, sorry Mike, only the “EyeJacker’s” opinion.
Excelling at one thing does not necessarily translate to being equally adept at something
else, be it a CEO or a Brain Surgeon. I consider myself adept at angling, though not in the
league of many here. My skill as a brain surgeon is unknown and heretofore untested. If
you DOUBT that TBOMN, may I invite you to my surgical lobotomy debut, (you might
want to invite the author of that quote you seem to hold in such high esteem to witness).
Regardless, the procedure it will be Pro Bono. :-) I’ll see if I can’t locate that pesky
Name Calling center! If for some reason I am unsucessful, you may call me a Quack! If
sucessful and I enjoy it, I’ll need another patient. How about you Buddy? You seem to
suffer from the same affliction, If successful on the otherhand we will call it Censorship,
EyeJacker Style.:-)
I trust all will take this in the spirit it is offered. I consider character of all to be
sacrosanct until otherwise demonstrated. Actions are something else again.
“To err is human, to forgive is devine.” If I am guilty of the former, please avail me of
the latter.
Jack
Let me start by saying it has never been my intent to attack anyone personally. I have, on
the other hand, felt that policy, politics and the performance in exercising one’s duties, is
fair game.
I have no malice toward anyone, Zach, Scott, Mike, TBOMN or Buddy to name a few
that may have thought so. I apologize to any and all that may have taken my postings as a
personal attack.
I enjoy the WC and respect its proprietors for their creativity and dedication. Never have
I felt disrespect for them as persons. It is a creative, informative and entertaining site and
for that, I commend them. Manageing this board is an big resability. I have on the other
hand been critical of their roll as censors. I fully understand their ability to do so. It is an
awsome responsibility. I do not like censorship as an act, however my disdain should not
be interpreted as a dislike of the Censors. I festered some when I perceived the censor
active because the “Eyjacker” was the author, rather than the content of his message. I do
feel that, during the maelstrom, that may have happened. Still, I have no anger to the men
at the button, but the button itself. I do not know them and consequently would not be so
pretentious as to judge them as individuals. Besides, as I uderstand it , that is someone
elses job.
Then there is, Mike, a fisherman I hold in highest esteem! As a man, I know him not,
but I have no reason to believe he isn’t a standout there also. However, excercising the
powers of his office is another manner. I did tee off on what appeared to be an
insensative, if not somewhat arrogant posting, more concerned with “Processing Dues”
than “Due Process”. That may not have been the intent, but it was the appearance. Again,
I did not mean to attack Mike personally, nor do I believe I did. However, in my attempt
to harpoon this posting , question the invocation of his official title and the PR skills
revealed, may have been a bit too spirited. I still believe it was not well conceived or
executed, sorry Mike, only the “EyeJacker’s” opinion.
Excelling at one thing does not necessarily translate to being equally adept at something
else, be it a CEO or a Brain Surgeon. I consider myself adept at angling, though not in the
league of many here. My skill as a brain surgeon is unknown and heretofore untested. If
you DOUBT that TBOMN, may I invite you to my surgical lobotomy debut, (you might
want to invite the author of that quote you seem to hold in such high esteem to witness).
Regardless, the procedure it will be Pro Bono. :-) I’ll see if I can’t locate that pesky
Name Calling center! If for some reason I am unsucessful, you may call me a Quack! If
sucessful and I enjoy it, I’ll need another patient. How about you Buddy? You seem to
suffer from the same affliction, If successful on the otherhand we will call it Censorship,
EyeJacker Style.:-)
I trust all will take this in the spirit it is offered. I consider character of all to be
sacrosanct until otherwise demonstrated. Actions are something else again.
“To err is human, to forgive is devine.” If I am guilty of the former, please avail me of
the latter.
Jack