Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:16:42 -0800 (PST)
From: james p
Subject: tubal-ligation group
To: June (cptwomen rep)
Dear June,
Last January, the 9th I believe it was, tubal-ligation
group moderator Alena Weaver started censoring messages. She censored the post tubal
ligation
syndrome debate, in violation of what was then the group's mission statement,
"This discussion forum is set up for either men or women who have been or are
considering surgical sterilization. Discussion includes moral support, sharing of
experiences and thoughts, and sharing of methods used."
To make matters worse, her censorship was biased. She approved material which
supported her personal preference, i.e. liafail's message 1032, and she
rejected material which did not support her personal preference, i.e., my responses to
messages 871 and 1032, even though my responses were of the same subject material as
message 1032, that she had approved.
I wrote to Alena and confronted her with her violation of the group's mission statement
and her biased censorship. Alena seems to me to have been at first embarrassed at the
discovery of her misconduct. Consequently, she changed the mission statement.
The group's mission statement is now egocentric to Alena: The mission depends on
what Alena wanted just before her tubal, and only she knows that.
Consequently, Alena's egocentric mission statement gives her carte blanche to censor
in anyway that she may see fit.
Clearly, people interested in post tubal syndrome also have an interest in Alena's
censorship intentions and misconduct. I am writing to you because you are a group member
who has written about PTLS, and I therefore believe that you should know what she has
done. Feel free to pass this information along to anyone else that you believe can
appropriately benefit.
After Alena changed her mission statement, I recognized that the group no longer provided
me a forum to write about PTLS. So things might have ended
there. Unfortunately, Alena decided to do something inexplicable, and, in my view, stupid:
She wrote me an unsolicited, long letter arguing that PTLS does not exist, given all of
the "reputable" sources which say that it does not. I wrote back to her that I
did not understand why she would write to me about PTLS,! since she had posted that she
did not like talking about this subject. It seemed to me that her unsolicited letter
sought more to convince herself than to convince me. I advised her that her reference to
"reputable" sources seemed inappropriate, given her own abuse of her moderator's
authority. This brought
me a second unsolicited, and even longer letter reciting again arguments against PTLS and
accusing me of gross stupidity for not adopting her views.
Incredibly, she suggested that I could write to her once I recognized the validity of what
she was saying!
Instead, I warned her not to write to me again, and I
blocked e-mail from her address. 2-3 hours later, I found that I had been expelled
and group settings had been changed to bar my access to the archives.
I just love these people who claim the moral high ground with their "reputable"
sources, but turn to insult and censorship when other options run out.
Here is a riddle:
When is a "reputable" source like pornography?
Answer: A "reputable" source is like pornography when you cannot define
it, but you know it when you see it.
I would like to thank you for your comments of message 823 and perhaps others in support
of my work. alldoldup@a... (message 772) and corrieston (message 791) thanked me or
commented favorably, and I would have liked to write to them too, if I had their full
e-mail address. I thank you if you will pass on this message to them.
Sincerely,
Jim
