most of that history is lost of hidden from those who do not want to see it .

@Daz & Anu.
Perhaps if you could write a blog post for OCS to provide details on your comments, the general readership will have a bit more clarity on the history of CS.

The bottom line is, both Mikky and Jim made the statements, in a public forum, and neither one has retracted their statement, so they stand. There’s really nothing else to talk about.

Those were, for the first time, providing at least some open conversation of many issues I wasn’t aware of yet, and which might make a pretty enlightening reading experience right about now.

This would never be needed had people not taken arbitrary decisions and deception to hoodwink the general membership examples :- the farewell letter(not written by Casey), the “accidental” deletion of the database ,the writing of the NDA (not written by the LT),the sneaky proposal of the super star system by ttt to merge two of caseys websites .

Pickwick sums it up really nicely here
“how Jim paddled back on social pressure reminds of the English saying “adding insult to injury”. The man has no remorse, he has no clue that he did anything wrong, and he tells us he’ll do it again.”

If this was not documented Jim would have gotten away with it . As no one would have ever know the contents of that post.

netiquette is a two way street ,just like respect goes both ways. It has to be gained. And if cons are not documented here it is definitely being documented else.It wouldn’t but a long pattern of deception since the crash it has become mandatory to document every actions .Till the deception stops ,which with the silence shows it is never going to stops. When there is silence there is always something brewing (more surprise announcements) .

well clearly he WAS offended, Kasper.. but i think that’s a far cry from his wanting it to be used as ammunition against CS. SO it’s pretty likely his request to remove the thread on here was real.

Personally, I feel that if OCS is set up to criticize CS into being more open, then it should have higher standards than the organization it is criticizing. That includes following standard netiquette, which means not publishing semi-privileged communications (group threads are not google-searchable, thus not truly ‘public’) without at least, as UAFLYER suggested, blocking names. Aditya on Brainstorm did a good job addressing the issue here:

If OCS is about principles and standards, how about this site holding itself to the high ground? It can only assist the cause. Show what you want by behaving that way – maybe examples really are needed to demonstrate that respect while disagreeing CAN be shown to others.
JMHO!!
Valerie

I don’t get it people move from state to state ever year in the united states and all the Americans on board (except Casey?) know that .

So security ha . Even the credit card companies do not use addresses as security as people move so often .

* How about donation that were made under false pretenses? (CS was not, and is still not an official organization with a charitable mission. Furthermore, since it’s not possible to get a refund on my non-monetary donations I do feel entitled to get my donation back)

* Verification IS a donation in surplus of what providing this service actually takes. Otherwise why would there be the need for sliding scale verifications? (if it’s allowed for Indian people to pay less, I call to question the actual amount of money actually necessary to cover ONLY the costs).

** FYI: they are also offering “scholarships” for those who can’t afford to “be secure” at this time for the full fee.

I would be curious to know how exactly new members see the verification fee – obligatory or not. (I’ve seen some signs that it’s taken as an obligation, and people with financial constrains are worried if they can be members if they can’t make the payment…)

Its never fair to post other people’s email chat or post without their knowledge. Of course this is the Internet. But in best form, a single line and a summary is commonly done.

Just change the names to protect the innocent.
M#, J$

For this to be constructive and open, needs to be at least a bit polite.

p.s. On a side note, who are these cowards who post comments but can’t be man enough to say who they are?

@callum
alright mate, your call.

Anyway where’s an ex-lawyer when you need one, to advice us of the legality of this?

But then, I think rationality has little to do with this.

What is shows its than the someone cares more about money then ethics and principle .Like the latest news about the xxth verified person yay more money for the permanent staff .

On a further note, I do agree the posts that were asked to be removed should be removed (only fair as it was asked, even if the reason is not what Callum would do it for). So I’m asking the loosely based “us” what they think of this and base further action on that.

But this issue is about the deleting of posts, not the refund isn’t it?

Anyway now that Mikky has asked for his comments to be removed, I think OCS should demonstrate integrity but at least removing his posts. This makes OCS look petty.

I believe it would be more fair to contact the member in question at the very least and see if she would care to have the money back.

Small issue when considering the effect – at least if this for this person 25€ is not that much. However, for those who know me might guess what’s my issue here: choosing to not act with integrity when it was fully well possible – this for me speaks load more than any words or PR ever could.

I don’t see anything that is slander, or libelous.
Also, truth is always an absolute defense to defamation claims (at least in US laws).

Fair use in that the material is being used as a not-for profit social commentary: “why is there a perception of exceptions (allowing to delete potentially bad public relations statements about self) for a particular ‘class’ of users?” If callum’s statement on CS post policy is correct?

Shame on you guys. One of the people involved that you’re slandering asked to have his words (that you used without permission) removed and you not only ignore him but taunt him. Is this what OCS is all about?

I’m glad I never signed your petition. I was open to hearing what you guys had to say before but now I’m glad I never bought in.

Mikky

Besides, it’s about a small issue isn’t it? This post makes OCS look like gossips.