Boy, was I ever stupid to reply to your message!#$#!#$%$>> ,Peter.
>>
>>From your wording I interpret that you have previously suggested/requested that moderators be added to the UT (if it was in an open thread, I guess I missed it).
>
>I don't see how you could come to that interpretation based on what I wrote. But let me clarify. The word 'moderator' has been mentioned by me many times in the past. The word that I can't recall having used is 'add'. And I'm not using that word now either. SNIP...

You have adopted the JVP-style - pick a word in a response and move the focus to that instaed of the original issue.$#!%$#%$#!
You said you proposed a moderator. To me that means you don't count what is in place now as any form of "moderation". Yet you take issue with my word "add". Can it get any sillier?????????

>
>
>>MichelF has told us his plan of action going forward. True, he did not lay out every permutation and combination that could arise, but he was clear nonetheless.
>>Why can't you just accept that - especially when he said that there will be NO NEGOTIATION on this issue??????
>
>If I - as the originator - now had gotten the permission to act as a moderator, I'd most certainly give you a first (private) warning here. Please let me explain and don't take it personal (or perhaps a little bit).

Frankly, the idea strikes me as a stupid one - an originator having moderator POWERS just makes no sense to me. If the originator perceives a problem, why can't he deal with it publicly or privately?...Why are special powers required??? If things get bad, why isn't contacting MichelF a reasonable option (as it is today)?????????

>
>Especially the second sentence of your paragraph could very well mark the beginning of a new flame war. It is not really a question. You are not asking me something. Instead, you are trying to teach me a lesson and also you're yelling at me. When I read that sentence I have this mental picture of a man in a room somewhere in Toronto who's actually thinking about me "What a stoopid dude!".
>
>As I said, such a type of sentence often marks the onset of a flame war.

Man o man - more JVP-esque 'argument'. If that sentence truly offends you, then all I can say is that you have sensitivities that are unnatural. And I do laugh when someone complains about an all-caps word as being "yelling". I capitaized the words for EMPHASIS. That you feel it is yelling (and you probably would argue that it hurts your eyes too) is your problem, not mine.
>
>
>>As regards your idea that the thread originator could be a moderator (one of two (or more, I suppose)), hasn't the originator always had that 'right'. Seems to me that an originator was always in a position to further explain positions or refute mis-interpretations, etc. Is there really a need for formalizing that???
>
>Let the originator be more or less responsible for 'proper' behavior in the thread. If the originator makes abuse of the extra features - e.g. by censoring those who merely criticize his/her point of view - then it's always possible to either complain at the higher level or skip other threads that are started by this person.

Everyone has their own definition of "proper". It is clear to me, for instance, that you have a far different definition of 'proper' than I do. Sorry, but making each originator 'responsible' for the decorum in their thread will simply lead to chaos.

>
>Hope I explained well.

It's a difficult thing to take a bad idea and try to "explain" it well. Your hope is in vain.

I will NOT be goaded into a further reply on this to you. I do not appreciate re-direction of arguments as you have done here. And, frankly, your sensitivities are beyond my comprehension. I try hard to write "proper" responses, but that is an impossible goal when answering you.

ciao