If I may clarification, I posted hastily and very late at night yesterday. I'm on vacation and my head is really not here. I came for a quick check of the boards and was very taken aback by much that had been discussed and on learning Ethel's situation. I fear my words were hurtful; I regret that.
With regard to misrepresentation of the board - I did not at any time intend to imply that anyone was untruthful. I do think, though, that there was - and is - a lot of wishful thinking and naivety in the way the board is represented to those not on B77. It is very well intended - people here WANT it so much - but the unfortunate reality is that there is an anti-TORC sentiment which is very perceptible, especially on first arrival and especially if one is not inclined that way.
So please accept my apologies if anyone feels I was accusing anyone here of underhand motives in how the board is presented. I don't believe that, though on re-reading my own post and Iavas' response to it I can see how it can be read that way.
With regard to banning/resigning/removal of permissions - the idea of removing a username altogether, so that posts become anonymous, so that the name disappears from the membership list - I certainly would not suggest that, not for any MB! I agree that one cannot erase history.
That is one of the reasons that I have stayed - the fact is that I DID accept the invitation, my curiosity won over caution and doubt and I must stand by that decision, not pretend I did not make it. And indeed, I like so many of the posters here (I would say all, but I don't know everyone, some are completely unfamiliar to me), it's not that I want to see the back of you all.
It is such an irony to me that it was Ethel who persuaded me to return following my recent departure, with her suggestion that those with dissenting views from the majority can only make their views heard by verbalising them.
In any case, I did not ask to be locked out in the hope of having all the evidence of my participation removed; I'm not ashamed of my participation; I don't wish it undone. I suspect that if I'd had greater knowledge I may well have declined the invitation until such time as the board was open but that is all speculation with the benefit of hindsight and beside the point.
This is why I wanted the lock: When a poster leaves others don't really know why. Even if the poster states 'this is why', there is still the thought that perhaps the person is still following the argument via lurking. Or that s/he merely holding silence. Alternatively, perhaps the silence is even seen acquiescence, a condoning of the prevailing view.
Asking for the door to be closed behind you has nothing to do with will-power; it has to do with stating clearly, Sadly, I don't agree, and I won't participate, I won't be a fly on the wall.' I'm sure I stated it in my thread though perhaps not in so many words but as I'm on dial-up and on vacation, I really can't check it right now.
Telling me that it's not the business of the administrators (as representatives of the membership) to 'collude' with me (or whoever) in making that statement is a little too self-righteous in my view. Are there not people here who asked for a voluntary ban on TORC? And what was that about? Have they been condemned here for that action, or have they been lauded for standing on principle? Are some principles more equal than others?
In the wider world, people have been known to 'tear up their membership cards' to political parties, unions, gymnasiums, private clubs...and do the adminstrators of these institutions say, 'no, sorry, you're not allowed to resign. You can exert your powers of self-control and not walk in through the door or come to our meetings, but we won't remove you from our roll and we'll still send you all our membership minutes and developments because it makes us feel really bad that you don't want to be in our club/party/union'.
And how would you (pl) feel about an institution responding in that way?
Again - I'm not saying this in anger. I'm not saying it to make you feel bad. I'm just pointing out an alternative perspective to the dominant one here. At the time I asked to be banned I did, indeed, act in anger but even so, I felt very sad at the prospect of losing contact with so many poeple - some of whom I was only beginning to know, to my great delight.
This is not personal. I have no wish to hurt people's feelings. In many ways I have felt intimidated here because there is a heavy chorus of unhappiness - or, at best, polite acknowledgement that feels oddly cold and alien whenever my views are put forward (either by me or the few others who feel in the same way).
'Venting' seems to be open only for the those who hold a contrasting point of view - indeed, it is condoned and ellicits substantial emotional back-patting. So I have held my tongue on many matters because I see no point in fanning the flames, no point in causing offence or further pain.
But then to be told that I could not protest in even the most non-confrontational way because that was manipulative...that was very badly done, I feel.