Yes, I was reading on PT today. There are days when I just have to get a good laugh.
As I was reading through the comments (and rolling my eyes), I came across someone who obviously disagreed with the thoughts expressed in the main post. Her name is Danibel.
She posted a short comment and then was pounced upon by the PT mob. Not only did they attack her ideas, but they attacked her spelling - even her name, for crying out loud! And then.....nothing.
No rebuttal, no backing up her statements. Nothing.
This is all cleared up a few comments later by TC. She explained that Danibel had been "escorted from the premises" after Danibel had posted a few scathing comments about (wait for it)...."personal responsibility." (Yeah! I would love to have been able to chime in on that! Oh, no - wait. I can't. I have been banned. Boo hoo.) TC promises that Danibel's comments will be on tomorrow's post. Oh joy!
See, this is my main issue I have on PT. There is no tolerance for anything that remotely resembles a dissenting comment. If you don't chime in with the mob - POOF! - you are banned. No chance to give a rebuttal or to even defend yourself. Yet the PTers are quite liberally allowed to tear this person down with no hope of her being able to comment.
This site is different. We show both sides. We allow differing points of view.
What do you feel about the banning of people from sites (any site - not just PT) simply for not having the same point of view? (Not talking about personal attacks - just for a different point of view.)
When is banning justified? (If ever.)
Posts
[quote]There is no tolerance for anything that remotely resembles a dissenting comment.[/quote]
ReplyDeleteActually, her "dissenting" comment is on the thread for the whole world to read/respond to today, tomorrow, always. It's (from what I can presume) her potty mouth that was virtually sanitized....
In all honesty, we all agree to being respectful when we agree to participate on any blog. If she got out of control, then she could rightfully expect to be censored.
It'll be interesting to see what's said tomorrow.
I just read Danibel's comment. The ending of it was quite rude ("you are all a bunch of ungrateful %%%") and of course that provoked a reaction from everyone at PT. As you may recall, there have been some rude comments on this blog as well which led David to develop his set of rules here. So, I think any of us could get censored (and rightfully so) by either TC or David if we let loose with a bunch of rude comments.
ReplyDeleteSory I misquoted her rude comment "you are a group of..."
ReplyDeleteFAKE, I think she is fake, TC is trying to stir the pot, things have been getting a little boring over there. She is posting more from Danibel tomorrow. Well, Danibel posted on the main board. She did not email TC privately and since there are not other posts that anyone commented on, it means that TC didn't remove them. So think about it...
ReplyDeleteNow, it is amazing how they will start making fun of her spelling, another posting booster because, of course every time there is a negative post like this, have you ever noticed, there are tons of typo's and misspellings. But there are many typo's and mispelled words in the other posts but noone ever says a word.
another classic comment from the same thread:
courtesy of twinkefree:
And SassyAuburn--I am ashamed, ashamed (doubly ashamed) to say that I fall into the category of the Director not following thru with prizes owed to consultants. Now, looking back, I chalk it up to a confused and overwhelmed mind. I couldn't do one more thing back then as I was running in so many circles. Order prizes? How was I going to pay for that? I apologize to you and all the consultants who got shirked.
Wow, chalk another up for personal responsibility and twinkefree, I personally would go without a meal before I would go back on my word. Guess we are very differnt types of directors. This may even be a reason STRT and I are here posting and you are on PT with Raisinberry, SteppingDown, Pink Peace, and others.
It will never stop amazing me how silly some comments make the poster appear. Queen of Section 2 is starting to sound like a middle-schooler.
objective1, I agree the comment is rude and I can assure you that any true pro-mker would not get on a public forum and use fowl language to try to convince others that their view was tainted. My belief is that it is just a fake posting to get the excitement and espirt d'corps up over there. TC wants to finish the year just like the MK directors big. She needs to have more posts than ever, there is only 1 1/2 months left to this Seminar year.
ReplyDeleteBecause any other time, the post would have been removed. And the writer banned.
ummm, trying to get the quote thing going here...
ReplyDeletequote: Now, it is amazing how they will start making fun of her spelling, another posting booster because, of course every time there is a negative post like this, have you ever noticed, there are tons of typo's and misspellings. But there are many typo's and mispelled words in the other posts but noone ever says a word.
Yeah, I agree. It's pretty petty. B***hing for the sake of b***hing when you have nothing to contribute but can't shut up!, I say. It's one thing to have a healthy debate, you know? Why be a jerk about it. Talk to the points worth debating. Skip the personal assault...
Been lurking for a while. Pink Lighthouse was kinda of a yawn-fest. Pink Truth has its moments (admit it). Found this balanced site and have been hovering for a bit. It's interesting here because for everything you slam PT for, from a third-party's perspective, some of you guys can be much the same way in your severity. LOLOL.... But it's cool. It (the site) adds balance (as per the m.o. of the site) to the Mary Kay for/not argument.
Carry on! :0)
anon,
ReplyDeletePink Truth has its moments (admit it).
I must agree, it does have it's moments - I will just leave it at that. And if you find my posting offensive, I apologize but you must realize, there are innocent people reading that site believing all the stories are true,
on this particular topic, I just want to point out that if one has been reading, it appears to be a fake post to stir the pot with her readers. (It has happened before)
Why do I feel like this? Because I was naive enough that when I first stumbled upon another sort of anti-mk site, to post a very "pink" post. A couple people mocked and a couple of others were kind enough to "clue me into" blog etiquette. Then I learned about fake posters and multiple identities and never assume. When I was ready to send $$ for a person who had experienced a tragedy, I was cautioned to be careful and that I may be a little too trusting.
Reading posts from ie: mkhonesty, thinking "he" was a "she" until I learned more.
So I feel if this site is going to help balance things - people who are as naive as I was, will know understand, never assume and believe everything you read.
Thanks for commenting, hope you join us more and if you have been visiting pink lighthouses and pt, my guess is that you may be anti as oppossed to pro, but please realize, at this site, we do believe there are some bad apples in Mary Kay, what we try to promote at this site, is NOT that MK is perfect, but how to run this business ethically and profitably.
Anon -
ReplyDeleteThat comment was left on the site, but whatever else was said was not. There was no option of a warning, apparently, or simply to tell Danibel to keep her posts civil.
As far as the comment of there is no tolerance for a dissenting comment, I speak from experience. I was banned from PT for simply pointing out that an action taken by MKC (that PT was trying to paint as evil) was simply a standard business practice. POOF! Gone. LOL