Yulia wrote: "I need to point out that calling anyone the "life blood" of this board, however intellectually challenging, charismatic, wise, diplomatic, or large-hearted he or she may be, is to diminish those wh..."

Yulia, I'm new here, but already I can see you are right and that no single person is the "life-blood" of CR. Everyone seems to contribute something very valuable. I find the posts here among the best book discussion posts on the Internet.

On another note, I feel when one joins a group they know is moderated, they know they will have to abide by the rules and the decisions of the moderators. I fully expect to have to do so myself and that doesn't bother me a bit. Now, I'm not at all confrontational and I don't like board politics (I say as I post here), so I don't expect to have a problem with this myself. I'll just let something go rather than argue a point. But what is the use of having moderators if they can't moderate? And I'm certainly all for civility. I don't know why everyone, in every situation, can't be civil when disagreeing about a work of literature. Literature is subjective and open to many interpretations.

That is a great comment, Dean. I do agree.

Ellen, my thinking is that if you are concerned about it you don't have to be concerned about it. Can you tell I just started re-reading "Catch 22"?

Don't worry about a thing, Ellen. Nothing you have said has seemed harsh or inappropriate. Please continue to post.

I enter this discussion totally uninformed. I never saw whatever Candy did to be booted. It does, however, concern me. Even though I have not contributed much since I have been a member, I worry now that my wording (in response to something said by another) might seem harsh and inappropriate. I am told that I have poor speech patterns ... that, I think, is a result of being hard of hearing my whole life and not getting hearing aids until I was 25. I guess I will spend more time reading this groups threads before contributing much of anything for some time.

Ellen

I wasn't going to post again to this thread having said my peace, but I do want to say goodbye to Ed.

Ed, I am glad my post reasonated with you. I am sorry you have decided to go and, just as I wished Andy the best on his goodbye thread, I give you my best wishes here as well.

You are correct, Sara, and thanks for the interpretation -- what I was trying to say was that some people were probably already either leaving (without making announcements about it) or skipping threads because of the nature of some of the posting. (Not because any one poster was banned.) I believe Jim made basically the same point. A couple people might leave in protest over this kind of decision, but the moderators must also balance the costs of letting a difficult personality drive other people out of threads or away from the site altogether. This is one of the biggest problems for FTF book groups and other discussion groups, to keep one person from driving out others, even though obviously no one's role is going to be all bad (or all good).

Writer & Reader wrote: "I believe Michael to have been pointing out the likelihood that members left or simply stopped participating before the moderators took action, and I agree with him.

I also agree with Jim, that ..."

Martin,

I don't like it that you are picking apart the posts of individuals like that. I thought we talked about civility, and we said that it is OK to say that you don't like a work. It is not OK to say that you don't like the way someone viewed a work. I think you would have been better off saying how much you thought Candy added to the discussion. Then you could have given your examples of what she added. You didn't need to mention those other people who all add wonderful insights to this board.

Jane

I need to point out that calling anyone the "life blood" of this board, however intellectually challenging, charismatic, wise, diplomatic, or large-hearted he or she may be, is to diminish those who remain at CR.

Martin, in your praise of Candy, you put down every one of the other long-time members you cited. I don't know you personally, but was such a slight necessary in order to express your sense of loss? Sure, I could ignore the comment, as several would suggest (especially those who disagree with me), but just as you spoke up about a wrong you saw, so have I.

On a happier note, Beej, I'm so, so glad you decided to stay! she said as she fell off the bed. :)

I think the most remarkable thing about this thread is the respect for differing opinions and the amount of civility each person, including myself, has been accorded. Perhaps there could have been a better way for me to express my thoughts on the power struggle I felt was developing between the moderators and Candy. I still feel somehow, that Candy felt marginalized, and that the moderators did need to uphold boundaries/limits, as all leaders must and do. Both have their viewpoint in this matter, and I respect both, knowing I do not know nearly enough about the complexities of the situation to offer a thoughtful and sensitive remark. My very knee jerk reaction was more about observing how perceived (self or otherwise)powerlessness can often hold unspoken power in the midst of conflicts and how having power can become a helpless position, whether that is acknowledged or not. I was not clear. My post was not meant to be an indictment about the moderators or a support statement for Candy, although I can see how it could be construed either way. My apologies. It was purely, a direct reflection of my own discomfort at seeing how a post on grammar could elicit such heated individual and group debate/division: a clear sign in my view that this conflict was about much more than the stated words being expressed. The mud got pretty thick for awhile but, interestingly, has led to some bridges being built. Hurray for processing! I am still hoping for some sort of re"soul"ution, because I am an optimist at heart. Growth is messy.

Sorry to hear I've disappointed Martin. If I have said anything intolerant in my single previous post in this thread, I do apologize. I personally do not feel that my having read Proust is to be utilized as a reasonable measure of my practice of tolerance -- I'd been trying to be a tolerant being long before deciding to read ISOLT/ROTP a decade ago. And -- as indicated -- the previous post was in no way a complete repsonse to all this brouhaha -- I have decided that this post will though be my final comment on the matter. I see this as a lose,lose situation at this point.

And in an admittedly quick scroll through, I did not see a post in this thread from Barb M. so I most definitely wonder why she was targeted alongside me in your post, Martin. Just an observation.

Philip--thank you for your clear, gentlemenly and non-emotional post on this subject.

Jean K.

Michael wrote: "How many thoughtful people had already left this site? Or reduced their reading and posting? We have no way of knowing, since those people probably did not announce their decisions. But I can tell you that I, though still a relative newbie, have reduced my reading and posting here. And also have become a little more discriminating about threads I follow."

I agree with you, Michael. People often come and go from message boards for a variety of reasons. We may not even notice departures at first. (OT: I, for one, miss seeing Ginnie’s posts and reviews. I’m not sure why she left, but she’s no longer a member of Goodreads. I even googled Ginnie + librarian once. I was such a fan of her reviews; I would follow her to another site. I didn't find her though.)

If someone feels strongly enough about the loss of a poster that he or she feels moved to leave, that is well within his or her rights. There is such a thing as personal integrity, after all, but goodbye posts seem like door slamming to me. I don’t understand the purpose of them.

I won’t claim to be thoughtful, but I can speak for myself. After recently finding myself drawn to a debate when debating is something that goes against both my nature and the way I intend to behave towards others, I reduced my reading and posting because I cannot change others to suit me, but I can determine my own behavior. I try to avoid drama. That’s my aesthetic; some persons thrive on drama. More power to them, I say. I’m certainly not persuasive enough to influence anyone and I don’t think repeat postings of my own opinion entertain anyone but me. I enjoy reading the ideas of others; I already know what I think. Though I don’t think internet message boards are vital, I enjoy them in general and Constant Reader specifically. On internet message boards, I have occasionally felt that free discussion was overwhelmed and stifled by an individual poster’s suffice, consecutive, blog-like postings. This thread is a great example of how members can voice their dissenting opinions without malice. I applaud you members who, though upset, took the time to share your thoughts with clarity. I look forward to reading your future posts.

I know, honey. Me too.

Beej, yes, I did paraphrase the posts, and the whole discussion was as you say. But I wanted to highlight Candy's opener, which really hit me.

And I guess I know that Barabara is tolerant really, but I'd like to see that toleration working for Candy in the present situation.

(Please excuse me, but I'm feeling a bit fraught with this whole business ...)

Martin, I have such tremendous respect for you and over the time you have graced our board..and make no mistake, you have genuinely graced our board..I have learned a great deal from you, especially about poetry. I do not want you to leave.

Candy is my friend and I miss her here. She knows that. But I need to say, you kind of did paraphrase the posts you pulled from the Tess discussion; a lot more was said in those initial posts we made. There were wonderful insights posted by all participants. But thats ok. not a real big deal.

What is a big deal is this;, your perception of Barb is about as far off the mark as it can be. Nobody here is more tolerent of others than Barb.

Well, I'm still hoping for Ed's sake that the moderators might reconsider their decision. But if not, I assume my own departure would not need announcing, it could be taken for granted.

I have been very disappointed by some of the statements here: Dottie R's, and more especially Barbara M's. (What is the point of reading 3,600 pages of Proust, if it teaches you no more than this about the need for tolerance?) On the other hand some, such as Andy's, have been excellent. Thank goodness so many young people refuse to learn "wisdom" from their elders!

What is shocking to me is knowing how far back the relationship goes between Candy and the people who are supporting the decision to eject her. I've been with CR for 7 years on-and-off, and I still feel like a newcomer. But I was aware from the time I joined that Candy had real insights into novels and poetry. I'll illustrate this with an example, if I may. Yesterday I chose one of the archive discussions at random and looked through it. It dates from 2004. Many of the people here today were there then: Beej, Candy, Ruth, Barbara, Sherry, Mary Ellen. I found it very instructive to look at the first post each of them made in the discussion.

Ruth gave it up at once,

"Just don't have the patience any more for this old-fashioned writing style. My loss, I guess."

Yes, Ruth my dear, I guess it was.

Sherry's way into the book is via the Introduction (nothing wrong with that, it is what intros are for). Beej, who I take it knew the book well, looks first at the characters and their responsibilites,

"Who was most responsible for Tess's final demise, Alec or Angel?"

Mary Ellen waits until she's finished reading, and first looks at the heroine,

"But to begin with Tess: she is in many ways a lovable person, and drawn with great depth. However, I found her equally exasperating."

-- and later at the plot,

"But I just didn't buy the ending."

Barbara Moors, also waits until finishing before posting. She found it easier to read than she expected, but is critical of the portayal of the heroine,

"My feeling about Tess throughout the book was that Hardy may have the same problem with female characters that I find in Dickens. She was simply too good."

But ends with something very much more intersting,

"I hadn't grasped the fact that the father's discovery of the D'Uberville family connection began the chain of events that eventually led to Tess's death until someone mentioned it here. In a sense, Tess' father and mother were reaching back for deliverance to a system that was dying. And, it poisoned them as well. Do you think that is part of Hardy's point?"

The "someone who mentioned it here", who got Barbara
thinking in this direction, was Candy. Her first post asks these questions,

"Why do we start out with this dad who finds out he might be part of a knightly family? Is this like the standard hero story that the hero is secretly a prince or of royal lineage? I wonder if the parson tells him to be cruel? He suggests all the father can do with it is think on 'how the mighty have fallen.'"

And answering these questions immediately takes you to the heart of the novel. Tess's father is like a reservation indian with a proud ancestry who turns to drink. Telling him of his ancestry is almost cruel, as Candy says. Later on of course the contrast will be between Tess's connection to the d'Urbeville's that may or may not be real, and Alec's which has simply been bought with hard cash. There is no family link between them at all. They are peasant and master, and represent those two classes.

If you get rid of Candy, you'll get rid of a lively mind with interesting ideas, and, I would have supposed, an old friend. Ricki, now moderator, is actually on Candy's "friends" list. ("I'm sorry Candy, but believe me, it's nothing personal ...") CR will simply take a step towards dullness.

Writer & Reader wrote: "I believe Michael to have been pointing out the likelihood that members left or simply stopped participating before the moderators took action, and I agree with him.


That was not my impression. Michael, correct me if I am wrong, but the thought I took away from that post was that posters stopped participating after the booting.

I see now in my rereading of that paragraph, it could be taken either way.

Michael wrote: How many thoughtful people had already left this site? Or reduced their reading and posting? We have no way of knowing, since those people probably did not announce their decisions. But I can tell you that I, though still a relative newbie, have reduced my reading and posting here. And also have become a little more discriminating about threads I follow.

I believe Michael to have been pointing out the likelihood that members left or simply stopped participating before the moderators took action, and I agree with him.

I also agree with Jim, that there's no reason to limit what groups we are members of--other groups can be formed, joined, participated in, without leaving CR.

But everyone has to make choices on their own.

Sara

I can only echo and agree with posts above, by Russ, Michael, Ed and Beej.

Jim, I think sometimes we do have to choose, not only between friends, but between acquaintances. If we don't make choices, we dilute ourselves and our passion for life. We lose little pieces of our conscience with each choice not made, each occurrence we just "let go".

I have left two groups in the past on account of their treatment, or really, mistreatment of another member. In one case it was only a passing acquaintance, in one case my best friend. It makes no difference. Both instances showed the group mentality, and it was such I could no longer breathe the same air. And it's getting stuffy in here.
But frankly it has for some time now.

I'll start a new thread on civility rather than branching off further under this title.

It sounds like it's best that I just leave it as I said it and not contribute any further to the turmoil here. The ship is setting its course and I wish you all well.

I don't know that we necessarily have to choose between our friends. I would like to think that those who want a more wide open discussion will start another group and that CR can continue as a group that places a premium on civility. People can easily be members of both and go where their mood takes them on a given day.

There is a case to be made for a group that values civility, and I would hate to lose that. Entertaining as random zingers can be, civility actually improves discussions. It requires you to consider the other side of an argument thoroughly before you press your own, and people feel free to contribute without fear of being ridiculed.

While it is a shame to see thoughtful people leave, I am not at all certain that accepting incivility is a good alternative. We might just end up changing the names of those departing.

Perhaps Candy's departure was a surprise to those of us who were not aware of the prior warnings, but given the situation I can understand why the moderators made the decision that they did.

That doesn't mean that I might not look in at what Candy has to say when she surfaces elsewhere. I have my Bill O'Reilly days and my David Broder days as well.

Question for you, Russ, to the point you make (below) -- How many thoughtful people had already left this site? Or reduced their reading and posting? We have no way of knowing, since those people probably did not announce their decisions. But I can tell you that I, though still a relative newbie, have reduced my reading and posting here. And also have become a little more discriminating about threads I follow.

Anyone who's ever run or facilitated or moderated a group successfully knows that one of the primary rules, if not the primary, is to be sure that no one person drives others out.

That one or two people are leaving in protest over this episode has to be weighed against the less-visible costs of others deciding to stop visiting or joining in. That's one reason that moderating is not as easy a job as many of us probably assume.

I think discussions get spoiled when attention hogs take them over. They are adept at making people respond to them, at turning discussions into their personal pet-peeve lands, and it gets very counter-productive if the purpose was to have open, mature conversation.

Russ2 wrote: "I think it is an ominous sign that thoughtful people are giving up on this place. I've seen another forum turn into an empty shell of its former self as its life blood drained out. I can only sug..."

Beej,

I'm very happy to hear that you've decided not to leave--I very much enjoy your contributions to the community.

My questions are not intended to be confrontational at all, just to further the discussion.

Sara

Russ2, this entire thing has made me sick to my stomach. I know a lot of us have lost plenty of sleep over it. Candy is my friend. However, so are many of the people here. I thought about leaving and decided that it would hurt me more than it would anyone else and it served no real purpose.

Sara,everybody who loves CR is worth listening to, even the departing people. And I know the moderators are listening to all of us.

I think it's time to stop questioning everyone, right, wrong or indifferent.I am sick of the turmoil over this.

Russ,

I'm confused. While I regret both Andy and Ed making the decision to leave, the implication that the "life blood" of CR is draining out seems premature, at best. Lively discussions continue here, it seems to me, even while we deal with the continued fallout.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "the departing people are worth listening to"? That the decision made by the moderators should be reversed? Wouldn't that perhaps prompt other departures and undermine the leadership of the group?

Lastly, I don't understand why you surmise that your post might be "out of line" and therefore suitable for deletion--no posts concerning this very serious discussion, no matter what they've stated--have even been mentioned as facing deletion.

I'd appreciate some more clarification.

thanks,

Sara

I think it is an ominous sign that thoughtful people are giving up on this place. I've seen another forum turn into an empty shell of its former self as its life blood drained out. I can only suggest that the departing people are worth listening to.

And if this post is out of line, please feel free to delete it. I'll understand, but I despair at the situation.

Oh, and yes. Several other people have agreed to be moderators. I thank them.

Ed, I really wish you would reconsider, but I understand your decision. Thanks for being a wonderful addition to the group.

I'm sorry you feel you have to leave, Ed, but I respect your decision. Best of luck.

I've been away for a couple days and this thread has just blown me away.

I was in the midst of some personal correspondence with Candy when she told me she'd been booted. I immediately wrote the four moderators, privately, asking them why they had done so. They responded basically with the same reasons they posted here. Ricki didn't know anything had happened.

BTW, I now find there's eight moderators, I must be seeing things or misreading stuff or something. I could have sworn there were only four last week.

Well, anyhow, I decided to spend the weekend thinking about whether the decision was just, justifiable, and reasonable. I have some good friends I enjoy kicking ideas around with usually over a number of beers and wines. In this case, my friends felt that dropping out of CR was the right thing to do (in the zen sense of right).

The thinking was that if you are going to identify someone as a friend, even a virtual friend, and you believe they have not been treated justly, you must do something, if you are going to be true to your principles.

Of all the posts on this thread, I found I most resonated with Sheila's (#24). In other words, I take full responsibility for dealing with whatever anyone says to me or about me by either responding, ignoring or taking the conversation out of the Group and into an e-mail exchange mode.

The fact that some people feel the need to be hurt or to complain about what someone has written in a thread is to me, ridiculous. No one forces me to read anything nor am I forced to respond and if I'm worried I'll accidentally read an attack, I can just skip that thread all together.

I think the Candy issue could have been handled differently. I am convinced that booting her out was justifiable but neither just nor reasonable. Do the moderators believe they did the right thing - absolutely. They do an admirable job. I, however am left with my own opinion that booting her was not the right thing to do.

Therefore, to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson in 1968, it is with a heavy heart, that I am quitting Constant Reader. I have enjoyed this group more than any of the others I have been associated with and I will most likely sneak a peek from time to time especially of this thread, which I am so appreciative of Martin for starting. I thought about it but did not have the energy of my convictions.

Thanks to everyone. The thread I started a couple weeks ago about the movie "Religulous" has given me a lot to think about and great joy that such a controversial topic could be handled with such civility. But there's the rub. It would have been OK with me if the discussion had turned un-civil.

Later.

I'm sorry, Steve, I expressed myself clumsily. What I meant was that I appreciated your taking the long view, not that your post was long-winded.

There is a character limit. I bumped into it when I posted the nomination list. But it is very generous.

Yes Steve, you've articulated all this very well. Good thoughts.

Don't be, Steve.

It was very well put. Thanks.

Sara

That was a long posting, wasn't it? I myself am aghast this morning.

Does not the Goodreads people impose some sort of limitation on word count here? If they do, I certainly have not found it yet.

Having had very little time on CR of late and having seen the beginnings of this in the thread on the church sign's missing apostrophe I will say that I was surprised at the eruption of the situation and I have been catching up on the various threads related to this once I saw Candy had been blocked. I've had my personal encounters online with Candy in the argumentative mode and we've managed thus far to agree to disagree on some things though we are often -- to her surprise as much as my own - in agreement on many things and enjoy chewing around philosophys and such. I can see Philip's viewpoint. I can see others' views validity and I can see much of Candy's view. It's definitely a difficult call but that's what the moderators are for in my view.

Now -- entirely after these facts -- comes Steve -- I've been around CR not quite as long as Steve and a few others but a lon, long time and I, too, have made that decision at various points to stay or go. Steve, I thank you for the post as it does fit my own outlook on this group and in groups in general. I've also got to mention that as someone else mentioned -- I've learned a lot about give and take simply by remaining a member of CR for the many years that I've been along for the ride. That does not mean I won't converse elsewhere with Candy in other discussions nor will we not converse by e-mail or other means -- it just means I will at times miss her input on subjects which arise here.

That's about all I can say in any sense of completeness at the moment. I hope people can work through this and come to their decisions and that the good discussions here continue.

Philip wrote: "Pontalba, I guess it's a matter of interpretation, but I'm convinced that even bold and forthright people are also capable of subtle insinuation.

Do you have siblings? My sister can make me angr..."

I agree, of course they can, it is just my impression that Candy isn't one of them.

No sibs. The dreaded 'only child'. :)

Steve, I greatly appreciate the long perspective as expressed in your post. And I'm so glad that you're back from your sabbatical.

Pontalba, I guess it's a matter of interpretation, but I'm convinced that even bold and forthright people are also capable of subtle insinuation.

Do you have siblings? My sister can make me angry, or melt with love, by the smallest imaginable gesture. From what I've seen on this board (with only the two years' experience, though at times rather deeply involved) there is a strongly personal element at play, which can fuel some of the interactions. This whole series of events has many of the hallmarks of a family feud or rivalry. When there's a long and complicated history, with some emotional baggage apparently, from what longer-term members say, a little bit of provocation can successfully rile people up.

Steve,
Congratulations for your longevity here.
Yours was an amazingly insightful and introspective post from the inside of a lawyer's skin. You leave we completely at a loss of words for how to respond, except to say that you have certainly not lost any skill for courtesy and civility in posting.

Philip wrote: But then it slowly dawned on me that many of these apparently random comments were actually digs at the mods. On the surface this wasn't at all clear to me right away, because I didn't catch the little allusions.
[above in post #34:]

This has been nagging at me Philip. Granted I don't have the experience you do on this board, however from what experience I have of Candy's posts in general, I doubt she is capable of the subtly required for such an assault.

Steve, most insightful and interesting post.

Well, well, a controversy has arisen, I see. I do so wish I could contribute something truly useful. It is not that I would not if I could, and I feel compelled to explain why I cannot.

Candy is my friend. I drove from Iowa to Chicago to attend the reception there after she and Stagg returned from their wedding. I have listened to the blues with Stagg and her delightful friends and her at Buddy Guy's in Chicago. Sherry is a friend in whose home in Milwaukee I have stayed and in whose food I have indulged. I drove from Iowa to North Carolina to attend her birthday party last year. I have broken bread personally with Ruth, another friend, at annual gatherings of the Constant Readers in several major cities and walked through art galleries with her. Jane is a friend and fellow Francophile with whom I have also spent time personally at annual gatherings. I have known all these people as long or longer than anyone else here. Sometimes your friends do not get along as well as you would like.

I have been participating in the Constant Reader on-line book discussion group as long or longer than anyone here, also. I can assure you of that. I have only taken one sabbatical of a little over three years during the George W. Bush administration when I stayed pretty much drunk during every leisure moment. One would think, therefore, that I ought to have something constructive to say on the subject at hand. Or given my neutrality and connections with the primary players, I might be able to use my auspices to solve the problem in some way. I felt compelled to take a moment of your time to tell you why I am not capable of any of that.

ON THE ONE HAND,

Candy Minx is certainly unusual. She is a friend who fascinates me. I follow her blog religiously now. That does not mean she ought to fascinate anybody else, mind you. When she is making an argument for this or that position she is taking, she uses rhetorical devices such as mockery, sarcasm, and even invective—not often, but noticeably often enough. Have those things been directed at people here? Of course they have. Should those people have ignored that or developed a little thicker skin in the interests of furthering free speech as much as we can? Maybe they should have. I do not think anyone can accuse her of flaming, as I understand the term, with any real justification, nor do I think anyone here has. So we are in some very gray middle ground.

As an abstract question, should civility in speech be the enforced norm of behavior among the Constant Readers? My answer to that is easy. Yes. Definitely. Constant Reader is not a perfectly free speech zone and nowhere else in this world is either.

But if you ask me whether any particular contribution is civil or not, I must say to you in all honesty that I do not know. After 36 years of courtroom lawyering, I have lost all purchase on the term. I have made my living being downright uncivil many, many times. I am no longer able to inhabit the same world as the vast majority of you still do. As regards speech, I simply cannot tell you what is civil and what is not anymore. I am about as crusted over as you can get. Nothing Candy has said to me, or anyone else for that matter, has offended me at all in any way. However, my yardstick is not the one with which you want to measure any of that. For one thing, you would have to help me find my yardstick.

ON THE OTHER HAND,

unlike most of you, I am sorely disillusioned with democracy right now. I know that it is professed to be the least imperfect of the choices for governance of human beings, but I am taking another, hard look at Plato's philosopher kings. I can tell you that we have tried democracy among the Constant Readers. It does not work. Try it again if you like. But do not look to me for any contribution based upon shared values about democracy.

I have grown very comfortable living in a world where there is a final decision-maker. Yes, there were appeals, and I think that some of you are making eloquent appeals now. But ultimately there must be a final decision-maker or decision-makers regarding controversies. I made my peace with that even when I was confident that the final decision-maker was an idiot, and the moderators here are certainly not idiots. They have all been around a long while and have seen a lot of things here.

I understand, though, why those of you who are unreserved believers in democracy would not be comfortable with this or the manner in which it was done. For my part I am comfortable letting these moderators make decisions about civility and implement those decisions the way they see fit because I cannot nor do I wish to spend my time attempting it.

If you wish me to point out a psychotic Constant Reader who cannot cope in a social setting, I can. Some years ago, we had a regularly attending psychotic who could not cope. That was the only time that I personally weighed in without any reservations but not because of my expertise in civility. I have nothing personally against psychotics who cannot cope in a social setting. I enjoy them for the most part. But this is not the place for them.

There are others who left this forum years and years ago as a result of this very same controversy. I still miss them very much, one woman in particular, but that is because I could not have cared less whether they mouthed off occasionally. They were brilliant, and they were a huge loss. I simply decided not to leave with them. It was a very close call.

We have been around this horn of argument about civility here many times. This is not the first time. The storm blows in occasionally, and it blows out. You will each have to make your decision every time whether you will leave or stay, as I have. C'est la vie in the fast lane of on-line book discussion.

MEDIATION

The question regarding mediation, Andy, is, “Mediate what?” If one wants to use a mediator in an effort to try to come up with rules about civility or how this place is run in the future. Okay. Good luck.

However, the issue of whether Candy is to remain banished or not is not a subject amenable to mediation if you think about it carefully. There is no middle ground. If mediation results in her reinstatement, she is vindicated and the moderators subverted. If mediation results in her remaining banished, the moderators are vindicated and her interests are subverted. The only way a mediator can mediate that issue is in effect to become the decision-maker. That is called arbitration, not mediation.

Now, if you want to change the minds of the current decision-makers, you do not need a mediator for that. You and others here are more capable of that, if it is possible, than any mediator would ever be.

I don't think anyone has suggested that Candy's unlikeable, Andy. I've met her several times myself and have enjoyed the interaction with her in person. It's just her periods of objectionable behavior here that have been a problem for me.

Yulia,

As another CR without "a flawless past" here, I completely applaud your post.

Andy, I'm aware that you most likely do not want to hear from me (not being confrontational, merely realistic) but I admire your rigorous yet thoughtful defense of your friend. Candy and I have a long history, of both really good things--I have laughed endlessly with her in the past--and very negative things. Take it as you will, but in addition to many other emotions, I'm horribly saddened by what has come to pass.

Sara

A Short, Incomplete List of Things I Like About Candy

She’s very clever at argumentation.

She’s bold.

She’s confident.

She’s an inspiration to me.

She’s resilient.

She has overcome much diversity and tough stuff.

She’s really funny (and has a terrific smile).

She’s well read and well travelled.

She likes to geek out on art and all kinds of fun stuff.

She’s damn smart.

She’s a great listener and she’s very understanding.

She has a super cool hubster!

She’s excited to meet new people and have new adventures.

She makes films and paintings and killer grilled cheese sandwiches.

She has written a book of poetry.

She introduced me to many terrific people.

She volunteers and got me volunteering.

She’s open and caring.

She approaches this forum the same way everybody else does, but something about her approach makes me see something fresh in everybody.

I learn from her.

She overcomes the bullshit and keeps smiling.

We share a fascination for how forum communication works!

She’s my friend!

I wanted to note that a personally-directed taunt's not having been identified by or having hurt every member of a group does not make that taunt any less painful, distressing, real, or inappropriate. I write this not as someone with a flawless past on CR, but as someone who has learned a great deal by being a member and attending to the advice of others.

I've participated in CR for about 4-5 years; I appreciate Phillip's posts here and find his description of the pattern of posting accurate. I note that, over my years on CR, I grew increasingly less comfortable experiencing it on thread after thread, and, similarly, my patience and tolerance diminished as the pattern grew more and more predictable for me.

The question of what is "over the line" has come up several times. For me, it pertains to the distinction between discussion of books and discussion of people. Once a post starts making assumptions about another CR, his/her character, background, education, etc., etc., it has gone over the line, as far as I am concerned. (I recall the first time I was the subject of such a post; I sat at my computer feeling the breath knocked out of me and my first impulse was to exit and not return.)

I love the polite, respectful discussions on CR. They often include passionate expressions of strong opinions -- about books, music, film, ideas -- without denigrating the character of those who disagree. (For an example of such, I suggest the current thread on "Religulous").

Like Capitu, I am sorry all this came to pass. I am sure it is hurtful to Candy, who certainly enjoyed posting to this group. Like Capitu, however, I probably would have made the same decision, had it been mine to make.

My gratitude to the moderators for their dedication to the group; I also support you in this painful decision.

Mary Ellen

Thanks, Jane. I just bought the Fallada book and look forward to participating in that discussion. I think that I will join in for "Homage to Catalonia" as well.