Here we go again...

[Tracey Maddow]

...trying to get rid of brilliant posters. If you guys cannot beat an
interlocutor, why can't you be dignified enough to accept it and go on
to the next subject hoping to beat him next time? Why resort to
banning that person hoping that there will no more to beat you?

First you portray a person as being no good and attack him. If he
responds to to your attacks, he should be banned? Brilliant posters
have been banned before, the likes of Omprem, etc. That is really not
dignified.

[SM]

Are you serious?  Is that really what you think is going on?  The moderators are moving to suppress and eliminate an overwhelming force of "brilliance" because it can't be "beat" (by which I generously assume you must mean that the ideas and arguments are so compelling and undeniable)...?  You really think that's what this is about??

[atypican]

First off Omprem was never banned. He left on his own. He would have
probably eventually been banned if he continued on as he did and
refused to change tactics.

Secondly the record of both omprem's posts and e_space's posts (and
some of joe's earlier stuff...but check out Joe now!!)stand as an
example of what type of rhetoric we are trying to avoid here on this
forum (and how patient we've been). I recommend that anyone who is
wondering what type of posting will eventually get you banned from
this group, all they have to do is search for posts by either of those
two.

Finally Tracy if you disagree with me about my choice to ban e_space
then *you* should also avoid this forum. Why would you associate with
people you consider hypocrites?

I am an atheist with strong anti-theist tendencies who wants to have
discussions that don't devolve into bickering matches and insult
contests. It's not complicated and it's something I still have a
glimmer of faith in.

If everyone gets pissed off because they deem me to be one who without
good cause bans people, then the forum will die and everyone will go
on to more worthwhile pursuits. If we can't do it we can't do it OH
WELL WE GAVE IT A SHOT!

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 26, 3:05 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off Omprem was never banned. He left on his own. He would have
> probably eventually been banned if he continued on as he did and
> refused to change tactics.
>
> Secondly the record of both omprem's posts and e_space's posts (and
> some of joe's earlier stuff...but check out Joe now!!)stand as an
> example of what type of rhetoric we are trying to avoid here on this
> forum (and how patient we've been). I recommend that anyone who is
> wondering what type of posting will eventually get you banned from
> this group, all they have to do is search for posts by either of those
> two.
>
> Finally Tracy if you disagree with me about my choice to ban e_space
> then *you* should also avoid this forum. Why would you associate with
> people you consider hypocrites?

And now you're trying to get rid of me, lol. Bridge and Deibzoeb left
because you wanted to ban everybody whom you cannot beat in a debate.
Everybody knows that. Look at yourself, maybe it's you whose time to
move on.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 26, 2:25 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > ...trying to get rid of brilliant posters. If you guys cannot beat an
> > interlocutor, why can't you be dignified enough to accept it and go on
> > to the next subject hoping to beat him next time? Why resort to
> > banning that person hoping that there will no more to beat you?
>
> > First you portray a person as being no good and attack him. If he
> > responds to to your attacks, he should be banned? Brilliant posters
> > have been banned before, the likes of Omprem, etc. That is really not
> > dignified.
>
> Are you serious?  Is that really what you think is going on?  The moderators
> are moving to suppress and eliminate an overwhelming force of "brilliance"
> because it can't be "beat" (by which I generously assume you must mean that
> the ideas and arguments are so compelling and undeniable)...?  You

> *really*think that's what this is about??

Frankly SM, that's what is all about. People gets irritated to
brilliant posters and they wanted to get rid of them. It's human
nature and I understand it.

[14SM.jcil]

I have idea what happened with Omprem but associating the present issue with the elimination of unconquerable brilliance is laughable.

[ornamentalmind]

…yet again we have posts not related to the topic…Religion.

Since ‘we’ are off topic again, I’ll reiterate what David said:
Omprem was never banned.

I’ll add to this that most posts here, from the repetitive ones to
those who cling to their own notion of what ‘civil’ and ‘debate’ mean…
from those who freely use ad hominem, sarcasm and personal abuse to
those who embody the true online meaning of ‘troll’… for me, take on
the antonym of ‘Civil’ which I recently posted here: boorish,
churlish.

I too lament the apparent loss of Bridge. I found his posts to embody
the spirit of the group more than most. Oh, and I’ve had a few great
discussions with David too. Otherwise, ‘tis mostly a waste land,
similar to A vs. C and other groups that follow the law of the old
Wild West or the Bush Doctrine.

Overall, I find the moderation here to be way too moderate if
anything. The result is obvious. And, for those who enjoy playing in
such an asylum, more power to you. I don’t… and it is one reason why I
seldom post. No doubt most who post do so with little awareness of
what they are actually doing or if they are aware feel justified
somehow or are just plain stolid.

I’ve purposefully not directly denigrated any current members of the
group here and have kept my personal observations to the general case.
If my criticism seems to fit, please take it to heart. If not, fine.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 8:43 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL! It is more laughable to get rid of a brilliant poster no matter
what the cause is. But attacking him, then ban him if he responds to
the attacks, is even more laughable.

[SM]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

Overall, I find the moderation here to be way too moderate if
anything.

I agree.  Aren't you one of the moderators?  If you perceive that the moderation has been too lax, why haven't you acted?

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 9:23 am, SM <steve.marri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:03 PM, ornamentalmind <
>

> ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Overall, I find the moderation here to be way too moderate if
> > anything.
>
> I agree.  Aren't you one of the moderators?  If you perceive that the
> moderation has been too lax, why haven't you acted?

As far as I know, OM is not one of the moderators. Joe was, but was
ousted for no good reason. Bridge and Deibzoeb left so it's just
Atypican, an atheist and one of the owners and Brock, a Christian who
are left as moderators.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 9:03 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> …yet again we have posts not related to the topic…Religion.
>
> Since ‘we’ are off topic again, I’ll reiterate what David said:
> Omprem was never banned.
>
> I’ll add to this that most posts here, from the repetitive ones to
> those who cling to their own notion of what ‘civil’ and ‘debate’ mean…
> from those who freely use ad hominem, sarcasm and personal abuse to
> those who embody the true online meaning of ‘troll’… for me, take on
> the antonym of ‘Civil’ which I recently posted here: boorish,
> churlish.
>
> I too lament the apparent loss of Bridge. I found his posts to embody
> the spirit of the group more than most. Oh, and I’ve had a few great
> discussions with David too. Otherwise, ‘tis mostly a waste land,
> similar to A vs. C and other groups that follow the law of the old
> Wild West or the Bush Doctrine.
>
> Overall, I find the moderation here to be way too moderate if
> anything. The result is obvious. And, for those who enjoy playing in
> such an asylum, more power to you. I don’t… and it is one reason why I
> seldom post. No doubt most who post do so with little awareness of
> what they are actually doing or if they are aware feel justified
> somehow or are just plain stolid.
>
> I’ve purposefully not directly denigrated any current members of the
> group here and have kept my personal observations to the general case.
> If my criticism seems to fit, please take it to heart. If not, fine.

Your criticism seems to fit, but you're too conservative in defining
what civil is. If a person is being attacked as not civil and he
responds to such attacks with the same words or the synonyms of the
words used to attack him, why castigate and ban him?

[ornamentalmind]

“…why haven’t you acted?” – SM

SM, I have ‘acted’ in the sense of pointing out what I find to be
posts and posters that would need to change in order not to be
moderated. The problem here is that:
1. I didn’t create this group.
2. Only 3 of 4 moderators seem to post here.
3. One of the other moderators (of the active 3 of us) seems to agree
with my general vision of what should be moderated and what
shouldn’t.
4. The other doesn’t appear to care and/or wish moderation/banning of
members.
5. I’m used to groups where there is backchannel discussion about such
things and then either full agreement or at the worst, a vote…majority
‘wins’. Here, with 4, it I possible to have a ‘tie’. Further, on most
such attempts at back channel discussions, one of the 3 of us ‘active’
mods seldom or never gave their view…merely asked more (and to me not
relevant) questions…if anything at all.
6. When it comes to moderation, if anything, I prefer to ‘err’ on the
side of leniency. There have been many cases when I didn’t like posts
and/or posters and on occasion would share my concerns. Often it
became clear to me that the poster came from an entirely different
mindset from my own. Also, seldom would I receive full support from
the other mods. In such cases, I’d just ‘err’ on the side of
leniency.
7. I do take some responsibility SM for the current devolution (as I
see it) of this group. On the other hand, it is my current belief that
one of the founders is quite content with having things the way they
are.

What do you say SM?...what would you want to be different? And has the
above answered your initial question(s)?

[ornamentalmind]

Tracey, while I’m guessing that your question is more rhetorical than
otherwise and that you have your answer already, I’ll still respond by
saying that your ‘general case’ which no doubt is based upon specific
posters is not exactly what I’ve observed happening here over the past
few months. No doubt, specific interactions would support your view.
To me though, the larger picture does not.

[atypican]

> And now you're trying to get rid of me, lol.

It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what if
you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group and
continually display that, I will ban you.

I've sorta lost my patience if you will.

I consider Bridge and Deidzoeb friends, and I can tell you with 100%
confidence that their reasons for not posting here are NOT because I
have been as you say I've been. They left because there was no
profound or progressive dialog, despite their strongest opponents
being polite to them.

>maybe it's you whose time to move on.

I have, in the past just like Bridge and Deidzoeb ceased posting here
(for long periods) until something interesting develops. I will do so
again if I please, or I will check in just to ban posters who are
polluting this forum with posts contrary to it's spirit. If I act in a
way that offends one of the other owners, they're sure to let me know.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 9:59 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And now you're trying to get rid of me, lol.
>
> It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what if
> you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group and
> continually display that, I will ban you.

Of course you will, that is your nature. Just like anybody else like
OM, SM who have posted about moderation, I just like to have my say as
well. If you think that that is no good, then you've got to what
you've got to do.

> I've sorta lost my patience if you will.

That's what I've been talking about. And you finally accepted it.

[14SM.jcil]

Thanks, OM, I appreciate your response.

A few comments, if I may.

I appreciate atyp's effort to confront e (although I think it was months late in coming). I also appreciate that you and Brock made known your support of atyp's actions.

I was disappointed when atyp lost his resolve following e's predictable reaction. I think this would have been the time for you and Brock to follow through more assertively than was done. I can understand why Brock would choose not to since he was one of the primary targets of e's venom, and it could have been justifiably viewed as retribution. It would have been most appropriate for your intervention.

You provided some excellent posts with helpful commentary, but certainly that approach had been tried before (by virtually every other active participant) and was similarly ineffectual. I consider that your unique powers as moderator should have been brought to bear. Thus, the present lamentations after the fact ring a bit hollow for me.

Months ago, when I was more actively petitioning for change from e (and looking for more active moderator support while doing so), I acknowledged with appreciation the leniency and reluctance to intervene being shown by the moderators. I still appreciate that approach, and think that e_space was given much greater latitude than he recognizes or gives credit for. I likewise think that the recent charge from Tracey which intimates improper motivation and treatment of e_space is entirely baseless and unmerited.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 9:50 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> “…why haven’t you acted?” – SM
>
> SM, I have ‘acted’ in the sense of pointing out what I find to be
> posts and posters that would need to change in order not to be
> moderated. The problem here is that:
> 1. I didn’t create this group.
> 2. Only 3 of 4 moderators seem to post here.
> 3. One of the other moderators (of the active 3 of us) seems to agree
> with my general vision of what should be moderated and what
> shouldn’t.

So you are a moderator too. I was wrong then, I thought you were not.

[ornamentalmind]

Thanks for your thoughts SM.
Thanks for your recognition Tracy.

On May 27, 11:29 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 11:29 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL! Baseless and unmerited? You should also be banned SM for saying
that.

[Joe]

For the record, Tracey, I was not ousted from the mod position, I
quit, for my own reasons.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 11:36 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for your thoughts SM.
> Thanks for your recognition Tracy.

You're welcome OM. Now you can ban SM for accusing me of making
"baseless and unmerited" accusations. That is ad-hominem and attack to
my character.

[Tracey Maddow]

All right, thanks for the clarification Joe!

[ornamentalmind]

Tracey, again I’m only guessing; however, your charge of there being
an ad hominem attack along with an attack on your character must be
hyperbole and in jest. In case they are not, I find both entirely
baseless.

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 11:46 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Tracey, again I’m only guessing; however, your charge of there being
> an ad hominem attack along with an attack on your character must be
> hyperbole and in jest. In case they are not, I find both entirely
> baseless.

SM can come and butt in our conversation and say that what I said is
true. He used those words in quotation marks. If not, then I rest my
case. And I can conclude that SM is just who he is.

[ornamentalmind]

Personally I find SM very sharp and pointed...much more so than e-
space thinks about him/herself. That is my personal view. I also
recognize that it may be all based upon cultural norms...both his
style and my personal views.

My personal view about e-space is that while a fairly good observer of
personality traits and behaviors along with an ability to elicit
specific responses it that his/her posting style is overall tedious
and at best sloppy bombastry. Here again, those with less tolerance
would have quickly banned him on the simple merit of behaving in a
troll like manor. I instead decided to learn from the few pearls he/
she had to offer.

Tracy seems to think e's words to be profound or at least mostly
pearls. I do/did not. All of this said, I wouldn't vote against David
if he decides to ban e.

And, IF one wishes a private 'conversation', I suggest an entirely
different forum. Even though I'd like a few uninterrupted discussions
here...it is not the nature of the beast.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:25 PM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> First you portray a person as being no good and attack him. If he
>> responds to to your attacks, he should be banned? Brilliant posters
>> have been banned before, the likes of Omprem, etc. That is really not
>> dignified.
>
> Are you serious?  Is that really what you think is going on?  The moderators
> are moving to suppress and eliminate an overwhelming force of "brilliance"
> because it can't be "beat" (by which I generously assume you must mean that
> the ideas and arguments are so compelling and undeniable)...?  You really
> think that's what this is about??

Hi SM,

LOL!

I guess it takes all kinds of people to make the world go 'round ... :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:05 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First off Omprem was never banned. He left on his own. He would have
> probably eventually been banned if he continued on as he did and
> refused to change tactics.
>
> Secondly the record of both omprem's posts and e_space's posts (and
> some of joe's earlier stuff...but check out Joe now!!)stand as an
> example of what type of rhetoric we are trying to avoid here on this
> forum (and how patient we've been). I recommend that anyone who is
> wondering what type of posting will eventually get you banned from
> this group, all they have to do is search for posts by either of those
> two.
>
> Finally Tracy if you disagree with me about my choice to ban e_space
> then *you* should also avoid this forum. Why would you associate with
> people you consider hypocrites?
>
> I am an atheist with strong anti-theist tendencies who wants to have
> discussions that don't devolve into bickering matches and insult
> contests. It's not complicated and it's something I still have a
> glimmer of faith in.

I too. You started this forum, and it has been a joy to be a
participant here. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tracey Maddow
<tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Finally Tracy if you disagree with me about my choice to ban e_space
>> then *you* should also avoid this forum. Why would you associate with
>> people you consider hypocrites?
>
> And now you're trying to get rid of me, lol.

Or just pointing out that sometimes folks can "vote" with their feet.
There is a moral suasion in one's actions, either to participate more,
or less.

> Bridge and Deibzoeb left
> because you wanted to ban everybody whom you cannot beat in a debate.
> Everybody knows that.

Well, they were both quality posters here, to be sure. But atypican is as well.

One thing I remember too is that a debate's success isn't always
easily measured. Sometimes posters can get frustrated by the
interactions, or simply decide they've had enough for now, or maybe
moved, or got a new job and don't have the time they once did. I
learned early that if one waits for an opponent to concede, one may
wait a long time (the term "never" actually comes to mind! :) ) ...

But there are other joys in debate other than hearing your opponent
say "you win" ... and I have taken comfort and solace from them:

* friendships can develop
* one can learn something new
* one can find confirmation in one's positions
* one can be thankful for the opportunity to communicate with others
on these topics

These are just some ideas that come to my mind, you may have others. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 12:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tracey Maddow
>

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Finally Tracy if you disagree with me about my choice to ban e_space
> >> then *you* should also avoid this forum. Why would you associate with
> >> people you consider hypocrites?
>
> > And now you're trying to get rid of me, lol.
>
> Or just pointing out that sometimes folks can "vote" with their feet.
> There is a moral suasion in one's actions, either to participate more,
> or less.

Yep, but did you read his final word to me, yes addressing me this
time and not e-space? They are as follows:

"It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what
if you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group

and continually display that, I will ban you." --Atypican May 27, 2011

What do you think of that?

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Tracey Maddow
<tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, but did you read his final word to me, yes addressing me this
> time and not e-space? They are as follows:
>
> "It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what
> if you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group
> and continually display that, I will ban you." --Atypican May 27, 2011
>
> What do you think of that?

I think you should stay on his good side.

Regards,

Brock

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 27, 2:44 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Tracey Maddow
>

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yep, but did you read his final word to me, yes addressing me this
> > time and not e-space? They are as follows:
>
> > "It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what
> > if you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group
> > and continually display that, I will ban you." --Atypican May 27, 2011
>
> > What do you think of that?
>
> I think you should stay on his good side.

Lol, i think that's what he wants, respect. To bow down to him or kiss
his ring or something. But I got my dignity though, something that
can't be bought or threatened. I'm contented where I'm at and he can
ban me all he wants.

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Tracey Maddow
<tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2:44 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Tracey Maddow
>>
>> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yep, but did you read his final word to me, yes addressing me this
>> > time and not e-space? They are as follows:
>>
>> > "It's a simple matter to get rid of whoever I please. And guess what
>> > if you don't respect what I am trying to accomplish with this group
>> > and continually display that, I will ban you." --Atypican May 27, 2011
>>
>> > What do you think of that?
>>
>> I think you should stay on his good side.
>
> Lol, i think that's what he wants, respect.

Well, "Civil Religious Debate" is his stated group goal.

> To bow down to him or kiss
> his ring or something.

Or just civil religious debate.

> But I got my dignity though, something that
> can't be bought or threatened.

But do you got civil religious debate? If not, atypican has a problem
with that. And on this group, the "A Civil Religious Debate" group, I
appreciate the parameters he's established and is working to maintain.

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

Upon reviewing the e-space issue after receiving an email from him, I
find that while I was correct about him not being banned, (something
that is easy to tell for moderators by looking at a list of those who
are banned), I did find that he is no longer able to post in this
group and he no longer receives email from it. I will assume that one
moderator made the decision to only limit his posting rather than
fully ban him which would keep him from ever being a member of the
group and from ever applying for membership. He can still read what is
posted here now.

I for one agree that in some cases it is preferable to take this type
of action rather than deal with keeping a member on moderation. While
e-space was moderated, the number of email notices from Google due to
his prolific posting style was daunting at best. It filled up my inbox
daily and as David has said, taking the time to read each and every
one before releasing it is more trouble than it is worth ...
especially when a member is not agreeable to being compliant with our
standards and feedback.

On May 27, 9:03 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> …yet again we have posts not related to the topic…Religion.
>
> Since ‘we’ are off topic again, I’ll reiterate what David said:
> Omprem was never banned.
>
> I’ll add to this that most posts here, from the repetitive ones to
> those who cling to their own notion of what ‘civil’ and ‘debate’ mean…
> from those who freely use ad hominem, sarcasm and personal abuse to
> those who embody the true online meaning of ‘troll’… for me, take on
> the antonym of ‘Civil’ which I recently posted here: boorish,
> churlish.
>
> I too lament the apparent loss of Bridge. I found his posts to embody
> the spirit of the group more than most. Oh, and I’ve had a few great
> discussions with David too. Otherwise, ‘tis mostly a waste land,
> similar to A vs. C and other groups that follow the law of the old
> Wild West or the Bush Doctrine.
>

> Overall, I find the moderation here to be way too moderate if

> anything. The result is obvious. And, for those who enjoy playing in
> such an asylum, more power to you. I don’t… and it is one reason why I
> seldom post. No doubt most who post do so with little awareness of
> what they are actually doing or if they are aware feel justified
> somehow or are just plain stolid.
>
> I’ve purposefully not directly denigrated any current members of the
> group here and have kept my personal observations to the general case.
> If my criticism seems to fit, please take it to heart. If not, fine.
>

> On May 27, 8:17 am, Tracey Maddow <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:25 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Tracey Maddow
> > > <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:
>

> > > > ...trying to get rid of brilliant posters. If you guys cannot beat an
> > > > interlocutor, why can't you be dignified enough to accept it and go on
> > > > to the next subject hoping to beat him next time? Why resort to
> > > > banning that person hoping that there will no more to beat you?
>

> > > > First you portray a person as being no good and attack him. If he
> > > > responds to to your attacks, he should be banned? Brilliant posters
> > > > have been banned before, the likes of Omprem, etc. That is really not
> > > > dignified.
>
> > > Are you serious?  Is that really what you think is going on?  The moderators
> > > are moving to suppress and eliminate an overwhelming force of "brilliance"
> > > because it can't be "beat" (by which I generously assume you must mean that
> > > the ideas and arguments are so compelling and undeniable)...?  You

[Brock]

On May 27, 2:39 pm, Tracey Maddow <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now you can ban SM for accusing me of making
> "baseless and unmerited" accusations. That is ad-hominem and attack to
> my character.

Hi Tracey,

What specific text are you basing your accusation against SM on? The
email citation shows:

"I likewise think that the recent charge from Tracey which intimates
improper motivation and treatment of e_space is entirely baseless and
unmerited."

Did you mean this text, or another specific text? Please note that if
you did mean the cited text, I'm not sure I agree with your
assessment, and would ask you to clarify the accusation. If you meant
another text, please be specific.

Regards,

Brock