Some liberties have been taken with format, but not content, except that contact information has been removed.
Subject: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] FW: adios
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:46:13 -0400
From: "Donald D. Fusaro"
To: "Mary Foster", [Kurt Jensen]
CC: [Birds of a Feather], [UUCF Chat]
At 06:47 PM 8/1/01 -0400, you wrote:
<-----Original Message-----
<From: [Kurt Jensen]
<Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:21 PM
<To: [UUCF Chat]
<Subject: adios
<
<
<
<I've decided that my staying on this list is not good for me.
The question is not what is good for you, me or others in this controversy. The question is what's good for Unitarian-Universalism and UUCF?
< I don't need the aggravation nor do I need the anger that emerges in me
<and comes out from time to time.
None of us need the anger and aggravation which emerges in us in these situations, but it is a natural product of involvement in important and serious matters. So we all need to manage our anger and express it properly.
< Of course, I've left before, so will this be different? Hard to
< say. Right now though, it is time
<to quit being part of the problem.
Your last two communications as well as your membership on the board show you to be part of the problem whether you stay on the list or not. As a board member you support an outrageous policy. Stop fiddling while we burn in the anger you cause us.. I'm angry at the abuse you do to my religion even though my religion and I respect your right as an individual to do so.
<
<
<So, I am signing off.
<
<See you at church,
<
<Kurt
I've decided that my getting on this list is a moral obligation whether good for me or not. So I have signed on.
Don Fusaro
Subject: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Re: ADMIN:Trying Again
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:47:21 -0400
From: "Donald D. Fusaro"
To: [Kurt Jensen]
CC: [Birds of a Feather], [UUCF Chat]
Kurt
I am furious about your two 'missiles'. Not because of your mistake but because what you said is the kind of thing we all should hear from the board members --- as wrong as they may be. I'm also concerned about your support of thought police.
At 08:03 AM 7/31/01 -0400, you wrote:
> Hi Mary,
>
> I read youe e-mail. While I agree with you that rules discussion are not
> <wrong>
Certainly, rules discussion are not wrong. They are necessary and vital.
> I do wonder if we are teaching people that if they make enough trouble on
> the list you will back down.
A bit of arrogance here. Who appointed you and Mary to be 'teaching people'? Also throughout the history of democratic process, people have used the means of making enough trouble to make officials back down and to change policy.
> It seems to me that at a minimum Hal needs a stern reminder from the
> Board that if he has a problem with what one Board-approved committee is
> doing, he has a responsibility to talk to them or the Board first,
Did you create this rule? Privy council anyone?
> and not
> that then perhaps its time for him to resign from his leadership position.
Did you create this rule too?
> Our consultants
You mean the white washers? They have made what they considered toxic look like spoonfuls of sugar
> wanted the list shut down because they viewed it as a tool for conflict
Do you mean you're against members and Unitarian-Universalists speaking their minds and speaking to power in a clash of ideas? That's the whole promise of this technology.
> rather than conversation. It seems to me if we are NOT going to suspend
> people who violate the conversation not conflict covenant, we should
> either give up on all rules or shut it down.
The use of the word 'Nazi' was wrong. It's fascism that you're practicing.
> Even though Bruce made an honest mistake in mentioning the Nazi comments
> directed at us from the Alex Machina list in his condemnation, the fact is
> that at least 50 people saw it who didn't want too.
Or did everybody hear what the board didn't want them to. Under freedom of speech, some people hear or see what they don't want to
> This cannot continue.
It must continue.
> So, I don't know the answer. I do know that we have to put the conflict
> behind us.
We need to put the conflict ahead of us all.
> It is creeping in again to the dismay of a lot of folks. Nancy Byrd
> said during Joys and Sorrows that her sorrow is that free speech is dead
> on the chat list. Most folks were appalled she brought something so petty
> up.
These people need lessons in the history of our country, its founding and its constitution.
> I thought it particularly galling given her husband initiated the Nazi
> comments on BoF. (I digress).
You sure do!
> UUCF doesn't need this.
UUCF does need this and more.
> JOhn, Harriet we could use some help.
>
>
> God bless you Mary. This isn't fair for you to be the focus of all this.
> It hurts, I know.
I agree. You and the rest of the board need focus on all of this and to be out in the open.
> Kurt
[ Apology, by Kurt Jensen, 31 Jul 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Re: [uucf-chat] Apology
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:55:38 -0400
From: "Laura Sheridan"
To: "Birds of a Feather", [UUCF Chat]
CC: [Kurt Jernsen]
Apology or not, this and the previous message gave me new insight into UUCF. A Board member who doesn't get it -- i.e., doesn't understand the concept of free speech and accuses others of being petty -- wanted to muzzle, if not punish, a notably wise and dedicated church member who was willing to take a stand.
-----Original Message-----
[ Apology, by Kurt Jensen,
31 Jul 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [uucf-chat] flaming Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:58:49 -0400 From: "Robert J. Hatfield" To: "UUCF Chat"
Good morning...loved the rose poem...I am always moved by the light...and go toward the light myself..which is why I'm attracted to poetry.
I think "flaming" remarks are those which would "close the rose"...anything that would hurt or embarass someone would be flaming. It isn't hard to determine. A remark made strictly from an intellectualized base and not from the heart can sometimes be flaming if its repercussions are hurtful.
For years I lived by my grandmother's rule: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." But there are times when that doesn't work. Sometimes unpleasant words have to be said. In that case, it is necessary to say words about the situation and/or the particular events but these words can still be done in a nonhurtful way to an individual.
I am just pleading with everyone on this list to please look inside your head AND your heart and truly know your internal motivation before you post anything. I would love to keep this list a thought-provoking AND spiritually-based method of communication.
Thank you. In Peace and Love to you all:
Joy Hatfield
Subject: Re: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Apology
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:30:48 -0400
From: "Billye Stevens"
To: [Birds of a Feather], [UUCF Chat]
CC: [Kurt Jensen]
Laura,
You stated my feelings exactly. Nancy Byrd and Hal Fuller have dedicated years to the life of UUCF. Leaders must take a stand when they see a policy that affects the congregation in a restrictive way.
I voted for the call of the ministry and successive members to serve on the Board of Trustees to govern the church wisely and in our best interest. I let my emotions lead to hurts, so I withdrew my membership temporarily.
Mary Foster and Kurt Jensen have also dedicated many hours to the life of UUCF. Surely all the friction can be worked in a called meeting as the UUCF Consultants suggested last year.
Billye Stevens
----- Original Message -----
[ Apology, by Laura Sheridan, 02 Aug 2001
is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Re: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Apology
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:50:37 -0400
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: [Birds of a Feather]
I do not think that is possible. If the consultants indicated that a called open meeting was needed to air out differences, then why hasn't the UUCF leadership done so? It would seem they are punishing those who called for the consultants. UUCF, in my opinion is no longer a UU Church. They are UU in name only. There may still be individuals who uphold UU principles, but now they are a minority within the church. The charter and mission statement that made UUCF a Unitarian Univeralist congregation is meaningless if they will not uphold those princicples. I call ALL of the Birds to be an example and not only say they are UUs, but LIVE those principles in our dauly lives. Let the Birds be a candle in the darkness that lights the way to Truth.
AJCrane
Subject: [eklektiks] Will restrict myself to Birds..
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:42:16 -0000
From: "alan truelove"
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Looks like several interesting threads going on- now that I have succeeded in penetrating Yahoo's complicated system--- (and useful - I learned there is a Green meeting Thurs 9th.. 6.30 pm and intend to show up..)
I believe I will confine my self to "Birds.." for the forseeable future..
Subject: Re: [uucf-chat] ADMIN:Trying Again
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:06:25 -0400
From: Nancy Byrd
To: "Mary Foster"
CC: "UUCF Chat" "Harriet Meyer", "John Cunningham",
"Kurt Jensen", "Nancy Commisso",
Dear Mary and others,
First, I want to thank you for your wonderful service on many fronts at UUCF. And I want you to know, Mary especially, that I have the greatest respect for your integrity and good intentions. Mary, I am also impressed by your staying focused on the issues at hand and not getting sidetracked by emotional issues. But when I disagree with you and the issue is important to me, I will pursue it, and I hope to convince you of the rightness of freedom of speech in all arenas of UUCF.
Let me add that until today, why I do not know, I had not received any mail addressed to nancyuu for several days, including my husband's inflamatory email to the Birds' list. (Kurt, I did not know about the email when I spoke on Sunday.) Only my husband can apologize for his behavior, and he feels that it was a humorous response, calling attention to the restriction on free speech perpetrated by the Nazis and the parallel with restriction of free speech on the chat list. But let me say that I regret it. I feel that it was hurtful and did no good. Nancy, his email is not typical of the traffic on the Birds' list.
Mary, let me add that I applaud your new tact with respect to the chat list, but I fear that you are taking on a very big job, one more easily accomplished by other chat list members. You comment that there is "UUCF bashing" on the Birds' list. Yes there is some (Many of the Birds' list are people who feel driven out of UUCF and have used the list to work through their hurt. Know that they mourn the loss of UUCF; their grief is real.) But there is also a healthy dynamic there. Those who speak inappropriately are usually called to task for their excesses, and, I think and hope, usually learn from the experiences. Usually what you find there is wisdom and compassion.
Maybe we are too easily hurt by words. People, in a debate, will often use overly harsh language. Kurt, you apologized to me, but what for? No apology is necessary. I would like to see a chat list at UUCF where people are free to express ideas, even to make mistakes. I think we squander a precious resource, the ideas of our fellow congregants with unnecessary restrictions on the form and content of speech.
Respectfully submitted, Nancy Byrd
At 7:13 PM -0400 7/30/01, Mary Foster wrote: [ ADMIN:Trying Again, by Mary Foster, 30 Jul 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [uucf-chat] Pro-Wrassling Chat
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 05:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Edwin Butterworth
To: [UUCF Chat]
Laura,
I am glad to number myself as one who does not "get" the concept of free speech that you promote. Only a few days ago you came out in full support of name calling and nasty posting. Now you want to referee -
Why not ask the UUA for permission to establish a UUA Pro-Wrassling interest chat group - and let UUCF try to operate under the civil UUA guidelines allow plenty of leeway for responsible free speech.
Ed
[ Apology, by Laura Sheridan, 02 Aug 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [uucf-chat] Extended Community
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:28:55 -0400
From: "Robert J. Hatfield"
To: "Nancy Byrd"
CC: "Mary Foster", "Nancy Commisso", "Kurt Jensen", "John Cunningham",
"Harriet Meyer", "UUCF Chat"
Nancy,
Wonderful and courageous sentiments, beautifully expressed. We all can
profit from using such models as yours to emulate in the admittedly
challenging process of being direct, honest, thoughtful, caring and
respectful while framing messages on issues of concern. A loss or
undue-constriction of our cyber-connection would diminish our opportunity to
access each other and grow in our extended community.
Kudos,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
[ ADMIN:Trying Again, by Nancy Byrd, 03 Aug 2001
is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Re: [uucf-chat] Pro-Wrassling Chat
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:04:42 -0400
From: "Laura Sheridan"
To: [UUCF Chat], "Edwin Butterworth"
Ed:
In no way have I come out in support of name-calling and what you call nasty posting. You must have somehow misread what I've said.
--Laura S.
-----Original Message-----
[ Pro-Wrassling Chat,
by Edwin Butterworth, 03 Aug 2001
is quoted in full here.]
Subject: Re: ADMIN: definition of 'flaming' for your consideration was RE: [uucf-chat] The Future-LOOONG
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:13:47 -0400
From: Nancy Byrd
To: "Mary Foster"
CC: "UUCF Chat", "Harriet Meyer", "John Cunningham", "Kurt Jensen"
Very interesting, but there is a problem with the advice, and that is that some people are more civilized in public than in private email. I know that some people have left the church because of personal flames that they have received. Whether or not they were overreacting, I do not know. Every one has been very nice to me.
But did my email of last night get censored? or was it not received? If the latter, I'll resend. I was trying to be helpful. To heal, not wound. - Nancy
At 4:41 PM -0400 8/1/01, Mary Foster wrote:
[
ADMIN: definition of 'flaming' for your consideration [1],
by Mary Foster, 01 Aug 2001
is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [eklektiks] Toward a Primer of Particularities
Date: Friday, August 10, 2001 8:02 PM
From: "Donald D. Fusaro"
To: [Birds of a Feather]
A primer of particularities ought to be useful.
In particular, Mary Foster has said,
It seems to me and others I have talked to that there is a certain amount of 'UUCF bashing' that goes on on what was originally called the 'Birds of a Feather List.'
If someone has reason to believe, or simply believes, an item of what you call bashing he or she has a rigjt to say it.
Are the anti-bashers saying that UUCF, its ministers and 'administers' are beyond criticism?
Don Fusaro
From: "Bill Eckman"
To: "Donald D. Fusaro", [UUCF Chat]
Subject: Re: [uucf-chat] Toward a Primer of Particularities
Date: Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:21 AM
I agree with you that if someone believes something, then they do have a right to express it. I believe that we all have the right to express what we think. I don't think anyone is beyond criticism. The question is; is this list a forum for these types of comments? I don't think it is. There are more effective means of conflict resolution available to all of us. Here is the a link to the procedures for conflict resolution on UUA email lists. I think it could also apply to this list.
http://www.uua.org/lists/listconflict.html
Thanks,
-Bill Eckman
--- "Donald D. Fusaro" [e-mail address removed] wrote:
[ Toward a Primer of Particularities,
by Donald D. Fusaro, 10 Aug 2001
is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [uucf-chat] Rules and words
Date: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:38 PM
From: "Judy Gallimore"
To: "Birds of a Feather"; "UUCF chat"
Here are some of my thoughts about the UUCF chat list and rules for its use. I am no longer a member of UUCF but am a friend; I worked very hard for the welfare of UUCF when I was a member, many of my personal friends still belong. I remain a UU and work to support a few of the efforts of UUCF. I hope that members and friends of UUCF that read this have an open mind to all thoughtful input, valuing opinions that do not necessarily reflect their own thoughts, not discarding those ideas because they come from someone that is no longer a member.
Today I read the rules for lists and the rules for conflict resolution on the UUA web site as suggested by Bill Eckman. I really was filled with disbelief at what I read and was forced into making the following conclusions. My thoughts:
I had originally (months or years ago) assumed that what was called a “chat list” was a forum for discussion of ideas. In such a forum I would expect that controversial subjects would come up and that sometimes things would get at least a little fiery as people with differing opinions stated where they stood on issues. I also expected that sometimes people would misstate or poorly phrase things and that sometimes they would be misunderstood.
But from what I can tell from the UUA rules and the UUCF rules (as they currently exist but we are now free to discuss) the word “chat” is really a very descriptive name for how this list was intended to be used. Stay chatty. Don’t get heavy. If someone offers a thought that provokes a less than 100% supportive reaction in you, be extremely careful how you reply. Or safer – don’t reply at all. So “chat” as in “chitchat” is an appropriate name. My dictionary defines chitchat as “1. Light conversation on one subject or another: small talk.”
So if the membership of UUCF as represented by the board wants the list serve that is called the UUCF chat list to be a chitchat list governed by rules, then let it be so. In that case, “chat” is not just one of those words adopted into computer lingo that really doesn’t mean what it used to.
The Eklektiks or Birds of a Feather list is a discussion list. There are no written rules for that particular means of communication beyond those rules that exist for all communications, laws regarding slander, pornography, etc. and the mores of our society.
So, we have chat lists and then we have discussion lists. Which is the UUCF list to be?
It has been mentioned that the term "UUCF bashing" has been used in referring to some of the discussion on Birds of a Feather/Eklektiks. I would like to point out that the use of such terms as “UUCF bashing” is highly prejudicial. I imagine that most UUs have the same gut wrenching reaction I have to any report of “gay bashing”. So by using the word “bashing” in referring about discussions on Birds of a Feathers (BoF), I believe some very negative feelings towards participants in the BoF list could have been created or reinforced in those that heard or read those words. “Bashing” carries a lot of baggage these days. And if not that, it certainly made me feel bad to hear that our discussions on BoF about our heartfelt sorrows over our losses, our attempts at working out our feelings, were being referred to as “UUCF bashing” by those that did not understand or sympathize with our grief.
Judy Gallimore
Subject: RE: [uucf-chat] Rules and words
Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:11 AM
From: "Mary Foster"
To: "UUCF chat"
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Gallimore
[The last paragraph of Rules and words,
by Judy Gallimore, 12 Aug 2001 is quoted here.]
Hi Judy!
It was me who used the 'bashing' term. I see that using that term was ill-advised and a lazy shortcut on my part.
My intention was to refer to the negative things that are expressed about UUCF and specific people who are a part of the community in a negative way that is unkind. I believe there are ways to express displeasure, concern and pain that are thoughtful or mindful of others feelings. That is what I feel would be appropriate on our chat list.
I know that some people on the Eklectics/BoF list are unhappy with things at UUCF. I do not want to create negative feelings about the people on that list or anywhere else. I want all of us on this list to think of ways to express ourselves without 'meanness.' I think that some of the things that I have seen from the Eklectics list have contained pointed and mean-spirited remarks about specific people or groups in the UUCF community. That is what I am working to keep off the chat list. Blaming, name-calling--I do not believe that those things are going to help us solve any of the problems that people have. I don't think that blaming and name-calling EVER contribute to solutions.
The email that you wrote which I am replying to is a wonderful example of the way to have discussions about difficult things in a public forum. You have been very clear about where you are coming from and what your concerns are. You have given me and probably others who read your message some things to think about. You expressed concern with the term 'bashing.' That made me think about my responsibility in this. That term was not well used and I am glad you raised that concern. It helps me see that I need to keep working on my own thoughtfulness.
I want to say in response to your question (Judy Gallimore said: So, we have chat lists and then we have discussion lists. Which is the UUCF list to be?) that I would like this list to be both. A place where we can chitchat and a place where we can discuss 'weighty' matters that concern us in a thoughtful way. I believe there is a way we can do that and that and do it well most of the time well. I think there are ways for us to help each other maintain a high level of thoughtfulness and consideration for one another.
Thanks for listening. Mary
Subject: Re: [eklektiks] Rules and words
Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:19 AM
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Judy,
I like your message. I think "bashing" is a term used by those who have been criticized justly and have no valid defense, so they try to discredit the critic.
But why do the uucf chat list rules surprise anyone at this late date? I would be surprised if their rules suddenly became reasonable.
Goldfinch
Subject: [uucf-chat] chatting
Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 3:18 PM
From: "Chris Mason"
To: [UUCF Chat]
Dear friends,
lets try our best as we chat to consider the potential impact on our readers. Unlike a conversation between a select group of people, chat lines are open communications with people who come and go and many with different levels of knowledge and understanding regarding the particulars of any one communication.
There are some people enjoy being provocative, and may, in fact, spend a great deal of their time being provocative. There are probably times when all of us want to be provocative. To me that is vastly different from saying offensive things, putting down each other, or putting down segments of the population--particularly those who have been the object of racism or discrimination over time. Perhaps one of the ways we can work together to improve this chat line is to agree to help each other out, particularly by pausing before responding to one offense with another.
I personally find it unpleasant to go to a chat line and find hostility the order of the day. And I am not sure where the hostility has gotten us. Do we have greater insights? deeper understandings? are we moved to action? are we more compassionate? have we grown spirituality? have we enriched the lives of others? Perhaps if the hostility achieved something wonderful, I could live with the unpleasantness. But has it?
Just as most of us take care when we communicate with each other in person or over the phone, I hope we can find the time to take care when we respond to each on the chat line. Much of it goes back to UUCF principles... to respect the dignity of each person.
In love and peace,
Chris Mason
Subject: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Rules and words
Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 6:06 PM
From: "Donald D. Fusaro"
To: "Judy Gallimore"; [UUCF Chat]; [Birds of a Feather]
Judy,
Superb. Just a suggestion or two. I would like to call the list a 'dialog list' a name which would cover all valid uses. I don't think the board and the NOCC are doing a decent job of representing the members on this issue. They should be involved in this 'forum'. One was annoyed when he accidentally got himself involved in the conversation. Unfortunately, the board has the power entailed in your 'so be it' Thank you
Don Fusaro
At 10:31 PM 8/12/01 -0400, you wrote:
[ Rules and words, by Judy Gallimore,
12 Aug 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Toward a Primer of Particularities
Date: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:32 PM
From: "Donald D. Fusaro"
To: "Bill Eckman"; [UUCF Chat], [Birds of a Feather]
Thank you for your response.
At 08:21 AM 8/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree with you that if someone believes something, then they do have a
>right to express it. I believe that we all have the right to express what
>we think. I don't think anyone is beyond criticism. The question is; is
>this list a forum for these types of comments? I don't think it is.
I'm sorry to take issue with you here. I believe Unitarian-Universalism, in any of its communities, has an inherent responsibility to provide facilities which empower and amplify the individual in any Unitarian-environment; which enable the individual to speak her or his mind directly to said community at large and to speak truth openly to the power of the community. Chat list technology has promise to provide these capabilities. To me a thorough pursuit of a question I paraphrase from Peter Drucker would be most useful. What is a chat list, what will it be, what should it be?
>
>There are more effective means of conflict resolution available to all of
>us.
I don't think conflict resolution is an appropriate issue here. I want to use a chat list to talk freely to a congregation about Unitarian-Universalism and its relation to any Unitarian-Universalist community. What's the need for conflict resolution in that? If you say I should talk privately to a minister or a board member, I say when I left the Catholic Church, I gave up the confessional.
> Here is the a link to the procedures for conflict resolution on UUA
>email lists. I think it could also apply to this list.
>
>
>
http://www.uua.org/lists/listconflict.html
The UUA rules are well drawn and stated. However, my first problem is that they are excessively bureaucratic which makes things easier for thought police. Another problem is that the limitations are so voluminous that they unduly restrict users. Actually, I see little wrong with the Birds of a Feather approach of no rules. I know of at least two instances of chat list police action; one on a UUA list; another on a local congregation. On the other hand there may be a problem with intemperate speech, but I think a chat list community can handle what occurs.
Thanks for 'listening'
Don Fusaro
[The remainder of Toward a Primer of Particularities, by Bill Eckman, 11 Aug 2001 is quoted here.]
Subject: Re: [eklektiks] Re: [uucf-chat] Rules and words
Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 5:31 AM
From: "Johnson"
To: [Birds of a Feather]
In the past, many UU congregations held a post-sermon "polylogue." I liked that name.
I also had a problem with the UU Parents list I was on several years ago. The list manager at the time, a uu who helped write some of the "XX for Dummies" books. Wrote that I should be careful not to offend the home-schoolers on the list because it was their only link to other home-schoolers. I have friends who are home-schoolers, but, as an educator, I find it inexcusable for parents not to investigate when their kids aren't reading by age 10. Kids who are home-schooled miss a lot of health, vision, auditory screenings that can have a big impact on their ability to learn. These observations were deemed impolitic.
Oh well, we are changing servers--again. Will try to post our new e-mail today.
Nan J
[ Rules and words, by Donald D. Fusaro, 13 Aug 2001 is quoted in full here.]
Subject: [eklektiks] More on rules
Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:28 AM
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Birds of a Feather]
Dear Birds,
I just started to read the UUA chatlist rules, and I am appalled. Of course, the UUA is a far-flung organization, and I guess they have to protect themselves against mean-spirited infiltrators, whatever that means.
But as to the person who said that uucf has other means of conflict resolution -- that statement is a myth. Many of those who have left uucf left because all their efforts at respectful conflict resolution failed. The UUCF leadership is unaware of the difference between resolving conflict and suppressing ig.
As I said last January in my email to the consultants,
The petitioners have tried many times to work things out with the leadership. The response has been at best to belittle not only the message but also the messengers and their delivery methods. At worst, the UUCF leadership has thwarted all avenues of freedom of speech. Any point of view that conflicts with that of the Senior Minister is not allowed expression -- not at congregational meetings, not in the newsletter, not during Sunday Services, not on the chat list. Members who express conflicting views are blackballed by the nominating committee.
Goldfinch