Problems with the "Bogus AWAA Fan Page".. (page 13)

fizzywiglet

Cedars,

Address the rest of point 1 and the rest of points 2 and 3, please.

A simple answer to my question would be nice. Venom and blind hatred is fascinating, but not all that helpful. If we have a problem then I need to fix it, but I first need to know that the problem currently exists.

Cedars

cedars

cedars

Cedars,

Address the rest of point 1 and the rest of points 2 and 3, please.

Address my question please. I was first after all.

Cedars

Simon

My question is though, if you are a non-member (say, an elder), and you have a friend who is in this group, would you know that they are a member?

Yes, apparently from a quick Google, if the group is open then you're being added to it can show up on newsfeeds.

Really, just assume that facebook publishes and tells everyone everything it can because that's how it pretty much works.

Now, isn't that largely irrelevant? People have already SAID it happened and SAID they were outed as a result.

So time for some ACTION.

NAME the NAME.

fizzywiglet

Whether you`ve been here or not under another name,your still on my thread..

Telling me I`m barging in on my own thread,is friggin stupid..

No, I didn't say that. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I'm saying you barged into the issue and spoke on behalf of AAWA without having a clue what you were talking about (which has been clearly established).

Juan Viejo openly said there was AWAA members who made referels..

AWAA admits to screwing up,so thats no longer in Question..

There was a Big concern about a non AWAA member who outed people.

Thats what I`m addressing a,non AWAA member..We already know AWAA members screwed up..

They admited it..

Except, they really don't admit the full extent to which they screwed up. They downplayed their own members' involvement (it was "only" 50 people that AAWA force-added, which is both false and irrelevant).

People are asking WHO did the force-adding (they're not specifying AAWA or non-AAWA).

Anyway, again, all moot "admitting" that they screwed up if they're not willing to correct it. It's not enough to give the name of the outer or make a FB post saying "you can leave if you want to". People in that group are still at risk of outing. Everybody in that group needs to be notified of the situation and they need to start over and do it through the proper channels.

* * *

Edited to add, since my post limit is up for the day and Cedars is playing dumb:

I already DID address your question, Cedars. Also, you were not "first". I and many others have been making points 1, 2, and 3 for several days now, and you have ignored us and flat-out refused to address them.

As for accusations of "venom" and "hatred"...YAWN. Please. I wouldn't waste either on you. I'm not screaming "down with AAWA". I'm not in agreement with all your tenets, would never feel comfortable doing any volunteer or human-rights work on behalf of someone with your personality, and my personal opinion is the name is counterintuitive...but I really don't give a crap whether the group exists or not. You absolutely have a First-Amendment right to exist and spread your message.

The extent to which I care about your group is that I care about you rectifying the extremely high potential for outing and actual outing that you have already created and continue to protect/defend. The end. So cut the persecution complex; it's unflattering.

cedars

Simon

Yes, apparently from a quick Google, if the group is open then you're being added to it can show up on newsfeeds.

"Apparently" won't cut it. I need to know that being a member of the group shows up to a non-member, which is the whole problem. If there is evidence, I can take that back to our board and we can make a decision.

I've made AAWA's position on privacy clear. You're starting to be a bully.

Cedars

Dismissing servant

It's time Cedars! Your name! Now! If other people have been outed, it's time for you to be outed! Come along!

cedars

Simon

Yes, apparently from a quick Google, if the group is open then you're being added to it can show up on newsfeeds.

I've just checked on this important detail, and I'm reliably informed that the group that is the subject of this current "close it down" furore is secret and always has been, not open.

Cedars

cedars

Evidence, anyone?

Cedars

His Excellency

I have said it and I will reiterate, that in a bid to organizing a people who have been shattered and bullied by a 6000 year old canon, there is bound to be problems.

Why start another organization which would eventually morph into another scheme of veneration?, What for?, I hope that by now you should all be seeing my concern!.

Problems with the "Bogus AWAA Fan Page"..

Share this