Sinister: Back on my soapbox and waving my pitchfork

[Ailsa Ross]

You must be getting so sick of this, I know I am :)

I realise I have recently set myself up as some sort of staunch defender
of this list and the people on it, and I apologise for doing so.  I have
no right to do so, other than the right of free speeach, to which we are
all entitled and the fact I have this list as a forum for my rantings is
very nice indeed.  

Before any accusations get levelled at me, as a couple of people seem to
think that because I ramble on a bit about stuff and know a couple of
people, I am part of a clique, I would like to state categorically that
I did not know about this "other" list and I certainly wasn't on it.  I
don't know anyone who was, but if as Honey said it was friends of his,
then I could hazard a fair guess.  That, however, is neither here nor
there.

andrew skilton wrote:
 
> interesting that, considering how long the rules for posting (cunningly and
> somewhat misleadingly referred to as the "FAQ") are, they fail to mention
> probably the singularly most important thing about the list - that we're all
> being watched and commented on all of the time. 

Of course we are being watched.  It's a moderated list and Honey does
this AS WELL AS HIS REAL JOB, it's a labour of love for him, and I for
one wouldn't do it for all the tea in China.  Who do you think steps in
when it gets nasty (see the Iain fiasco etc), tending to cuts and
bruises and wiping the tears from our eyes.  He is there silently at all
times, watching and generally being unobtrusive as we go on our merry
way.  Recently you will have noticed that this list has been
disappearing up its own arse, people are posting thinly-disguised flames
to the list, the "talking about the list on the list" thing has been
blatantly abused (not least by me, and I would apologise if I thought it
in the slightest bit unjustified, and would not have been in the least
bit surprised had Honey given me my marching orders for being a
self-righteous arse who flouts rules whenever it suits.  I may be on
shaky ground here again, but if this list is going down then I for one
am not going to let it without a damn good fight), as I was saying it's
all getting more and more pear-shaped and Honey does his damnedest to
keep it going.  When sneaky little people like Funkyseb come in and try
to shoot it all down in flames, it is difficult to see how he can
possibly want to go on.  And I get the impression that we weren't being
commented on, rather it was general admin shit they were talking about.

I doubt Funkyseb is reading this anymore, but to the rest of you, I have
to say I am sadly disappointed in him. For those of you unfortunate not
to have had the privilege, Funkyseb is as delightful and charming and
funny and clever in real life as he comes across in his
all-too-infrequent postings.  I thought a great deal of him before I met
him at Bowlie, and even more when I came back.  Big Stu, I would like
you to take back my listcrush vote for Seb, it may seem petty, but he
has let himself down rather a lot in my estimation and it leaves a bad
taste in my mouth.

Back to the topic in hand, the watching of the list.  It's a fucking
mammoth task, and Andrew Skilton, I bet you wouldn't do it as well as a
full-time job and not receive a penny, far less the gratitude of the
people like you who Honey actually does this for in the first place.  If
you are so concerned with the ins and outs of the FAQ then you will be
aware of the need to read other things that have been posted before
jumping in all guns blazing, and that flaming is not allowed.  I reckon
you violated both in your post.  You flamed Honey and you never ever
listened to him for a second, choosing to believe the rantings of
Funkyseb instead.  I know who I believe.

> while i'm all for keeping
> such a huge list under strict control to stop it getting out of hand, this
> is taking things to a quite ridiculous and frankly stupid level. what kind
> of a mailing list is it where a group of people who consider themselves to
> be above the regular list members have their own forum for discussing what
> we write? i'm not sure what the answer to that is, to be honest, asides from
> one where i don't want to be.

Did you actually *READ* Honey's post?  He quite clearly said it wasn't a
clique/elite/whatever you want to call it, he does a very difficult job
in his spare time, and he wanted some help and advice.  Tell me you have
never asked your friends for help and advice?

And they never considered themselves to be above the rest of us.  Honey
IS above us, by virtue of his listmummy status, but is also one of us, a
fan of the band and a fan of the list.  He wrote to me ages ago and said
so himself.  I doubt anyone elected themselves onto the SOS discussion
group, and Honey probably does value the opinions of his friends, I know
I value the opinions of mine :)  
 
> i'm sure there'll be loads of debate on this subject, with nearly every post
> better and more intelligently put than this one, but i don't care. whilst
> these posts are and continue to be analysed by honey and his elite little
> clique, the whole thing seems a pointless and ego-driven waste of
> time.

There shouldn't be any debate at all, as the whole thing is frankly
pathetic.  I have just read the latest additions to my inbox (my, we are
all getting chatty now, eh) and wholeheartedly agree with Trousers.
Funkyseb is a coward and a fool.  Trousers is very much one of the
people I referred to last week as the lovely people I met at Bowlie, and
surely the fact that Trousers, who continues to post to this list
(despite Funkyseb's accusations that the "elite" were too absorbed in
their judgement of us to bother talking to us), is the man trying to
shut us all up about this nonsense shows just how foolish reactionary
drivel like Andrew's really is.  I am inwardly applauding Trousers for
having the guts to out himself as one of the "clique", I have the utmost
admiration for him, now more than ever.

Oh, and I have no idea either where these bullying letters were, as I
never read them.  I realise as I write this that one of my recent posts
about the Fraggle disaster may have been construed as such (not least by
the lovely Elle, who refers to it in almost every post), but I know
that's not what Funkyseb was on about - as he knows so much about the
sinister Sinisters, he will be fully aware that I am not one of them.  I
apologise wholeheartedly for supposing the right to tell you not to go
on and on about things, but really, I was trying to save Honey as I can
almost see the exasperation emanating from his every word these days. 
It's been said so many times before about Fraggling, as it seems now to
officially be called, and I just thought I would stick my tuppenceworth
in as it seemed appropriate.  No-one listens to me anyway so it didn't
really matter :)

As you may well have noticed, I am inordinately fond of this list and
the majority of people on it.  I have nothing but the deepest respect
for Honey, and although I know he will be reading this (that's as a
listmummy and sinister member, not as a dictatorial fascist wielding a
big stick), I am going to write him a letter giving him my support.  I
strongly suggest you all do the same.

Oh, and Cynthia, I know this seems patently obvious given what I've just
said, but 

> I do, however, think that having a select, unelected group of people 
> determining the way of the list can be stifling. 

and 

> I think maybe it would be a good idea if we came up with a 
> list of rules that could be agreed upon by everyone, and maybe come up > with a cleaner, better way for honey to seek out advice.

have completely missed the point of what Honey has said.  The reason we
weren't asked who we wanted on the Sinister "ruling list" is because it
is none of our damn business.  If Honey wants to talk privately to his
mates, fine, I for one don't give a toss.  He could ask his mum, or
Splat or the man in the moon for all I care, but I don't see that asking
people who have been kicking around these parts for months even years,
what they think has changed and what might make it better is so wrong. 
Also the idea that new rules can be come up with that we all agree
with.  Firstly, I do not want my inbox cluttered up with people saying
"scrap the nursery" "no don't scrap the nursery, make it a month longer"
etc.  Secondly, rules have been there since I joined the list (around
the same time as you from what I can make out in the archives, Cynthia),
and the only new one was the introduction of the nursery which I for one
think is a perfectly good idea, and for those not here
pre-nursery-installation, just a stricter enforcement of a previous rule
which merely asked us politely not to post for a couple of weeks until
you'd lurked and absorbed some of the atmosphere.  What I am trying to
say is that we're all here through choice, we know the rules and the
score (well some of us listening to malicious gossip obviously don't but
hey-ho), and if you don't like the rules and the way Honey is running
this list, leave.  Join another list.  Set up one of your own.  It's a
big world out there on the Web, and you'll be made perfectly welcome
somewhere if you don't feel welcome here.

Just don't question Honey's integrity.  He does this for *us* you know,
and we should all be bloody grateful.

Ailsa xx
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
   +---+  Brought to you by the reborn Sinister mailing list  +---+
  To send to the list mail "sinister at majordomo.net". To unsubscribe
   send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
  "majordomo at majordomo.net".  WWW: http://www.majordomo.net/sinister
 +-+  "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+
 +-+  "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+
 +-+                     "jelly-filled danishes"                   +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+