Would you like to serve as a Host of a Group? And does your Group even need a Host?

[FBaggins]

175. A disingenuous whiny post on your part.

I was the first person to say that I didn't think that E/E should have a host (but that I thought Xemasab would be a fine choice should we need one). At this point you should wait until there's actually a few host decisions worthy of concern before you try to waste admin time.

You're suffering from a serious case of projection. It was clear from the beginning that you very desperately wanted to be the host and not so that we would "all start getting along", but so that you could block posts from anyone who disagreed with you. You have a long history of labeling any such posts/threads as "disruption" (and you make that prejudice clear again in this thread). You really don't want the debate (and this latest segregation proposal makes that clear). You want to control the discussion.

So, of course, you fear that anyone on the other side of the debate would do the same thing to you that you have planned for them. The problem is that there isn't any evidence that it's true.

I cannot see how the same people that have attempted so vociferously to silence nuclear critics could be expected to do anything other than act true to their nature.

Obviously you can't. What you also apparently "can't" do is wait for actual evidence that this is occuring... when a thread like this would be meaningful. It doesn't appear that a group host will have any eternal super powers. If they block multiple threads that are clearly E/E related (and don't otherwise violate DU rules)... or if they ban regular posters who aren't vulgar (etc) but merely disagree with them... this will be clear enough and easy to appeal. And from what I can see, Xemasab quickly expanded the list well beyond any group that can reasonably be called "pro-nuclear".

xemasab has attempted lately to portray herself as pro-renewables, however her historical position is one that is *extremely* critical of both wind and solar - the backbone of a renewable system.

You've been making this error from the beginning. Thinking that the host has to have the "right" position on a given issue... so that contrary positions don't get too much weight in the discussion. That isn't the role of a host.

And while we're at it, you continually (falsely) claim that anyone who is pro-nuclear is necessarily anti-renewables. This is demonstrably false. As is your claim in your note to Skinner that there's a global war between fossil/nuclear and renewables. Thus your #1 directly contradicts your #2.