Ideological Balance in WE&P

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, Aug 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,318
    The problem, such as it is

    Such as?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the appearance. But without some sort of example to go on, I can't begin to figure or explain the context.

    Which posts referred to? Reviewing your posts in this thread, I see no specific examples to start with. Of course, as there are over 150 posts total in this discussion, I might have missed something. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to it?

    You are incorrect. Nearly eight thousand of Sandy's posts remain in general circulation. (Hint: Go to the user profile, click the "Statistics" tab or "Show All Statistics" link, and you will find options to find all posts or threads in general circulation.)

    And I am well aware of the contexts in which certain actions of my fellows are taken. That's why examples help.

    And you think that's all there is to it? Do you speak nothing of context in this example?

    When was this particular suspension for using Obama's full name? Which moderator suspended you? What can you tell me about the thread or the post in question? Looking through the record, I've found three suspensions so far; yes, I have more searching to do—about ten months worth of the suspension log—so any help you could give would be appreciated.

    Meanwhile, what I've found is two suspensions in March for repeated attacks on another member (calling someone a Nazi), and one in June for reposting deleted material in one of your spats with yet another member.

    When were you suspended simply for calling President Obama by his full name? I'm happy to explore the context with you, but I need something to go on.

    Which defense of Joe? Can you point me to it?

    John, you once complained that mods pretended to know what others think. It would be helpful if you could explain what you're talking about instead of leave it to others to do your thinking for you.

    Something about context goes here. And, of course, examples. And, naturally, whether mods know what other people are thinking.

    Sounds enlightening. Would you like to explore that episode? Who? When? What thread(s)?

    Also, have you taken these issues up with the relevant moderators? How? What did they say? Did you raise your complaint to the administration? What was the response?

    It's not just me, Mr. Galt. Over the years, we've heard countless complaints of bias and injustice, and there are two general paths these issues take. Occasionally, the moderators actually go to war against one another, and sometimes publicly; the most recent of these was in December and January, resulted in the resignation of one moderator, and created rifts that have not yet entirely healed. Far more often, though, it is a member complaint that, as far as we can tell, involves an affront to one's pride. The form of your argument, that something is self-evident and here are the reasons you won't provide examples and evidence of your assertions, is the most common we encounter. We have nothing to work with unless we do your thinking for you. That is, unless we scour the record, take a reasonable guess that this or that circumstance is what you're referring to, and then try to piece together the points on the curve as we think you see them, we don't have a case to work with. And I would hope the problems of that method are apparent. It is, I think, a much more accurate statement of your sentiments if you make the case, instead of us. Exceptionally rare are the occasions that a complaint is so blatantly obvious that we simply cannot miss it without effort.

    I'll take a moment to point out that your use of the name "pdud" can be construed as a pejorative, and therefore an actionable offense.

    Meanwhile, are you referring to #159? Oh, wait ... I see your post at #151:

    "I really don't believe there was anything to interpret, it seemed pretty simple to me and my point was reinforced with dud's response to GeoffP."​

    Let's see, there's Geoff at #145, but PJ doesn't respond until #159, and that's to #154, which comes after your complaint about his response to Geoff.

    Okay, Geoff's prior post is at #116, but I don't see any response to that from PJ. #113? Nope. #106? Still finding a dearth of PJdude responses until #159. #104, 90 ... well, you know what? It's easier at this point to review PJ's record in this thread. Especially as #159 is his first response to Geoff.

    Okay, so it appears you're not talking about this thread. Obviously I've missed something. Now it's time to review your record, in order to figure out what I'm missing. Already acccounted for are #151 and 159, so let's work back from there.

    Ah ... I think I might see, but it still doesn't match. In #150, you accuse a "blatant personal attack" by PJdude in #144, but it isn't a response to Geoff; it's aimed at you.

    Hmm ... I need to think here. Okay, through the rest of the posts: #139 is between you and Joe, and your juxtaposition of the latter with Sandy. #141 is insubstantia; #151 doesn't offer any specific details. #155, is where I'm at in my discussion with you. Yeah, I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Nothing points me to PJ's response to Geoff in this thread or any other. I do, however, see your lament at #150, but that's about PJ's address of you, not Geoff.

    So ... right. I can do the thinking for you, which you resent, or maybe you could do us the favor of pointing us to PJ's response to Geoff.

    I admit, the irony of your complaint isn't lost on me.
    ____________________

    Correction:

    Previously, I had stated that over seven thousand of Sandy's posts were still in general circulation. I have revised that statement to "nearly eight thousand", as the official number is 7,926. Additionally, a simple typographical error has been corrected, changing "and" to "an".
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2010
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Ah yes, joe is trolling my thread,

    then Bells post this troll;


    Then Bells threatens me with a infraction.......


     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,386
    Firstly, Joe responded to another post in the thread and was on topic. You then came back to the thread and attacked him for something totally unrelated and about another thread. So how exactly was he trolling your thread?

    It was not off topic. She is the freak who is against masturbation and sex education classes. Your OP was about her and her winning. My response was to ask if she was the one who did the videos and tv appearances years ago about how masturbating is a sin, etc. And she was. I also asked if this is what the right now wanted from their candidates.. If this kind of ideology is what is pushing the ultra right... She is not as freaky as Angle (who seems to think that being raped by a family member or another and falling pregnant as a result of that rape is some sort of blessing or message from God), but my query in that post and the one after were on topic. Tell me, is this the ideology you support with the Tea Party Buffalo? Are you that far to the right that even Bush and his father and Reagan look like a liberals?

    Yes I did. I threatened you with an infraction for bringing off-topic and trolling posts in your response to Joe - about something that happened in another thread. It really is that simple. Joe responded to Gany about the topic that was being discussed in the thread. You then re-entered the fray and attacked him about something that happened in another thread and was trying to veer the thread off-topic again and you did it twice.

    I'll give you a hint Buffalo. The reason why posts are deleted is because they are off-topic. If someone reports a post(s), and it is then deleted, it will be because it was off-topic. If a moderator reads through a thread and notices that a post(s) is off-topic, they will also remove it without anyone even having to report it. So accusing Joe of reporting your posts for being off-topic and for trolling and those posts being removed would have been because they were off-topic.

    It really is that simple Buffalo.

    So having this explained to you in such detail, it should be easy for you to now stick to the topic at hand and not troll your own thread about things that happened in another thread and totally unrelated to what is being discussed in this thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    First, I do want to correct myself. For whatever reason I kept thinking that dud's personal attack was in a response to GeoffP's post. I was incorrect it was a direct response. But that doesn't take away from the fact of the personal attack.

    So if your aware, then why do I need to provide an example.

    What I was saying was that when my point was proven it was based on the belief that the reader actually read the post and could discern the point. But that would have to require two things, first, that the reader can read; and second, that the reader isn't being obtuse. A skill you have mastered.

    It happened a long time ago. There doesn't need to be context, tiassa. I was banned for using his full name. (You'll note the period). I am over it. I only brought it up to point an example. But apparently so as to fit your argument, you want to rehash. Do so on your time, not mine.

    But again, I am okay with it. It is not my primary point. You know what my primary point is, you are being deliberately obtuse towards it so that you can spin everything away from the point. Which is the point of your response here, spin everything around so you can demean and belittle your opposition.

    This is a popular tactic with joe as well. The difference between you two is joe will actually lie about what others say and twist words around.

    Can you for once try not to spin and twist words around, as well as try to turn attention away from my point.

    I have repeatedly that I have no problem with the political bent on the forum. I repeat I have no problem with it. I understand that a fair amount of moderators follow that bent. I am cool with it. I am totally cool with it. I have even admitted that in the past I have written bad posts, and will even admit to perhaps being properly banned for them. Don't spin this, tiassa.

    My point is that I am noticing more and more that certain people are allowed to post frivolously as well as inflame and other such actions. But others cannot even come within a consonant of doing the same without warnings or getting banned.


    Another nice goading there tiassa. You know I don't feel all that much different about you.

    The bottom line is you know exactly what I am talking about. You don't need me to provide examples. The examples are there for you to see. I don't have the time to provide all the examples, but I will provide one example of joe's posting drivel and it is still an active thread. Whereas Buffalo posted a thread that was actually pertinent to thread that was already open, but the point of that thread wasn't our discussion; so he started another that was designed to make the argument within the other thread. And it got locked.

    What I don't get is why you are defending this behavior?
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, selfjustification Bells, selfjustification.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    Buffalo Roam:

    What did you not understand about my original explanatory post that I posted when I removed the off-topic posts from the other thread? If you have further queries, please PM me rather than spamming multiple threads with your whining.
     
  10. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    Reread the posts, joe was responding to buff and then buff responded back.

    joe frequently abuses this, and his posts are never deleted, ever.

    You have a right to this opinion. However, why is it that if buff posts a similar but oppositional response he is told that his posts are trolling or not on topic? And tiassa, this is about defending buff. It is about the behavior of mods who favor a political bent and allow other like minded posters to post things, of which other posters aren't allowed to do.

    The responses between joe, buff, and bells are exhibit no. 1.

    Agian, trolling is at the discretion of the moderator.

    4. Goading, flaming and trolling

    Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted.


    buff's point was simply that there is no point in discussing things with joe, because he will cry to another favorable mod and get buff's response wiped from the thread. Honestly, you can't see how that might be pertinent to the thread? If one cannot argue where another one can, why begin debating with that poster? When the other only needs to cry to a moderator, and de facto win an argument by the deletion of his opponents posts.

    Seriously, you honestly cannot see this?

    Can you Tiassa?

    Again, this has nothing to do with defending Buff, he is quite capable on his own. This is about what I have been writing about all along. A point of which Tiassa will attempt to twist or use out of context, or ignore altogether. Then eventually favor this type of moderation behavior.

    I have to believe bells will be very similar ot Tiassa on this. She is already defending her behavior when it is clear she is in the wrong.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,386
    Sooo... in quoting Gany and directing his response to Gany, he was responding to Buffalo? This was Joe's first response in the thread:

    Now can you please tell me how that is a response to Buffalo? Unless of course Gany and Buffalo, which we both know they are not.

    Buffalo then re-entered the thread and responded to Joe's post with:

    To which Joe then responded to Buffalo with a gentle reminder to stick to the topic and an explanation as to why his posts had been deleted in the other thread:

    Buffalo still did not take the hint that he was off topic and trolling and responded thus:

    Now, using even a minute amount of logic, who was trolling and goading whom in that thread, John?

    How do you know?

    Buffalo's posts in another thread were deleted because they were off-topic. Dragging that issue into another thread is again off-topic and now trolling.

    But he did not, did he?

    Instead, he re-entered the thread and dragged issues from another thread into it and again attempted to derail a thread with off-topic posts. Joe had not even addressed him at all up to that point in the thread and was discussing it with another member. It was only after he came back to the thread and personally attacked Joe about something totally off-topic and of no relevance to the thread that Joe responded and told him to stick to the OP.

    Are you suggesting that Madant and String are too left to be moderating WE&P? Thus far in WE&P, we have one very conservative moderator, one liberal and one who seems to sit sort of in the middle with some conservative leanings. If anything, it is balanced more to the conservatives then it is to the 'liberals'.

    My response to Buffalo was to remind him that he should not repeat the same mistakes he made in other threads which resulted in warnings being issued to him by dragging off-topic posts into yet another thread and trolling his own thread.

    Are you saying that Madant, String and Hype are "favorable mods"?

    Because this is what you are accusing the moderators and administrators of WE&P of being. Do you have proof of this? Links to threads where the moderators of those two forums and the admin have been biased towards the left?

    To respond to your query, the other did not "cry to a moderator". For Buffalo, of all people, to complain about reporting posts is laughable. Actually no, it is downright hilarious. His posts were removed because they were off-topic. It is that simple. Are you suggesting that we allow Buffalo special dispensation to post whatever he wants in whatever thread, even if it is goading, trolling and off-topic because you think he deserves special treatment because of his political leanings?

    Should conservative members of Sciforums get special treatment because of their conservative leanings? Because from where I sit, the liberal members who post in WE&P have a tougher job and have just as many posts deleted as the conservative ones.

    My warning to buff was pertinent to one particular thread where I witnessed him trolling, goading and posting off-topic posts, which he was doing. There is no twisting out of context. I addressed him directly about what he had posted and asked him to stop. If you think it is wrong, then you are free to report the posts in question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    617
    So now one poster is not allowed to respond to a post of a conversation between 2 other posters? Is that it? And joe didn't seem to terribly upset about as he posted another brown nosing response that got the mods attention.

    Bottom line you are just as in the tank as others and you are too far gone to see it.

    Buff's point remains that if he tries to debate joe and joe doesn't like it, all joe has to do is complain and buff will get warned, etc., and in the case he brought up he got his post removed.

    So joe is a moderator? joe can issue idle threats as if he is a moderator, but of course you and others aren't in the tank for joe!

    Just out of curiousity, would you back me up if I told someone to stop namecalling and abide by the forum rules? Somehow I doubt it.

    Somehow I have the feeling you know I wasn't referring to this specific post, yet you managed to spin around anyway.

    So again, a poster is not allowed to comment on an exchange between 2 other posters? If that is true, then may I direct you to the politics board where in the quoting jimi hendrix thread, where joe himself has violated that rule. I admit I may have the wrong thread, but it exists and if I am wrong I will correct it.

    You cannot be serious? Even if you are, I have stated repeatedly that isn't my issue. Simply because the mods watching this exchange refuse to see the uneven moderation doesn't mean it isn't there!

    If that was considered a personal attack, then explain why joe is never warned or banned for "attacks" considerably worst than Buffs alleged attack? Don't even go there with the provide evidence and I'll review. BS, any action now is bogus.

    First, I have never witnessed mad granting favors. Second, string can't even enter the same country as most righties do. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    No, and nor have I been saying this. But what I am saying is that most mods who deal with posters from the perspective of warnings/bannings do not allow equal posting practices. They instead will favor one over the other, and will not allow one side to post similarly to their side.

    Furthermore, despite joe and your animosity towards my viewpoint. I am not the only one who feels this way about this issue. I might add that there are others who would never side with me that feel very similar. And your obvious protection of joe on this is a striking example.


    Then why not PM him?

    I quoted a rule concerning trolling etc., and this is what you got out of it? I have no idea who wiped out buff's post. I just know that one poster complained and another got his post wiped out. I also know that according to the rules goading, flaming, trollling are all subjective to the moderator. Draw your own conclusions, but I am not responsible for your misdirecting my point.

    Yeah, and a ginormously fat chance of anything happening.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    Galt:

    Joe hits the report button about 20 times a day, like pjdude used to. About 1 in 20 of his reported posts are valid and get acted on. The rest are reports for "trolling" which basically amount to "I don't like it when somebody doesn't agree with me. Please censor them." Again, like pjdude.

    If you hit the "report" button, your report will be reviewed in the same way every other report is reviewed.

    How do you know that Joe is "never warned"? You can't see official warnings given to other people, unless they are posted publically in a thread.

    We respond to reports. We act to enforce the posting guidelines when things get out of hand.

    The vast majority of Buffalo Roam's posts are useless political grandstanding, but he's still here, he's still posting, he and Joe continue to go at it back and forth fruitlessly. As long as they enjoy it and don't breach the posting guidelines, that's just fine.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,318
    Let me start by simply pointing out that this is why examples are useful. Look at the latter section of my post. That's essentially what people expect moderators to go through when we don't have examples, reference points, or other definitions; we end up having to do the thinking for you, and I know how much you disdain that. Then again, most people disdain others thinking for them, yet, strangely, they ask us to repeatedly.

    Define the personal attack. There is, after all, a history of popular influence at Sciforums regardless of what other people might say. If we banned everyone for a "personal attack" on the scale I see in PJ's post, there would be very few people left. The point being, of course, that Sciforums is only what its members make it. We, the staff, can exert a certain amount of influence, but that only goes so far.

    It's a matter of context. We'll come back to that in a moment.

    Why is it that so many people—and you are one of them—want us to jump at command, but can't be bothered to be specific?

    It's an unsubstantiated assertion.

    Obviously, you're not over it if you think there's still a point to be made about it.

    In truth, I think you're afraid to point to the episode beceause we'll go back, investigate it, and find that you misrepresented the situation. This happens a lot around here. On my time? I'll get around to it ... when I get around to it.

    And if you can't be bothered to state your case clearly, don't hold your breath waiting for me to get around to it.

    It is not our job to hunt snipe to your satisfaction.

    That's your own insecurity speaking, Mr. Galt. You might as well tell a jury to convict a man of murder without ever telling them who's dead.

    You appear to be so worked up about this as to contradict yourself.

    I'm offering to examine your claim. I do have the authority to compel policy changes accordingly if claims like yours prove true.

    But you can't be moved to help yourself, apparently. Rather, it seems you're content to whine and spit and seek the ephemeral pleasure of telling other people what you think is wrong with them.

    Perhaps it's a matter of context, sir.

    One of the problems with vague claims like yours is that the moderators are left trying to perceive the problem according to other people's standards.

    Is it my duty to see what you see?

    If it matters enough to complain about, you need to tell us what the problem is. But, generally speaking, it is often like the proverbial question asked a child: "Where does it hurt?"

    First of all, would it have been so damnably inconvenient to include links to these threads, which are apparently easily accessible?

    Secondly, we come back to context. Quite frankly, certain rivalries around here have carried on for a long time. Joe and Buffalo are one of them. And while I know such disputes annoy some of my colleagues, you're going to have to take it up with them as to why it's never been handled to your satisfaction before. My colleagues damn well know my opinion on that and other disputes. And regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me, they also know a far sight better than you the context of those disputes.

    What behavior? No, seriously, Mr. Galt: If you can't be bothered to clarify your complaint, provide some sort of evidence, and contextualize those examples, what the hell do you expect us to do?

    Shall we do your thinking for you?

    Because that's what you're asking us to do.

    False. See #2619542/14.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Screenshots showing seven of Joepistole's deleted posts, all from the same thread.

    Just because you don't see them after they're gone doesn't mean they never existed.

    Is there a typo in that first sentence?

    Still, though, there are issues of context that diminish your general complaint. One of those issues is your underlying suggestion of "political bent". Yes, there is the occasional appearance of politics motivating certain moderator actions, but they don't necessarily apply as you suggest. That is, do you even know who suspended you? Did it ever occur to you to care? Or even idly wonder?

    Which bloody responses? Why will you not post a link?

    (chortle!)

    Yeah. We get that about Mr. Roam's point.

    Some of us tend to think it's funny, but that's a contextual thing based on moderator perspective, which includes information both in the public sphere and restricted to staff access.

    See, I can appreciate that you allegedly prefer contxt, Mr. Galt, but your context is, admittedly, incomplete. Indeed, this is why making a more coherent argument supported by evidence that explains your perspective is helpful. If we have a better idea of what you're seeing, then we can offer you a better response.

    As a general principle, sure, I can see how it's pertinent. But as a factual reality, well, we come back to context. It appears there are facts you aren't accounting for. Some of that is restricted information, but some of it is in plain sight for anyone willing to look.

    As a general principle, yes. My colleagues can tell you I'm all too aware of it. But as this specific situation is concerned, my present assessment is that there are facts affecting context that you are not accounting for. Of course, as you refuse to assemble a factual argument, that assessment is tentative.

    Ah, that was a typo. I figured, but, still, it's good to be certain.

    It would be helpful if you would actually provide some sort of examples to clarify what you're referring to. If you expect the moderators to go fishing for evidence on your behalf, more often than not you will be disappointed by the outcome.
     
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Wow. A pleasant admission. That makes sense regarding pj's tantrum when I called Obama a "usurper". I wonder if he reported something regarding that?

    As for joe, makes sense too. His posts are more than one-sided. By that, I mean he has such hefty blinders, it would make sense that he would throw tantrums behind the scenes.
     
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    mmm
    dear old sci

    /proud

    nonsense
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,386
    His response was totally off-topic and not even close to relevant or pertinent to the topic of discussion. It was in fact a form of personal attack.

    You accuse Joe of brown nosing and yet, others accuse Buffalo and even you and others of the right on this forum of brown nosing. Do you get the point yet? You only see what you want to see. We, and one might say, unfortunately, get to see both sides of the issue and believe me, we know who brown noses and when they do.

    You wish to see what you want to see. The reality is vastly different.

    Who? Which others? String? Madant? Hype? The administrators? Who John?

    Recently, String and I had a massive blow out over his treatment of some members on this forum of one particular political divide. It got ugly as sin and nasty. To claim that he and I are somehow in the same 'tank' is amusing as hell when we consider what it was we were fighting about.

    But Buff was not trying to debate Joe in that thread, was he?

    Secondly, Joe does not have to complain for Buffalo to get a warning. Believe me, Buffalo racks up the warnings all on his very own, with little to no complaints.

    In the case he brought up, in a thread of a completely different subject, both had their posts deleted. So frankly, what in the hell are you on about? What I advised him of in regards to his behaviour was for one particular thread. You seem to be confusing the issue and do not even know who or what did what to whom.

    As funny as that is from my end, you really should do some digging and actually know what you are talking about before you level any accusations at others on this forum.

    You mean when Joe asked him to stick to the topic? You don't have to be a moderator to do that.

    I have been accused of the same thing by the left as I have by the right. Funny really. My comments to Buffalo were a friendly reminder that he should stick to the topic lest he wants to get another infraction. Now, the moderators of that forum may or may not decide to act on it as they see fit. But had he continued, the very interesting thread would have probably been locked and he would have received an infraction.

    Yes, it is that simple.

    You seem to be jumping back and forth. I was very specific about what thread I was talking of and that is the one about the Tea Party, where I issued him that advice in the thread for posting off-topic and trolling posts.

    Again, it is that simple.

    I had nothing to do with the deletion of Buffalo's posts in the other thread and he was advised several times that if he wished to discuss it, then he should contact the James about it.

    I understand you want to ride in on your trusty steed and save Buffalo from the liberal hordes, but really, this is bordering on the comical.

    If he had done that, it would not have been an issue. But he did not do that.

    If you want me to look at specific posts in the forum, can you please provide a link?

    I am very serious John.

    Here is where we stand.

    Both sides of the political equation accuse the moderators of bias and uneven moderation in favour of their opposition. So frankly, when such accusations are made, we need to see where and which moderator and favouring which side. So can you link it?

    How do you know he was nor warned for personal attacks?

    Remember John, as a member, you cannot see when a moderator deletes a thread (unless it is your own and you know it was deleted) and you cannot see when a member receives an infraction. So pray tell, how do you know he has not received any warnings or been banned for things worse than what Buffalo did? Can you tell me where he has done worse and has not received a warning for it? Link? Anything?

    Here is the thing about this forum. When you level such accusations, then you have to be able to back it up. So link please.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I understand you seem to think that you are above all that evidence issue, but believe me, you are not. So link please.

    Ah. But there have been members (from both sides of the political divide) who have accused madant of granting favours. I disagree with your statement about String as I think it is just grandstanding on your part.

    How do you know John? You cannot see who gets what warnings and when. So you are basing this on what exactly?

    Do you have proof that they are favouring one over the other and not allowing one side to post something they disagree with? Anything at all?

    Which others? What animosity?

    I believe I have responded to you in a very good natured way. I have backed up my points with links.

    One thing you completely discount is that both sides accuse the other of the same thing and accuse the moderators of favouring the other. So which side is correct? Which side is being favoured?

    Why would I? Would you I rather give him an infraction in moderator capacity via PM, which is what would have been the result if I had PM'ed him? Or is a friendly reminder in the thread without an infraction, one that is open for all to see lest there is an accusation of unfairness or lies, better?

    Firstly, you do not even know if the deletion of Buffalo's posts and Joe's posts were the result of "one poster" complaining. For all you know, it could have been several or none at all or just one. But I can assure you, Buffalo was not the only individual who had his posts removed from that thread. But again, you are operating on just what you believe and not what you actually know for a fact.

    Secondly, my points were open and as was my reasoning behind it. You can take from it what you wish. Remember one thing, I am not here to pander to what you want or to rule or issue warnings as you think they are deserved, nor do I and any of my colleagues believe that for any member on this forum. We are not here to issue infractions or to ban people upon your or any other person's demand. The only time that has ever happened on this forum was in one particular case of personal threats being made to a member of this forum by someone said member knew personally and the police were involved. But that has been the only time something like that happened. I doubt you or anyone else would find cause to criticise that. But aside from that, it is not our role to be swayed by one side or the other in issuing infractions.

    Then there is nothing more I can do for you John.
     
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,111
    it must be great to say thing with out having to prove them. I like how you accuse me of that and than ignore the actual times that happens. but hey what ever allows you to tell yourself your doing the right though I do believe I have asked you politely not repeat this slander in past. I ask again.



    well except when he attacks people's mothers you and string have decided that with in the rules
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,111
    I fail to see how I was personally attacking him as I contaned my abuse for his Ideas though I will admit it does stray into a more gray area.

    if your referring him calling me dud probably not though I am not really overly offended those kinds of childish behavior for the most part reflect more on the user than the target.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    That's a lot of reporting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  21. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,111
    it also not true.
    What tantrum. Is a bullshit partsan nonesense that has zero basis in realty one that I should be noted you been to cowardly to attampt to prove.
    why, I'd rather let such idiocy stand. IT shows you for a partisan hack who cares nothing for truth only for the attacking and attempted destruction of those with whom you dis agree with.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  22. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838
  23. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Chauffeur. I'm a partisan hack. Thank god! I care nothing for truth. Found me out, you did.
    If you want to do some good, get into that "Shoot the Darky" thread and tear em up! I'm sure you could just hack me to pieces.

    Mocking John Denver. Always a sign of a struggle.
    Cheski Chips. Well, you did appear after he got banned.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page