Ban Whirlwind?

Should Whirlwind be banned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 27 49.1%
  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
fighting with the moderators on the issue of what they said to him makes him a flammer too.
 
CC, you are showing your colors. Dean is too genuine to make it as a serious contender for president. Only the most adept phonies have a chance at the white house. Politics is the art of misleading. Oh well.

Rappaccini, I fail to see how the examples you have posted prove your claims. I don't see Whirlwind as trying to take over anything or anybody nor fill threads with repeated inconsequentials. Maybe you consider that if you make a link to something, that makes it real?
 
Trolls do not "take over". They goad/bait. The thread I cited is a perfect example.

Spam is useless posting. We all do it occasionally, but Whirlwind is excessive. The posts he made on page 2 of that thread are blatant spam, vapid and silly.
 
I guess if he is continually plagiarizing then he has to be banned although I think that there should be temporary banns as a warning if that is not too much trouble. I dislike whirlwind intensely but he represents an entirely different viewpoint which is what the forums are all about.
 
about temporary banning as a sign of warning: if you're banned temporarily, you can just go find another forum. Is it that big a deal if you're banned? I mean, it's not nice... but if you have a life then I'm sure you can get over it.
 
Bob might be annoying, but I don't know about banning him at this point. It seems so pointless. He'll figure out a way to come back. They always do.

He's amusing in that he's not that smart so he's an easy target. Sometimes after a long day of going after Wahoo, Yellowfin and Mahi Mahi, it can be very relaxing to just put on a bobber and let the bluegills come to the worm. It's a guaranteed bite, and they fight pretty hard relative to their diminutive nature.

Is that wrong of me to toy with the little ones? The little people need attention too, right? To ignore them all of the time would be misanthropic, right?

Bob's like Truthseeker in that you don't feel bad in kicking his ass because he begs you so hard to kick it you'd be a jerk not to oblige him. I've never been a masochist so I don't really understand them, but meh... :rolleyes: I guess they feel that they fulfill some role in society.
 
I think Whirlwind contributes a lot to this forum as a comic relief. I voted no so that he can continue giving us laugh breaks.

By the way, I know that he is a "he" because he claimed to be a jet fighter pilot. Oops, is it not true that women have been allowed to fly jets? If it is true then forgive me for being a sexist (or should I say humbly "sexiest"?).
 
I just checked the voting results for this poll. It is 25 yes and 26 no (it would have been 25/25 if I did not already voted). This is so close! As a Florida Flashback, I demand a recount and a full investigation of voting fraud!

But seriously, this is an interesting poll. I do not recall if there ever was an instant that I agree with Whirlwind about anything but he should have the right to speak.
 
GuessWho said:
I do not recall if there ever was an instant that I agree with Whirlwind about anything but he should have the right to speak.
Click to expand...

This isn't about a right to speak.

It's about repeatedly breaking the rules and mocking the administration when it warns against it.
 
Rappa, you forget that certain people aren't going to read this thread. The ones voting yes have probably read the thread, and know the situation. The ones voting no, like paulsamuel, come out of no where and assume that they know the situation.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
paulsamuel,

You voted no? why??? Did you not read the evidence presented???
Click to expand...
he's no worse than others here, and he's entitled to his freedom of speech. even Xev, who's supposed to be a moderator, is as bad as him. at least with whirlwind, you can ignore him. Xev is imposed on us.
 
Xev does not break any of the explicit rules concerning plagiarism and full-document posting without commentary.
Xev does not disregard the warnings of moderators or describe those moderators derisively and mendaciously.

I'd have to say that the situation is quite different here, paulsamuel.


"Freedom of speech" is totally irrelevant here.
"Freedom of speech" does not allow for crimes like plagiarim or other misdeeds like cut'n paste posting and harassment of the administration.


You didn't even read the thread before you voted and posted, huh?
 
Again it not a matter of what he said but what he did: he broke the forums rules, at least 18 times!

Also no, on the internet there is no law saying everyone is entitled to free speech, especially on a forum. A lot of our members got to stop confusing this forum for a free country!

Lets review this again because you obviously did not read it:
Originally Posted by CounslerCoffee

The Threads:

Bush & Blair: Walking barefooted on the hot Iraqi coals - ouch! -- The thread was created just to get my attention. Goading, baiting; call it what you want. Also, when posting a thread, you have to offer some type of commentary.

American Empire, This too will pass...... -- Whirlwind, this time, does credit the aurthor; but he posts the entire text of the article without a link, and with no commentary.

Back to basics: Bush -vs- Hitler's "War on Terrorism." -- Whirlwind "forgets" to post a link, again, and attempts to pass it as his own work, again. In the real world this is known as plagiarism. Plagiarism is also a violation of the site rules.

Geore W. Bush's resume. -- Plagiarism again, and the full text, again. Not only that, but he posted this thread twice. This is also a violation of the site rules. Plagiarism, full text, no link, and cross-posting.

Bush/Cheney siamese twins confess: Rice did it! -- Full text, again. No link, again. Plagiarism, again.

Bush: How Chicken Little became Chicken Hawk. -- Full text, again. No link, again. Plagiarism, again.

George W. Bush's Resume -- This is the same thread that I had closed before. Once again: Cross posting, plagiarism, full text, no link, etc.

The last two threads, titled Whirlwind and They kill men in wheel chairs, huh?, are the same thread. That's cross posting, again.

By my count the following violations have occurred:
Five counts of plagiarism.
Five counts of posting the full text of an article.
Two counts of cross posting (Four threads).
Four counts of posting a thread with no commentary (I'm not counting the articles that he tried to pass as his own).
One count of goading/baiting.
One count of off-topic posting (This thread was originally started in Politics).
That's 18 violations of the New Forum Rules.

The real question that everyone should be asking is why I haven't requested his banning yet.
Click to expand...
 
I hate, hate, hate bannings. Plus I am relatively new here and don't really feel I have the right to impose such decisions. However, since only Porf can actually ban, I see this as an opinion poll only.

Plagiarism is illegal and endangers the very existance of Sciforums. If a violator does not stop after being warned, out they should go, for the safety of all others, Porf, and the board itself. If the person is left, right, middle, gay, Moslem, Jew, Xian, athiest... does not matter.

Violations? Warned? Continued? Banned.

*ching ching* (my two cents)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top