C'mon, guys. There are so many people more worthy of expulsion than John, and so few more worth keeping.
I humbly submit my request for the ban on Leto II to be lifted. I fully support whatever decisions or actions he's made, and many of the more upstanding members of Hatrack have openly expressed their support for John's picture of Cedrios (who made, may I remind you, death threats against other members of this forum) -- I find it difficult to condemn the man.
I won't ask for an apology, since truth be told, John was out of line to a modest degree; though, really, John's nowhere near petty enough to desire one in the first place. I ask this favor for Hatrack's collective benefit, not John's.
Few people have not been annoyed by the man in some way or another during his too-short Hatrack career. And yet, I hold that fewer people would support his forced absence. Lift the ban, please. You won't find many like John. And more to the point, neither will we. Don't rob us of the one we have.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
He's been posting here as John L.,hasn't he?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think if it was me posting a photo of you, you might see the principle of the thing shine forth. That said, this is the first I've heard about any of this.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wha?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
???
He posted (as John L) just this morning. The thread is still there (near the bottom of page 2) and his profile says nothing about being banned.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
If I let you do a picture of me, can we get John back? Seriously, this is open to anyone if we can get the approval of the mods.
Seriously though, I do consider this a great loss. And while I didn't see the image in question, I don't see how it could be worse than some of the other links or comments posted in the past. The major members of this forum are prone to becoming celebrities, whether they like it or not. John and Cedrios are good examples. When that happens, and it is a choice you make, you accept the possibility that you are a public figure, and likely to suffer the same ups and downs that said figues suffer in the real world.
Can I get dibs on this event being what ends Hatrack? If I go looking for that thread, someone will beat me to it.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
This means I should be banned for linking to my flipping off pics.
*waits*
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Ban me, too.
I refuse to be a member of a forum that doesn't respect it's members.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Guys, please, be sensible about this. If your upset, then be upset. But don't ask to be banned. If kacard explains why, then listen to why, but until then, just voice that you are upset about it. Please.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'd like to make myself clear on this thread -- this thread is of my own invention and thought, and has nothing to do with John's wishes. In fact, he's contacted me requesting that I remove it.
I resisted. You're not punishing John by banning him, moderators -- you're punishing us. He's relented to allow me to keep the thread alive, provided I make it clear in no unequivocal terms that John has no participation in the creation or endurance of this thread, nor any hand in the conspiracy to drop this nonsensical ban against one of Hatrack's highest quality members.
This is coming from us, moderators, not John. Do it for us.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it's a matter of privacy. Unless we are talking a cartoon of some kind. But linking to someone's photo is the same as publishing their phone number etc. against their will.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't feel punished by this.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
If the pic is against Ced's wishes? If so, where did John get the image in the first place. Any images that make it onto Foobonic or web galleries are open to public domain. The line of privacy at that point becomes dang fine. If you post a photo of yourself online, I think it's obtuse to think that there is no possibility that it may get edited into a joke (in good taste or bad is not the debate here, just that it is entirely plausible)
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
I have to point out that no one even knows if that is the reason.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know. I'm just replying to Lalo. Hatrack could be sued if it's resources are used to stalk someone, so those who are saying this could be the end of hatrack are right but not for the reasons you think.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Heh, until someone in a position to know tells me different, I'm happy to go with the latest potential violation.
Besides, privacy (or lack thereof) on the internet really is a valid topic, even if it wasn't the cause of all this. The timing for some other trangression would be ironic at best.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Who is John L? If it's that John Lemming-cum-lately creature, then I say "good riddance!"
*stomps foot*
fallow
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the words on the pic might have more to do with it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
John L wasn't a newbie, he was previously Leto II and GreNME. Okay, well if it was the words on the picture and they constituted what would look to a jury like a threat, we are still looking a something Hatrack could be liable for.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Is it really true that John's been banned? This is very upsetting news. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
No, pooka, we're not.
No threats were made, no stalking (?) was committed. Cedrios' picture entered the public domain, thus it's perfectly legal to save a copy yourself -- adding an insult, no matter how juvenile, has no connotations of a crime, much less legal action, much less legal action Hatrack would be responsible for.
I'd suggest reading up on the subject.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, I don't know how you get away with the crap that you do. I really think that is the biggest consequence of your age. You get away with a lot because of it.
Don't be so rude to pooka.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't know that any info will be forthcoming from mods, in the past they haven't addressed why a particular person was banned.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
In the past most people agreed with the decision to ban.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
In the past they've at least emailed the person being banned, haven't they? - Also, I don't see how Lalo was rude to pooka.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Jeni ]
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Heh, Katharina... Did you not include me in that statement to Lalo becuase I phrased it more kindly, you were being kind to a fellow Texan, or am I really that ignorable? His comments, as much as I hate to say it, had context.
I don't expect the Mods to divulge any information really. They did with Baldar, and stated they would not make a habit of it. I expect them at most to tell us to play nice, let it be, and stop makin pains of ourselves as I'm sure the whistle icons is being punched a good bit right now. But when a many year member of the forum is removed, human curiosity and connections get the better of us, and we really want to know.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Didn't this whole picture thing happen a long time ago. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. So, John L is Leto.
John L is posting.
Therefore, the ban is meaningless and not a problem?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
The ban is on John L.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Feyd, I didn't include you because I did not think what you said was rude.
I doubt the mods will weigh in with an explanation, if it's really happened. They rarely do.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I like John.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I see. So, he got banned some time today? As someone already mentioned, he just posted this morning.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:In the past they've at least emailed the person being banned, haven't they?
Dunno. Never been banned.
Myrddin, yeah, I'd have to say, thinking back, I've agreed with every decision to ban. In one case I was upset that it took them so long, they gave someone many more chances than I would have if it had been my forum - I think our mods are pretty fair.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Was I rude?
I have to admit, I'm at a bit of a loss regarding your accusation. It must be a consequence of my age that I'm incapable of following your thought processes. Until I'm trained in higher education, however, I'm utterly at your mercy as regards comprehending your accusations. Could you provide some evidence and reasoning to enforce your charge, if only for the sake of expanding my limited understanding of the concept of rudeness?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Cedrios' picture entered the public domain
Nothing enters the public domain until either (1) the owner says it does, or (2) the term expires. It's not like trademarks.
That's not to say that banning someone for what was apparently a silly if crude Photoshop is good policy. Frankly the underhanded, closed-room administration of this place is starting to remind me Anandtech. (That's not positive.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, you were rude.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't think Lalo was unforgivably rude. But I'm pretty sure that the terms of use doesn't protect Hatrack if the site is used to stalk or threaten someone. Never having seen the picture, I was just trying to come up with possible reasons. If it's harmless, Lalo, why don't you link to it so I can see how wrong I am?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I say "string him up". I wanna see that lemming tail flail.
fallow
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
How so, Kat?
I'd like to apologize for all offenses made, real or imagined -- however, I'm afraid all the offenses you've read into are imagined. I certainly meant no rudeness. If you're intent on charging me with a crime, I'd much appreciate your help clarifying your reasoning for doing so.
Or do I ask too much?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
One begins to see why John L has disavowed Lalo's spirited defense of him.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you really not see how even your last post is incredibly rude? I don't want this to turn into a bashing session. I promised somebody I'd be careful.
To be general, your posts are rude when they drip with disrespect for the person to whom you are talking. Begin with the assumption that the person you are talking to is intelligent and your equal. I believe that if you do, many of your posts will change.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And how is fallow not being rude?!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Are you kidding? He is the one voice of reason in this sea of insanity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lalo, I'm undecided about whether your post to pooka was rude. I can see it both ways.
However, your two subsequent posts to kat have been unquestionably nasty. Is being blatantly rude really the best you can do when countering an accusation of rudeness?
C'mon, you're better than that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Are you kidding? He is the one voice of reason in this sea of insanity.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
kat, it's okay. If Lalo has the same respect for me as himself... well, I'll just say I'm not offended.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Are people aware that the point of this thread is to protest John's banning, and NOT critique Lalo's WELL-KNOWN posting style?
And anyhow, John only "disavowed Lalo's spirited defense" because it's not his style to protest his own banning.
chill, kat. really.
I like John, too.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
beren?!
thanks!
wanna swap spit?
fallow
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's just it. The rudeness is a well-known posting style. It's a signature posting style. I'm wondering how he gets away with it.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Kat, I don't find what Eddie said offensive to pooka. Please, let it go. Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I also like John. I regret that I spent the last year off of this site and have missed the chance (maybe for now) to talk with him in this forum again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not stuck on what was said to pooka. I'm talking about a larger trend. I was hoping it was like the Emperor's clothes - that it just needed to be pointed out.
[ April 29, 2004, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know kat, I really think you need to lay off Lalo.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
A trend you only started harping on after his age revelation.
we all know that lalo doesn't mean any harm. why make an issue out of it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So I guess no one is going to produce a link so we could actually judge for ourselves. So what's the point of discussing it?
P.S. kat was just trying to defend me, which I appreciate but don't really need. I guess it's the sad truth that I expect certain responses from some folks. This is an addition only, nothing was removed and this was the last post when I undertook this edit. :wishes we had the mafia smiley on this forum:
[ April 29, 2004, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Eddie has always been someone that has spoken things exactly as he sees them, and I don't think half the time he really intends to anger people. I give him the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's trying not to be rude, I believe him. I think he really does need you to explain to him what is so offensive.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I'm not stuck on what was said to pooka. I'm talking about a larger trend. I was hoping it was like the Emperor's clothes - that it just needed to be pointed out.
Maybe so, Kat, but I don't think this is the time or place for it.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Pooka, are you honestly saying you don't know the picture? Or are you doing this just to see if someone will post? Just out of curiosity.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'm bewildered, in all honesty. Kat, this may well make a third time you've ignored my request for evidence to enforce your accusations -- accusations which are utterly unfounded, from what I can see. I seem to have been ridiculously courteous in this thread, a decency you seem to have ignored altogether in your rush to charge me with a crime I've yet to commit.
Are you of the belief that repeating an accusation over and over will make it true? I confess, I'm lost as to your intentions if you don't intend to somehow condemn me by repeating your charge, rather than give it substance. Which, may I remind you, is all I've asked from you in this thread -- is it so much to ask, given your seeming intent to libel my character?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was mentioned to me once that the reason that if I ever get into any conflict with a poster that it is invariably the other side that gets defended is because I seem to be eminently capable of taking care of myself.
And I am. Which is apparently working against me. The dogpiling is unacceptable. E-mail works better.
I don't think talking about it more is productive here. Think about it, though. It's possible to point out the negative characteristics of a well-known posting style without attacking the person himself. I haven't and I won't. But the rudeness is not okay. Maybe that needs to be said more often.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Didn't like the bully.
With him around I didn't dare stick my neck out with an unsubstantiated claim. At least he kept me from posting stupid, like I'm doing right now.
Hatrack needs someone ready to jump down the throats of stupid posters. Never mind. Got plenty.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's all fun and games until Hatrack gets taken away from us.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I really haven't seen it, T.
Lalo, it was probably the "try reading up on it" which was both sarcastic and implied that I am ignorant. Then you implied we had acquired our manners in college, which is also offensive but only in a laughable way.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I like the duality of your post. At least you're happy for being Hobbes Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it had more to do with a general tendency to dismiss younger/less educated posters.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: I like the duality of your post. At least you're happy for being Hobbes
i'm totally using this as my new GreNME signature.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
pH, are you talking about Lalo's reply to me? That was the first implication that anyone was ignorant.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Uh oh, now 2/3 of those defending John are going to be dismissed as "only on his side cause they're young and don't know any better"
*sucks pacifier*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
He called me ignorant first! (nyah nyah) I thought I posted but I don't see it. Is this thread locked already?
And those of you who think this board is moderated from an Ivory Tower need to get out more often. Since we are dispensing with manners. edit: spelling
[ April 29, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
::shakes head::
I give up. Lets unleash hell on each other over an issue that you people just can't bite your pride on. Not a single one of you can lay down your pride, its always this and that, I'm going to point this out. Stop. Let it go. Calm down. Be civil. ALL OF YOU. Every single person in this thread who has shown any kind of anger, intentional rudeness, or condesending attitudes, please, calm down. If you have any reason to, than do so for me.
Posted by Cedrios (Member # 1744) on :
I'm posting this because the email to Lalo is blocked. I don't post much anymore here nor do I think I will frequent this place as much I used to, sometimes reconciliation is not a viable option for either side of a conflict, and my case is certainly one as gauged from the hostility of the thread this problem arose in. I have no grudges against anyone at this board, and, whether I deserve it or not, I certainly have no concern to waste my time attempting to fill the demonic role many of you relagate me to.
Lalo/Eddie/Daedalus: For the record yes I reported John for the obscene pictures that violated more than 7 terms of the user's agreement. The main problem with the picture is not that he posted it, but that he has posted it on more than 4 seperate occasions over his time here, each time having the mods delete it because he refused to even though I asked him privately via email each time. I suppose I can't prove to you it was 4 since you obviously don't trust me and since each time the picture-link was deleted. I don't know if this is why he was banned, but I know that extremely offensive images of myself kept and fervently reposted over and over again in a quasi-stalkerish fashion really creeps me out.
Also, please stop spreading the lie that I made death threats to any members of the board. One it's not true as there would have been serious legal implications if there was any shred of truth to it and two: the situation you're talking about started out with Slash inviting me to fight him because I apparently pissed him off, and because I did not overtly and abase myself to him it was interpreted as hostility, which over time morphed with the lovely Modus Operandi of gossip into a death threat against first him, and then John after the first time I asked John to remove the picture. Whether or not you believe this is immaterial as, at the very least, there is no documentation to support anything like a threat on my part at all. I know you personally dislike me to the point of demonizing me more than anyone can count on this site but I hope you are honest enough to realize you are taking this too far.
[Edit]Eddie: Whether or not you think I have violated the user's agreement in the past is not relevant to this dicussion.
[further Edit]At the very least the fact that there was no legal action pursused by either of the people you claim that I made a death threat to should give you pause before start throwing those accusations around as loosely and abolsutely as you are. If you have seen any threat with my name attached you have indeed seen a forgery.
As for the picture itself, as I said, I don't know if that was the reason he was banned but it certainly meets every single one of the "bad" conditions under the user's agreement, so I will change my above "7" to a "10." Personally I don't care about your speculations on John's character, the image bothers me and it is a recurring problem. If it seems stalkerish to me then maybe he shouldn't have reposted it so many times.
[further edit]For everyone concenred with how I am somehow posting again after being banned, I would like to point out that though things were at one point very touchy between myself and the moderators, I do not remember ever being banned from this site ever, if I have been gone for long periods of time it was by my own accord.
[ April 29, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Cedrios ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yes, pooka. I'm saying that that was Eddie's point in that particular post.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
For T! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*applauds Nate*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: removed to respect T's request.
[ April 29, 2004, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Khavanon - I've always wanted to say that about Hobbes, but couldn't find the right words. I love that sig, it is his way of saying, today is the worst day of my life, but that can only mean that tomorrow will be a better day.
Kat - Yes, the "reading up" comment is rude. You probably feel that had someone else pointed it out they would not be criticized as much, and I'm not sure you would be wrong in feeling that way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Take it to e-mail, fugu.
Beren: Thanks. I do think that. It was in response to my wondering why that is that the explanation of me being able to take care of myself was given.
[ April 29, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Beren nailed it.
Thanks for finding a good coherent sentance when I was going to do a whole landmark on it.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ignoring what Ced is saying about the death threats,which I don't know, if everything else he's saying is true,then I support the ban on Leto/John, whatever. If he was asked to take remove them four times and he wouldn't, then Leto chose his fate.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*wipes brow*
"Pheww! Glad that's over!"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I really don't think it matters if we support or don't support it. If we're as riled up about it as RRR appears to be we can leave the forum (which is all that's necessary RRR, you don't have to be official banned, just don't post). However, it's not our living room to kick people out of or invite back people that the home owners don't want here.
Hobbes Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
Wow, guys
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i think there are a couple things to remember here.
1. John does not know why he was banned.
2. John has not asked to be allowed back in.
3. This thread was started by someone who felt that Johns worth to this community outweighed any minor transgressions he may have committed.
that is all.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Lara,
how'd the trip go?
fallow
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The problem, Hobbes, is that that is a bad way to run a forum. No one is saying that this isn't private property, blah,blah, blah. But people form attachments to other people here, and out of respect for the feelings of the people onthis forum, out of respect for the friendships that are formed here, to avoid hurt feelings, for the reason of common politeness, I think the mods here can do as Ornerymod did on Ornery and at least let people know in general what's going on.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
You become so attached to something like this that it's hard to think that it isn't ours.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh I agree, I don't think the Mods would mind (though I don't actually know) if people just stated the reasons they think Leto should be let back, I was merely worried about the rather heated (if expected) turn this thread took/was taking. My point was that in the end, it's their desicion what constitutes getting thrown out of the living room, and making a big huff about it I'm sure doesn't endure the whole rest of the living room party to them.
Hobbes Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It is ours. Without us, it wouldn't exist.
You can't make proclamations without explanation and expect your subjects to be okay with being in the dark. This isn't war, we don't need to be kept unaware of important information for our safety.
As members of this community, the ones that keep it alive, all we ask is an explanation. If they chose not to give it, that's their choice.
but how can you expect compliance without explanation?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:John L wasn't a newbie, he was previously Leto II and GreNME. Okay, well if it was the words on the picture and they constituted what would look to a jury like a threat, we are still looking a something Hatrack could be liable for.
quote:No, pooka, we're not.
No threats were made, no stalking (?) was committed. Cedrios' picture entered the public domain, thus it's perfectly legal to save a copy yourself -- adding an insult, no matter how juvenile, has no connotations of a crime, much less legal action, much less legal action Hatrack would be responsible for.
I'd suggest reading up on the subject.
quote:One begins to see why John L has disavowed Lalo's spirited defense of him.
quote:kat, it's okay. If Lalo has the same respect for me as himself... well, I'll just say I'm not offended.
quote:Lalo, it was probably the "try reading up on it" which was both sarcastic and implied that I am ignorant. Then you implied we had acquired our manners in college, which is also offensive but only in a laughable way.
Pooka, I'd offer my apologies, but I'm not sure they merit this situation. By the very nature of your speculation as to whether John's albeit-juvenile post consitutes a threat and/or stalking, you are ignorant of the fundamental legal requisites of such charges. I corrected your mistake, then suggested you read up on the subject to avoid future mistakes.
Nothing I said was inappropriate or rude -- all of my posting on this thread has been of the highest quality courtesy, a basic decency both you and Kat have ignored. I don't know if you genuinely believe you're under persecution from me, or simply went along with the rudeness charge Kat insisted exists -- though she has yet to substantiate her constant libel -- but in either case, you're incorrect. And as your posts above show, you've actually been fairly hypocritical as regards this thread, demanding justice for my imagined slight from one side of your mouth and insulting me from the other.
I won't ask an apology, but I do request that you think through a charge before you make it. Just because Kat tells you I'm being rude to you is no reason to believe it without subsequent verification -- verification you've yet to provide, beyond a charge of asking you to read up on the subject you were rather clearly incorrect on. I'll continue with the same courtesy I've shown you throughout this thread -- I ask only that you show me some modicum of the same.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think it's just priceless that the ad under this thread is for The Pearl of Anton An Exciting New Fantasy Novel! A Boy Must Save the World from Doom!
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I'm more partial to:
MIGHTY BANNERS "Try free, buy only if you like it. Make Banners for your Website Now."
Somehow ironic, and punny even.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
leonide,
can I ask you a question?
fallow
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
yes.
now i'm going to bed.
oh, did you mean *another* question?
[ April 29, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
sleep tight.
where did Lara get to?
fallow
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I have another question, also.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
shoot.
and i mean that in the good way
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*rubs leonide's noggin*
"sleep tight, cheeky*
fallow
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Where'd that Catfight thread go?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I accidentally ate it when I had a craving for tuna
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*HISSSSSSSSS*
*claws at Jenny*
fallow
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
honestly, boy. do you have a question or not. cause i'm tired and wanna go sleepies.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*rub a dub dub dub*
Lara, i expect your presence in a chat.
fallow
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
*fee fi fo fum*
*rata tat tat*
*chicka chika boom boom*
lickity lackola
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:I'm posting this because the email to Lalo is blocked. I don't post much anymore here nor do I think I will frequent this place as much I used to, sometimes reconciliation is not a viable option for either side of a conflict, and my case is certainly one as gauged from the hostility of the thread this problem arose in. I have no grudges against anyone at this board, and, whether I deserve it or not, I certainly have no concern to waste my time attempting to fill the demonic role many of you relagate me to.
Lalo/Eddie/Daedalus: For the record yes I reported John for the obscene pictures that violated more than 7 terms of the user's agreement. The main problem with the picture is not that he posted it, but that he has posted it on more than 4 seperate occasions over his time here, each time having the mods delete it because he refused to even though I asked him privately via email each time. I don't know if this is why he was banned, but I know that extremely offensive images of myself kept and fervently reposted over and over again in a quasi-stalkerish fashion really creeps me out.
Also, please stop spreading the lie that I made death threats to any members of the board. One it's not true as there would have been serious legal implications if there was any shred of truth to it and two: the situation you're talking about started out with Slash inviting me to fight him because I apparently pissed him off, and because I did not overtly and abase myself to him it was interpreted as hostility, which over time morphed with the lovely Modus Operandi of gossip into a death threat against first him, and then John after the first time I asked John to remove the picture. Whether or not you believe this is immaterial as, at the very least, there is no documentation to support anything like a threat on my part at all. I know you personally dislike me to the point of demonizing me more than anyone can count on this site but I hope you are honest enough to realize you are taking this too far.
I've asked John, and he claims he's posted it more than once including this time, but not four times. And frankly, I'm more inclined to trust John's integrity than anyone else's -- and far more than I'm willing to trust you. You seem to have squandered the trust Hatrack placed in you the last time you posted here.
I seriously doubt John is "fervent" about your picture, nor am I particularly convinced that he considers either you or your picture in a "quasi-stalkerish fashion." I hazard a guarantee that John's not likely to stalk you anytime soon, nor do anything regarding you but the occasional annoyed reaction to your once-offensive presence. No need to be afraid.
If you haven't made death threats, I've seen forged items in your name. I don't particularly dislike you, but neither do I like you, and I certainly don't trust you -- I'm inclined to believe the evidence held by trusted friends than I am to believe your newfound accusation of John's passion for stalking you.
I submit that John, annoyed and offended by your previous lies, reacted angrily to your renewed presence on Hatrack and posted an insult in his passion. Which, while certainly immature and juvenile, is no grounds for a banning, much less legal charges. Though if you feel obligated to take John to court, by all means, I encourage you to contact a lawyer and settle this out of Hatrack. I wish you luck.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Lalo?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I give this discussion a giant If the admins leave us to fight each other in the dark over issues we're clueless about, we should at least have the sense to realize our predicament and STFU.
Lalo, reread the first page, it IS technically copyright violation, unless it is a parody, in which case you have a moral obligation to post it (with the face blanked out if desired) for communal laughter.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, its not the first time someone beloved by half and hated by the rest has been "kicked off" Hatrack. By all means, it won't be the last. We may "make" Hatrack what it is, but we don't "own" any of it.
I for one trust that the Moderators had their reasons, acceptable by us or not. These kinds of "how could you" threads are almost a ritual to the banning. More than once I know of participants that were actually "saved" when many voices asked them to be "banned." As such, I believe that the Moderators are far more tolerant than this one incident might seem to indicate. Also, it adds a credibility to their reasoning (even if we don't know what that is) for banning anyone because it is so rare where there are so many times it would seem far more necessary.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I'm not questioning the decision. I'm questioning the fact that (1) all information pertinent to evaluating their decision is gone (2) more generally, the mods are not public figures with posting styles, reputations, temperaments, and so on up for examination. This rubs against the preferences I've developed as a member of a (very!) wide range of forums, newsgroups, and listserves. It was fine when we were small, but there have been a half dozen threads recently complaining about moderator actions, thread deletions, and other meta-topics that have no business occupying so much mentation on a well-run forum.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:a half dozen threads recently
Where?
Frankly, this is their kingdom. It's not up for a vote. Those who don't like can, and have, make their own forum.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
:bergoliciousness
fallow
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
kath(clean shaven)arina
fallow
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh honey, I wouldn't try to kiss me without permission.
You can have a handshake though.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
why's that?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
kat Frisco
Don't be such a weirdo.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why the handshake? Because I think you might be trying to make peace, and I like to encourage that?
Why no kiss? Because I don't quite trust you. A handshake will work fine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh*
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*spits in palm*
*extends hand to Katharina*
?!?!?
fallow
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Save this smilie for future replies, kat. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh*
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
sigh?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
You only let people you trust kiss you?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
[ April 29, 2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
kamas right! *points at frisco*
fallow
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Kama, I think you and I will get along splendidly.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I wonder if we can petition to have that smilie added like Hobbes did, Narn.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Hey, I'm with you! I think we should also move to get the ralphie/mack wedgie smiley added, along with a big foam middle finger. Then Hatrack would be the biggest love fest on the internet!!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
narnia,
Can I ask you a favor?
frisco,
are you a lawyer?
fallow
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Well, I like John, I think he's a pretty reasonable, honest man. I never really had a problem with him.
But, unjust or not, he was banned. I could be banned. Any of you could be banned. We're all lucky we can even be here. Sure, we would all like to know what's going on, but the owners of the site choose not to disclose that information, all we can do is... well, nothing. No matter how we protest, we have virtually no power or rights here. We are allowed to converse with each other. I love that privilege (not right), and I hope we can all continue this community. But if the moderators take that privilege away, that is their prerogative to do so, regardless of how any of us feel. We can argue and whine all we want, but it's all rather futile don't you think?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
fallow, you never ever have to ask me first if you need to ask me a
favor
question
OK? Just cut to the chase if there is one. *********************** edit: Nick, of COURSE it's futile. But how could hatrack be the above-mentioned love fest if we all didn't argue in order to make up with each other?
[ April 29, 2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I thought I did B4 and you didn't keep your end of the bargain.
fallow
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Nick, of COURSE it's futile. But how could hatrack be the above-mentioned love fest if we all didn't argue in order to make up with each other?
You know, you really make my head spin.
Maybe that would make an interesting smiley. Not that I think it should be here of course, but it would be interesting...
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*pat pat* It's late honey. We should all be asleep...except for maybe Kylie. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I hope I'm not making anyone blush for my own lame sake.
*wishes he could call up that nice thread at will*
fallow
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
<-- Kylie.
::not asleep::
Hi Narn.
[ April 29, 2004, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: tt&t ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:We can argue and whine all we want, but it's all rather futile don't you think?
I suppose a small part of all of us believes that the admins are real people who are not completely immune to constructive advice. If that's not the case...
quote:all we can do is... well, nothing.
We could leave.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
We could ask Leto on GreNME how he feels about it and what happenned exactly if the mods don't want to tell us, and THEN argue about it. I guess Lalo did, but I for one didn't. Usually I trust the mods for not banning people like that - they've been more than tolerant with OSC-fan, for exemple. We shouldn't judge anyone before we really know what happenned.
[ April 29, 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
If some people want to talk about it but are afraid to make Hatrack a less welcoming place or to become mean against our moderators, maybe they could meet on AIM. Like "LetoII Chat" ?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Does the standard AIM client do multiway chats? Not last time I checked. I'm a little hard-pressed to run an IRC daemon at the moment, but we could always meet "in public" at some appointed #hatrack.
That's all way, way, beside the point. We shouldn't have to go behind people's backs to avoid offending sensibilities. That suggests that either we're doing something morally wrong, or our forum is not as open as we imagined. With the possible exception of continuing to distribute a (from what I've inferred) derogatory picture, I don't think there's any wrongdoing here.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Download trillian. Paramater your AIM account. Then add yourself as a buddy and right click on your name. And click on "send chat invitation" then replace the standart chat room name by LetoII Chat.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Or you could just go to "Hatrack Chat" where you are almost always guaranteed to find people.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I know Hatrack Chat is fine but for this particular story I though we would need anoter place in order not to disturb people who would like to talk about something else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo,
I think the perceived rudeness comes from the "read up on it" suggestion coming right after some serious mistakes in your legal analysis.
That being said, reference to age didn't seem appropriate either, given that a lot older people say a lot ruder things around here.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not that I would like to defend Ced, but even John L admits to using the picture more than once, according to Lalo's post. Now, if the picture was a problem the first time he posted it, and the Mods deleted it, then why post it a second time unless you don't care about being banned.
Also, if their was an implied threat to Ced, or if he felt that there could be one, then Hatrack could be held responsible, but only if they did nothing after being notified of it. Juries have found sites guilty of negligence before, even though most of those cases are still tied up in court due to the first amendment.
At the very least he was being foolish, and at worst hateful. Not that he doesn't have a reason to hate Ced, but it is in violation of the user agreement. Even if Hatrack won in court, it would have legal bills, and it probably would have resulted in the site shutting down.
That being said, I think that we were better off with John L here than Ced; I don't know why he would want to come back here, as I can't think of a single person who wants him to be here. And I was here for the BS that happened last time. Sometimes saying you're sorry isn't enough, and you are better off somewhere else where you can start over without all the negativity.
I know that I like this place better without you around, and I think most of the people here would agree with me on that. Take it for what it's worth.
I thought kacard addressed this in the OSC feedback thread just last week...I'd make a link, but I'm pretty new in cyberspace (this is the first computer I've ever owned myself) so I'm afrid that I don't know how ...
Kwea (edited due to the fact that I somehow signed my name twice....)
[ April 29, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
While I do have a grudging respect for Leto, and actually like him quite a bit from time to time, I've got to say, that I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to our esteemed hosts here.
The Cards and their kin have never been Draconian in enforcing their rules and have done everything in their power to be hands-off with our little conversational gathering here. They let us speak our minds and even openly criticize them... without repercussions.
Think about that, please. How many times have some folks here railed against one of OSC's columns to the point of actually calling our host here bigotted or naive? And people got away with that incredible breach of propriety...
If the Cards felt that what Leto did was worth banning him, then I can only say that their reasons must have been well-founded. They have certainly proved themselves to be completely unvindictive and extremely lenient.
If there is an issue between the hosts and Leto, please allow John to work this out for himself, if he chooses to. It is not OUR good graces he would need to get back into, but the good graces of our host. And that is something best left between Leto and our hosts...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"seriously doubt John is 'fervent' about your picture"
Well, let's be reasonable about this. John DOES post a link to it pretty much every time Ced's name comes up.
And let's face it, Lalo: you and John both get away with a lot more than most posters would, if only because you've been around long enough that we regulars tend to make excuses for you.
John's known for a while that his behavior was pushing the envelope of forum policy. I'm not at all surprised that a ban was forthcoming, but would be very surprised indeed if it were a permanent one. (That said, I'd be surprised if John, having been banned, would return; he doesn't strike me as the type.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My favorite part about Cedrios posting again is his insistence that he won't frequent the forum as much as he used to Talk of egregious violations is also amusing.
----
John wasn't a bully. You are adults capable of defending yourselves if you like. If he was so fearsome in an online message board, then I suggest the problem is not his agression, but your own weakness. Man up, as the saying goes. KMA, fallow, and quit your frelling whining, Pooka. Is that your only setting? Whine?
---
If what is reported about John's actions is accurate, it was a bannable offense. The moderators are well within their rights to do so-it is, as has often been said, their forum, and not really ours (when the metal meets the meat, so to speak). That is fine, neither I nor anyone else shoud in any way be offended by that-we don't pay for diddly, after all.
What upsets me is that a selfish, cowardly, insignifigant little...person...like Kevin hides behind the rules and protection of the community and the moderators. Kevin got what was coming to him. What he's really got coming to him is a good butt-kicking, but of course he'll make death threats (and yes, Kevin, we all know you did) online, but he'll scurry like a cockroach away from a personal confrontation.
---
It's been my experience that John says what he means and does what he says. I'll take that over courtesy six days a week and twice on Sundays, even though it agitates me a great deal sometimes.
I guess I just don't care that he posted a doctored picture of Kevin, even though I admit that doing so was a bannable offense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"he was so fearsome in an online message board, then I suggest the problem is not his agression, but your own weakness."
Well, no. While I firmly agree that Ced is one of the few people banned from Hatrack that should genuinely have been permanently banned, and I still can't quite understand why he's been permitted to post again, I think anyone saying that John's only insulting if you're too weak to take it is, in fact, being a little naive.
John IS insulting. Period. He's also fairly hostile, and completely unforgiving of what he considers stupidity. This has nothing to do with people being "weak;" John will insult strong people just as readily. Moderator action should not depend upon the reaction of the insulted person; that would, by definition, be inconsistent and whimsical.
I think John's a great guy, and a brilliant poster -- but surely this ban doesn't come as a surprise to HIM or to anyone who knew him well. He has regularly danced at the very edge of what was acceptable behavior, and has freely admitted to not caring about how he's perceived. *shrug* Eventually SOMETHING had to be the last straw; it's just ironic that it's Kevin, of all people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
My point is, someone is a bully only if you let them be. I've been bullied and-to my shame, in elementary school-been a bully twice, and on both sides of that equation, it was only because someone permitted it to happen.
You're right, though: he is insulting on an objective level, insofar as such a thing can be objective. And it bothered me many times. But I don't go whining, "You bully!"
Moderator action on Hatrack is, in fact, inconsistent and whimsical-and I understand why. Not getting paid, full-time lives, etc., and we largely police ourselves.
No, I'm not surprised and in fact I can't even criticize the mods for doing it. It was, in fact, a highly bannable offense.
It's just aggravating because it was a) over Kevin, and b) something Kevin richly deserved.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
But when John insults you, it's almost always funny. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
I guess this is my point. The problem is twofold. One, John is insulting. Two, the person being insulted gets so offended. If someone thinks he's such an ass-and there are those that do-why let him get to you? If you think he's a bully, then just ignore him entirely.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I'm mad at John because he's the reason I bought all six Dune books and have only had time to read the first.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I'm mad at John because he's the reason I bought all six Dune books and have only had time to read the first.
That definitely worth a banning. Somebody tried to convince me to read Dune and I couldn't do it. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
For my own personal reasons, almost none of which have to do with John, I support Kristine and Kathryn.
msquared
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On a completely unrelated issue...
How on Earth is Kevin allowed to post at all, much less under his infamous name?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Magic.
EDIT: Or technology so advanced that, yada, yada, yada.
-Bok
[ April 29, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
*am suddenly reminded of Dave's old saying...*
"I do and do and do for you kids and this is the thanks I get!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. Dave?
2. *hugs Rakeesh*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
John posted Ced's picture against his will in a clear attempt to hurt him in some way. That's not just a matter of being insulting - it's a privacy violation. You can't not ban someone who does that - you just can't. That might even be something they could get sued over.
To compound things, John has made a habit of insulting people in discussions, sometimes fostering a tone that might make people (especially newbies who don't know him) want to leave. That cannot have worked in his favor - it's not going to convince the moderators to give him a special exception.
So, in defense of the moderators, I think this makes complete sense now that I remember he posted that picture. I'm perplexed about why they didn't warn him first, but if they are having trouble emailing him, that might make sense. But... maybe they will give him a second chance, if he promises to be nicer.
[ April 29, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well I'm going to have to chime in on behalf of John because I consider him a friend.
I missed all this picture stuff so I've got no clue there. I may have seen it years ago but I don't remember there being any text, so my memory is probably skewed.
John's a great guy and an asset to Hatrack. I have no opinion on the decision to ban him because I have no idea what the facts or accusations are, but if I have to sign up on GrenMe to see John anymore, I might have to add a new bookmark to my browser.
I only had one personal dealing with Ced back in the day and from that experience I can tell you that he really was quite the liar but I wouldn't be able to tell you which things he lies about, especially now. Plus, I don't really care.
The Lalo/Kat/Pooka thing is barely worth comment, really, except maybe to point out that Lalo and Pooka seem to get along fine without katharina stepping in to play mini-mod. Lalo was upset about Leto's banning, he complained, Pooka tried to rationalize it, then Lalo tried to rebut that rationalization because he feels the banning is too harsh or unwarranted. He adds a line "I suggest you read up on it" to cap off his legal jargon... yeah, that's offensive if you have a really sensitive stomach. It's not even a GOOD insult. It's just a line that I see on Hatrack once every three threads.
So for Kat to jump right in and say "I think you get away with this crap because you're so young" was, IMO, the out of place insult. It seemed overreactive, especially since pooka and Lalo weren't really even fighting.
What followed was Lalo trying to get kat to justify how condescending she was to HIM by showing exactly how he deserved it, and she, realizing that she had overreacted a tad, did not try to justify it and chose rather to continue making judgments and things just got uglier.
...
Leto has earned the name Jatraquero as much as any of us.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Funny how something hardly worth commenting on makes up half your post...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thank you, JK. That was how I saw it. edit to add: And to Lalo I apologize about saying you have low self esteem. I obviously can't know any such thing.
[ April 29, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hatrack is not like being in the Card's living room. It's like being in the living room of your house that you built on land donated by the Cards. Beyond Geoff, the Cards have nothing to do with the content or character of this side of the forum.
Private property does not mean that a person can be rude and not suffer the consequences of their actions. If the mod or the Cards or whoever want to just ban John and not offer a reason why, that's fine, they can do that, but I think they should know that I think this is incredibly rude and disrespectful to the forum.
I can't believe the level of spinelessness I've seen on this thread. Some of you who have called John friend have basically just rolled over and not said anything about his banning or have told other people to, in effect, just suck it up because this forum is 'private property'. I don't call John a friend, but I do think that the principle of politeness and respect for other people's feelings is worth standing up for. I think saying 'If you don't like it, just leave.' is so jaw droppingly, incredibly rude and disrespectful to how people feel, it boggles my mind that people are saying it without comment from other people.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against the banning. I am saying that I think a fundamental change needs to be made in how bannings are instituted where everyone is clear about why they occured. This should be done not because this forum is a democracy, but out of respect for the feelings of the posters on this forum.
[ April 29, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Funny how something hardly worth commenting on makes up half your post...
Unfortunately I had to give my contextual impression of the events in order to justify my opinion. I apologize for the resulting length of the post. Please don't report me to the mods.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Storm
I disagree. It is like being in their living room, but they are usually not present. They peek in every now and then, or when they hear an out cry from the room.
You say
quote:Hatrack is not like being in the Card's living room. It's like being in the living room of your house that you built on land donated by the Cards. Beyond Geoff, the Cards have nothing to do with the content or character of this side of the forum.
Just becuase they, the mod or the Cards, do not post that much does not mean that they have nothing to do with the content. The articles Card writes are fuel for discussions. His books are topics, maybe more on the other side then here, but they still exist on this side.
And the big one, THEY PICK UP THE TAB.
You want to know why they don't explain it? Becuase if they did, everyone who did not agree with them would argue with them. Some people argue that they can not make decisions becuase they are not involved. Others would argue that they should not be involved. They can not win. They can only do what they feel is for the best.
msquared
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I'm more inclined to believe that there was no explanation because it occured at like 1 in the morning (I'm guessing from the time stamps on this thread).
I'd imagine moderator comment is forthcoming and we're just a little too impatient. They may not even have made a final decision on the matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I get the feeling that there are many things we do not know.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I consider John a friend.
I will miss him on Hatrack.
I hope he comes back some day.
Until and unless he does, I will see him at GreNME.
Posting the picture of Ced repeatedly was a violation of the TOS.
The Card's pick up the tab, and this place is their property. I don't think they owe me an explanation, and in any case, I think the reasoning in this case is pretty clear. If it were at GreNME, I know that John feels no compunction about taking administrative action, and there's no reason he should.
If the moderators change their mind, or if John is later allowed to return and chooses to do so, it will make me happy.
I am neither spineless nor a bad friend. I simply don't agree with you, Storm.
-o-
Regarding Lalo, JK summed up my feelings pretty well.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
m2, my post already responds to edit: most of your points. I'm not even going to bother to reply. Obviously, we will have to agree to disagree.
[ April 29, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What if I disagree to agree?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Then i have to kill you as you've never been killed before. Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I also don't feel that we are "owed" an explanation of what happened, but I do think that, unless the information involved was too private to share, it would be courteous of them to provide one.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Quite right. I have never been killed before. And i don't plan on letting it happen any time soon.
But I appreciate the offer.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Death death death death lunch, death death death death death afternoon tea...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It wasn't because of pooka only. Lalo does get away with an incredible amount of crap. So does pooka, come to think of it. I'm not defending you because you're you. Lalo's incredibly rude and even his defenders excuse it away as just being part of his posting style.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Kat, this is more like the time where you got all huffy in Belle's queen-of-the-world thread; you choose to be insulted all the time. And even if you can't see it that way, you should at least be able to tell that being a hall-monitor for Lalo's "posting style" is not exactly your charge.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
John Keats, you have your own grudge and agenda to work out. Take it to e-mail.
---
I agree. It's not. But except for a small, select few, his friends let him run around peeing on the carpet. It's NOT my place to tell him when he's being rude. Whose is it then? Will you do it? You're doing him any favors in letting it slide.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wasn't going to bring up your posting style, kat, but you edit stuff a lot after other people have replied and don't give details. I also don't believe in emailing folks on the side. It just raises tensions. I also don't have AIM. I do get emails from folks from time to time and none of them have been heavy, so I'm not complaining to anyone who has emailed me. I just think that if you can't say something in the view of everyone, it shouldn't be said.
Edit to add: Ha! I totally wrote this before you wrote that.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pooka, take it to e-mail.
Dogpiling is for pansies.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
kat, I'm grateful you tried to defend me but I got dogpiled because of it. If we are in the Card's living room, I don't believe in going to the girls room to chat. (what I would consider email). I consider you a friend, but that means if you're wrong I don't praise you anyway in order to preserve my "coalition". So tell me, here, what bothers you so much.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You got dogpiled? Where?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll tell you what bothers me: after all this time, Lalo, Caleb, and kat STILL can't get over their childish feud.
It's silly, guys. Drop it. Every single time you pull each other's hair, I lose a little respect for you.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I have a question.
How, exactly, do the mods ban someone? I've never understood it. Technically, I mean. Don't most people have dynamic IP addresses? Or....what?
Help?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Have you read the whole thread? Now T was a misunderstanding. He thought I had seen the picture and was just baiting Lalo. But I hadn't. But if 3 people not praising you is a dogpile, I've been dogpiled.
So why do you think I get away with a lot?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I disagree that this is dogpiling, kate. And I really wish you would stop rehashing it here.
Edited to add that I posted it after Kat said stop dogpiling, take it to email.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: For my own personal reasons, almost none of which have to do with John, I support Kristine and Kathryn.
ok, m2, stop bragging or i'm telling.
While I'm certain the vast majority don't care what I think, I continue to think none the less. Having been banned once myself, my heart goes out to anyone who's been greeted with that screen of unwelcome when they come here to see what all their friends are up to. At least I knew what I did. I hope the mods will clarify that to John. I also hope this isn't permanent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kasie, the mods cancel log-ins for the account. If they then notice a new account logging in from a similar IP, they generally ban IT, too.
And, yes, this is not impossible to get around. But it would be very silly to do. (Luckily, Hatrack hasn't had too many people -- besides Kevin -- who've been that silly.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Dogpiling is for pansies.
Pfft. Pansies aren't even IN the animal kingdom, much less the same species as dogs, kat. Jon Boy would so totally give you a swirlie for such a mixing of metaphors. Unless you were talking about this sort of thing.
--
I like John, he's one of the few Hatrackers I converse with over AIM with any frequency (like once every couple of months). Despite that, in fact, because of that, I know that he'll accept this and move on, if he must. He doesn't need any outside defense, as anyone who has read a post of his knows. I think the photo would have gotten any of us banned, and while I'd run a forum a bit differently, in general, the ground rules, especially to us oldbies, are pretty clear for this forum and have been for quite a while.
-Bok
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Um... Tom... not sure how I qualify as having pulled anyone's hair here. I'm just trying to help people settle down. Lalo is often abrasive and kat is often oversensitive. Is that not obvious here?
Just because katharina says I have a grudge and an agenda doesn't make it true. And of course I'm happy to enjoy as much respect as you are willing to afford me, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm just trying to help people settle down. Lalo is often abrasive and kat is often oversensitive. Is that not obvious here?"
No, not really. My gut feeling, Caleb, is that you wouldn't've posted at all if someone other than kat had criticized Eddie -- if, say, Dag or somebody had done so.
I believe that you were sincerely wanting to smooth things over, but I think your history with kat and Eddie makes the three of you especially sensitive to the things each of you says to the other.
I'd like to propose a moratorium, therefore, on any of you defending OR criticizing the other ones. There are PLENTY of people on Hatrack who'll be happy to fill in those roles when it's really necessary; you won't need to worry that your concerns won't be addressed. And I think it'd go a long way towards eliminating potential furballs.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
Good grief, people. I got on hatrack, opened this thread and the first thing I thought was "Oh my gosh, it's World War Three".
Can't you guys just apologise for offending each other and get over it?
(And personally I think that if the mods made a descision, it needs to be followed. Everyone DID have to sign an agreement when they joined this forum.)
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Tom:
You know, I may not have said anything if anyone else had criticized Eddie. But then if it had been anyone else it wouldn't have gone on for three pages of ugliness and I wouldn't have felt obligated to offer some perspective.
Seriously, you mischaracterize how respectful I've been to kat since coming back to Hatrack. If you haven't noticed I keep my head high above all this cyber-drama.
As for your moratorium, I think it's better to just assume that adults can behave like adults when it is necessary and tailor our expectations with that in mind.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The person who blew the whistle and reported the post has explained the reasons.
John Keats, please quote any rude or ugly comments I have made in this thread.
[ April 29, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Maybe I could put in a good word for him.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Apologies, but I didn't accuse you of making rude or ugly comments. "Three pages of ugliness" was my description of the bickering among all parties involved, not a judgment on you. I didn't mean it to seem that way either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm pretty sure Ced did.
---
I think that's the source of some of the outrage. I've heard no defending of the actual picture that prompted it, but the general outrage seems to come from a feeling that the mods picked Ced over John.
I'm pretty sure it didn't work like that.
---
Okay. I'm sorry for misunderstanding.
[ April 29, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Yea, try that, Dobbie.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I was there with Stargate. He said it's no big deal, he has time to work on his own site now. Hey guys, there's always GreNME. The internet is a big, big place.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Having been banned once myself, my heart goes out to anyone who's been greeted with that screen of unwelcome when they come here to see what all their friends are up to.
You've been banned, too. I am sitting at the fun table.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ironically, after the forum change, I can no longer post at GreNME.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I love hot peppers.
Habaneros.
Jalepenos.
Whatever.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
*puts peas on spoon*
*flings them at Irami*
*ducks*
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote: You've been banned, too. I am sitting at the fun table.
Yes, let us turn this into a badge of honor. Posted by Snark Police (Member # 6501) on :
I'm going to have to start giving out citations in a minute.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think that's the source of some of the outrage. I've heard no defending of the actual picture that prompted it, but the general outrage seems to come from a feeling that the mods picked Ced over John.
But Ced is right here, and John is wrong. If it's about the picture, John did it repeatedly to hurt Ced and that's the bottome line. Ced hasn't even made any trouble here in over a year (since when he was almost permanently banned), and even if he had, it still wouldn't justify violating the guy's privacy like that.
Friends are friends, but when my friends break the law, they still have to face the consequences. I may not like it, but I'm not going to argue that it isn't fair.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You got banned celia? What'd you do?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Snark police?
The snarks were an exceptionally lame race of aliens in the Marvel comics universe, showing up exclusively in 'Power Pack.'
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*beats up Scott for reading that girly comic book*
Ha! Ha!
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
violated the terms and conditions, obviously.
it was a long time ago, and i'd really prefer not to rehash it. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
the Snark is a BOOJUM!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm, the writers of Power Pack demonstrated some of the highest levels of characterization and pathos in the entire history of comicdom.
Jon Bogdanove was, in fact, a demi-god.
Persecute me all you wish, but I know the truth. And the truth makes me free.
You caged, ignorant plebian.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I bet celia left donuts outside the Cards' house everyday.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow, he even insults like a girl.... Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I think that comic was one of the first Marvel series entirely created by women. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*high-fives Jim-Me*
*mutters about what will-o'-wisps taste like*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott, that's why it lasted all of, what, 60 issues and sunk beneath the surface of the collective consciousness of comicdom to land beside such greats as 'Radioactive Blackbelt Hamsters' and 'Giant Sized Man Thing', never to be seen again.
[ April 29, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*bows to rivka*
Wanna see my vorpal blade?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, and that's with forcing it into crossovers with the popular comics like X-Factor and X-Men.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Storm, I don't even want to know why you're reading a comic book called "Giant Sized Man Thing."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jim, sure! I have one of those too, but whenever I mention it in chat, I get weird responses. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:haughty sniff:
Have any of you actually read the books?
Can any of you even read?
Beyond 'Dick and Jane,' I mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The only one I ever read was the one in the middle of the Mutant Massacre crossover. Didn't like it then, either.
Dagonee
[ April 29, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott,
Does the pope poop in the woods? Are twinkies nutritious and filling? Does Spiderman wear a cape?
I think I've answered your question, puny mortal.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Does the pope poop in the woods?
Well, I'm sure he used to, even if he doesn't any more, cause he's very keen on hiking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think you can say does the pope poop in the woods unless you immediately follow it with "Is the bear catholic?"
I think it causes global warming or something.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I wish I had thought of that, Dagonee.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: Does the pope poop in the woods?
If he needed to I'm sure he would.
quote: Are twinkies nutritious and filling?
Depends on what nutrients you are in need of.
quote: Does Spiderman wear a cape?
Depends on what spiderman you are talking about.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Uh...which Spiderman ever wore a cape?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Damn. I'm late to the drama.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:shakes head:
You're judging an entire series on a CROSSOVER?
Like the X-men's various crossovers with. . . say, Alpha Flight, have been marvels of creativity.
And that one with the Micronaughts, WOW! Sparkling!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Spiderman 2099 had a cape.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's only one real Spider-man.
Ben Reilly.
Oh, wait...
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
These blast points are far too accurate for sand people...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
these bantha tracks are side by side... sandpeople ride single file to hide their numbers... (apparently "more than one" is significantly more confusing than "more than two"?)
Rivka, I LOVE YOU, MAN!
[ April 29, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Wow, only on hatrack can you go from bitter memories to comic books in 10 posts.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Damn. I'm late to the drama.
Me, too. It's better that way, really.
Posted by LOVE AND PEACE (Member # 6455) on :
heh, this is the funniest stuff ive read in a long time. everybody going crazy some guy posted some picture. haha. its too much.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
at long last, love and peace have come to hatrack...
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
But I was going to go to Tashee station to pick up some power convertors!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*beats up love and peace*
Ha! Ha!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jim,
*gyres and gimbles*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You've got some serious psychological problems going on, Storm.
All this beating up. . .
I'll give you three more chances, then I'm going to turn you into a goon.
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
A goon for you? Pfft. Why don't you get one of your minions to be your goon. I only goon for Icarus.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't have any minions.
Somehow, in that convoluted, perverted brain of yours, you've confused me and Ralphie.
You really are sick.
Get help.
Really.
Before it's too late and all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*beams at Pat*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow. Pat gets love even when he's not within fifty feet of the thread.
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
And I don't get any even when I'm in it.
Alas.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Scott - I no longer have minions.
If you locate my lost minions, will you please contact me immediately, or point said minions in my direction?
Any help would be appreciated.
God bless.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
*spreads buttery love over Pat*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pat pat* Pat's got a long shadow... It's okay.
How's Cargile Cook, by the way?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's NOT Pat's alternate-handle-of-the-week?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Minions? We don't need no stinkin' minions!
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
Nah, back in the days when these names were getting snatched up right and left, Pat chose Trogdor the Burninator. I chose Homestarrunner. I'm at least as big a fan as Pat is. I'm advice for robots.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops.
*using mirror, redirects beam at afr*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*beams beamishly at Rivka and not-Pat AFR*
Ralphie, I'm forwarding my resume... I think I have minion potential...
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
*chortles in his joy*
*basks in rivka's beamishness*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*loiters nearby, waiting for answer to question*
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
TAK - You're already my minion.
I thought I'd lost ye, boy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No loitering. Move along, move along, nothing to see.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But, but, but.... he knows my professors! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Now, now, you of all people should know where to find me, having sicked that six foot lizard on me... Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Kat:
I was just talking to John in the chat room. He asked me to let you know that you haven't been banned from GreNME or anything. Definitely nothing silly like that. You just need to log in before you can post now. Posting without logging in no longer works.
He says the site pooped out on him and he just recently got it back up and running. Go to www.grenme.com and it will link to the forum.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: You just need to log in before you can post now. Posting without logging in no longer works.
Pooka should be glad to hear that.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
He's still in chat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't have AIM at work.
I tried to log into GreNME, apparently the password I remember isn't the right one. I went through my options, including the "click here for forgotten password" link, and the resulting e-mail doesn't work.
It's good to know, though. Heaven only knows what my password for that place is. I think I've forgotten the one for sakeriver at least twice. I usually use the same password for everything, but since that would be giving grenme and sake my password for Hatrack, I didn't want to. Therein lay my fatal error.
Come to think of it, this happened at PWeb once as well.
*scribbles John, how come the links on the automated e-mails don't work? I totally want to come and play. Love, Katie on a piece of paper* *folds note into into a swan*
Could you pass this note to John?
[ April 29, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
TEACHER! KATIE'S PASSING NOTES!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I usually use the same password for everything, but since that would be giving grenme and sake my password for Hatrack, I didn't want to.
And why would this be a problem?
You think someone from Grenme or sakeriver will try to impersonate you here?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
General security.
I never sit in a room with my back to the door either.
Come on, Ela. Do you release your passwords?
[ April 29, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Alas, he left the chat room. I only chanced on him there, and I don't know how to get ahold of him otherwise. But he has been reading this thread.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Just make sure there isn't an air duct opening behind you. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* Ela, I do it too -- call it paranoia.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
It's usually a bad idea to use the same password. If someone get's into one account and knows your password, then they know all your passwords.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right.
*grin* It's much better to be periodically self-exiled from your favorite sites.
It's a terrible thing when the site goes down.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
No one got my air duct joke?!! What kind of Card fans are you, anyway?!! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For everyone at the edge of your seat, I figured it out. *curtseys* Gratzi, gratzi, populi!
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I understood the air duct joke, just didn't think it was very funny.
Sorry.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Most forums don't save your password in plain text, so even if someone hacked the database, they'd just see the encrypted password...
Of course, I use a bunch of different passwords on principle, but principle is worth nothing if you occassionally forget.
So, umm, I don't know where I'm going with this post. Help! I'm stuck in this post and I can't get out!
-Bok
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Well, fooey on you, MEC. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
*removes Bok off post*
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I'm sorry I'm sorry Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I thought the air duct post was an x-files reference. o_O
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Ela, if it helps, I got your air duct joke and I laughed. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I thought it was an X-files thing, too. You know, the liver-eating mutant who could sqeeze through small spaces? I think the episode was called 'Squeeze' or something. They had the same guy in another episode, later.
I still sometimes wonder what's REALLY under the escalators at the mall...
*realizes she's totally wack*
*wanders off, whistling "Kate!" *
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Olivet:
Sometimes X-Files really creeps me out. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Brettly!!
Where have you been? How are you doing? Long time no see.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Pooka should be glad to hear that.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
Seriously, Ela, Hobbes warned us that someone had stolen someone's ID at the start of the last mafia game so I changed my password over there.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Even funnier than deep dish bikini pizza?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That was nauseous. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I usually use the same password for everything, but since that would be giving grenme and sake my password for Hatrack, I didn't want to
Just for your peace of mind, Katie, I don't think that the sakeriver user database is any less secure than the Hatrack database, so really the only person you have to worry about getting your password from sakeriver is me, and I wouldn't ever do that. But even if I were so inclined, the passwords are encrypted, so I couldn't get it anyway.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah. My ignorance of forum technology is exposed.
What's more embarassing is that I signed up on Hatrack as just about the first thing I ever signed up for on the interenet, and I had no idea I could change my password until it was well-drilled into my head. So the password is one of those funky combinations of letters and numbers that means nothing.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Brettley!
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
I don't know what damn use this is, since I've mainly just been lurking for months now, but this calls for a DB strike. Any place that embraces Cedrios over John is a place I need to stay the hell away from. So, for now, I'll be seeing you guys.
Adios.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I hope we still see you at GreNME David. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of COURSE you'll see him at GreNME. GreNME is the forum for people who really, really dislike Cedrios and want to talk about how Hatrack isn't what it used to be.
(In all seriousness, I know John does his best to suppress exactly that phenomenon -- for which I respect him a great deal, BTW. That his forum still frequently functions as a place where Hatrackers can be snarky about other Hatrackers without having to post it here is despite his best efforts, and I think will eventually change.)
[ April 30, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Well, no, actually, GreNME is a place where I can have the largest number of posts. That's its only purpose.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Of COURSE you'll see him at GreNME. GreNME is the forum for people who really, really dislike Cedrios and want to talk about how Hatrack isn't what it used to be.
(In all seriousness, I know John does his best to suppress exactly that phenomenon -- for which I respect him a great deal, BTW. That his forum still frequently functions as a place where Hatrackers can be snarky about other Hatrackers without having to post it here is despite his best efforts, and I think will eventually change.)
Careful with the persecution complex, Tom. I haven't seen Grenme function as a gossip catalyst -- on the whole, members there would be equally willing to voice their complaints on Hatrack as they would be on Grenme, regardless of the subject matter.
Of course there are the occasional exceptions -- my one and only, to my recollection, would be my gripe about how Pete of Ornery annoyed the hell out of me; but I told him as much to his face -- but that hardly makes gossip or snarkism a defining or memorable quality of Grenme.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion, Eddie. That I disagree should be obvious. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: GreNME is the forum for people who really, really dislike Cedrios and want to talk about how Hatrack isn't what it used to be.
I think there might be a few threads about this, but if you actually looked at each thread topic, how many of them are "gossip" topics about any other forum? There are some, but they don't rule the forum.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scotch bonnets, mm. . .
Cut them up with avocados and spring onions and limes and two ripe plum tomatoes. . .
I love hot peppers.
And I always will.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Sounds yummy to me, Scott.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Hey, I know it's bad taste to bring this up, but I'm dying to know.
I wrote this long post in fugu's thread about Kat, and mentioned that as long as the thread was deleted I didn't care of my post went with it.
Well, I lied. I want to know if fugu deleted it, himself, or if it got deleted by the Mods.
It just took a bloody long time to write, and I want to know if it ascended into Hatrack heaven forever without a trace of it's existence, or if it actually helped the situation.
(Not that this inquiry would be helping the situation, or anything.)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I didn't see it before that thread was removed so I can personally testify that it was lost on me...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ralphie, when I read it, I was faintly terrified at being so easily seen through, cried all over a wonderful friend who also read it, and was impressed beyond words with your wisdom and succintness.
I was wondering by whom it was deleted as well, but didn't want to ask. I really, really, really don't want a post-mortem discussion of the quite mortemed thread. But I was wondering who made it go away.
Added: I don't know what happened to or by anyone else because of it. I saved a copy of it. The thread was alive until 8:30 or so this morning. It didn't impress everyone. At least one person was very defensive. But I don't know anything about the decision to make it dissapear.
[ April 30, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Oh, good Kat. I'm glad it helped at least that much. I was worried I may have not quite hit the nail on the head, and I'm relieved I was at least accurate.
Still wanna know, though.
edit: "At least one person was very defensive."
By my post?
[ April 30, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll bet it was Banna.
Added: Well...not convinced and defensive. Yeah. Not the creator of the thread.
[ April 30, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Oh, well. At least I thought I was right. Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I hate everyone at Hatrack.
Especially you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* I can't remember how many posted after, but you're running at least 7:1.
Great post, by the way.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Your hate is just a mask for your barely restrained lust for me, Dante.
Do admit it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You were right.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Man, I need to rile some of you up, so you all can terrify me. It's been a long time since I had a good clean fright, or even a somewhat musty mildewed scare.
Heck, I'd take a run-through-the-mud-5-times, sprayed-by-a-skunk creeping horror at this point.
-Bok, not nearly cerebellummed enough by fellow Jatraqueros
EDIT: I always get annoyed when I know I've missed a thread here.
[ April 30, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:cerebellummed
You have con-foo-zed me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Why-I-oughta BRAIN yaz..."
is that what you meant, Bok?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Can I see Toni's post Kat?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
kat isn't very familiar with the TGS, I guess.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, Jim, that merely "weirded me out". There was no scare there.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Xav, I sure don't mind, but I don't want to really stretch everything out. It's Toni's post, though. If you want it and she wants to give it to you, I'll send e-mail to various points in cyberspace. It's on the home computer, though. I couldn't until later tonight.
quote:TGS
The Ghost Society? Timothy's Gotham Swing? Tight Glutes Soon? The Geek Simulation?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Teen to the Girl to the Squad.
Hunh.
It's a Homestar Runner reference
-Bok
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I don't mind if you don't mind, Kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't mind. Do you have it, or do you want me to e-mail it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* Homestarruner. To stay culturally literate, I may soon need to actually read those e-mails. I haven't so far because I don't have sound at work, and at home, I always seem to be distracted.
[ April 30, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Just go to the web site. Watch the "First Time" cartoon, well, first. Then check out the emails.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Shares with Bok in the deja-thread frustration.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I did not delete it, I was at a volunteerism conference all day. I had contemplated deleting it, though not for the reasons many will think, but if I had done so I would have posted something, and saved a copy of everything posted.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Interesting. Now I'm curiouser... not that it does a lot of good. I'm just happy to be here, in Hatrack, behaving civilly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Five e-mails down, 96 to go.
"For good or for awesome" is wonderful.
But the latest one wasn't nearly as funny. *ducks*
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
That amount of emails to respond to would drive me up the wall. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
fugu - Okay. I was just curious. Thanks for answering my question.
Kat - I didn't save a copy of anything.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, I'll e-mail it to Xav and copy you on it.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I have a copy of it and could post it right now if you want me to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please don't.
No post-mortem. It's gone for a reason. The mods deleted the thread for a reason.
[ April 30, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Okay Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I found an easter egg. After the green paper scrolls down, click on the first "hot girl" and you'll get a funny surprise. That reminds me oddly of a painting I sent my one missionary boyfriend.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There are tons of Easter eggs.
TONS.
Sometimes there are Easter eggs in the Easter eggs!
-Bok
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:
Unmaker Member Member # 1641
posted April 29, 2004 10:26 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know what damn use this is, since I've mainly just been lurking for months now, but this calls for a DB strike. Any place that embraces Cedrios over John is a place I need to stay the hell away from. So, for now, I'll be seeing you guys.
Adios.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'm sorry to see anyone else leave over this, but I think that is a gross overstatement.
I can't find one post here that says anything good about Cedrios, and something bad about John other than what he and his supporters admit to.
If you constantly violate the User Agreement, and continue to post item that the mods warn you about (and remove), what do you expect happen. Does John have the right to act in ways that violate the principles of this site?
I prefer John to Ced, hands down, but if this is a fair representation of what happened, then what is all the fuss about? Break the rules, pay the price. Same rules for everyone.....sounds fair to me.
Kwea
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The rules are not applied the same to everyone.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Rakeesh, they certainly do their best. Even I get in trouble when I do stupid things here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geoff,
I agree, Geoff. And really, while I do sometimes wish the rules would be applied more evenly-and I say that fully aware that if they were I have stood a good chance of being banned or at least disciplined in some form at times in the past-I certainly understand why they aren't.
I mean, they don't get paid for one thing. More than that, they actually pay themselves-in time and money and effort-to keep the forum up and running. So I suppose to have someone like me complaining about enforcement consistency must be irritating to say the least, which is why I say I 'wish' they were applied more evenly (sometimes), but I don't at all expect it, and that wish doesn't in any way lessen the gratitude I feel for the forum and its upkeep.
J4
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
You also have to realize that the outcome of a dispute between the moderators and a forum member are USUALLY the result of private dealings between the two parties over a long period of time. If someone commits a violation and is sincerely apologetic, they're not getting banned unless the violation was truly unspeakable. If someone commits a violation and is rude and unyielding about it (not that John is ever rude or unyielding ), then their banning is far more likely.
Also, if someone has already been annoying the moderators by generally acting like a jerk over a long period of time, they are much less likely to get mercy for a violation.
I know nothing about John's case, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I am mostly just addressing any general perception that the administration of bannings is arbitrary or unfair. The moderators deliberately DO NOT DISCUSS the reasoning behind their decisions, considering it to be a privacy issue. So if someone gets banned and you hear rumors that it was unfair and unwarranted, realize that you are not getting the full story, and never will, specifically because the moderators are so conscientious about protecting the bannee's privacy. So try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If anything, the moderators sometimes feel that they are too lax, given the treatment they often receive from self-righteous violators.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For my part, I can't figure out why I haven't been banned yet.
I've insulted Mormonism, scoffed at modern and traditional parenting, bashed Republicans, denigrated women, taken a blood oath to destroy civilization as we know it...
And I like Cold Mountain.
[ May 01, 2004, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Taht last one would be enough for me.... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not speaking about rumors or innuendo, Geoff. I am just saying that-in my opinion-there are other people who have behaved worse and done more damage, but have not been banned. That is, ultimately, the point I'm trying to make.
I know the moderators are volunteers (moreso, since they pay for this themselves), and I know that one of them is your parent and the other is a family friend, and I know that you've got a beef with John (and I probably would've known that even if I didn't frequent Hatrack ), and I understand why the moderators do not comment.
But my irritation that an offense against Cedrios, of all people, was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' in this case still remains. Because, in my blunt opinion, Kevin deserved it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And I like Cold Mountian ________________________
Taht last one would be enough for me....
Of course. You can't spell the word 'that.' I can't expect you, illiterate as you are, to understand the true beauty and high literary merit of such a work as Cold Mountain.
Go back to reading your. . . Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, or what have you, then.
Go on now, there's a dear. Shoo.
[ May 01, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Scott, it's spelled "shoe." If you're going to correct someone's spelling, you better spell everything right yourself.
Dagonee P.S. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rakeesh,
If this were the type of board where violations of the TOS against those who "deserved it" were tolerated, I wouldn't stay long. Not that that's a big loss, but arbitrariness bugs me.
[ May 01, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
See, now I've been nasty and patronising, too.
I'm pushing the limits, exploring the borders. . .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee,
Yes, well, I'm sometimes irritated by arbitrariness, too. Hence my posts in this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmm, perhaps the round guy wagging his fingers in his ears and sticking his tongue out was too subtle and indicator of sarcasm for you...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
BAN ME! I'm so naughty! BAN ME! Me so haughty! BAN ME! You wanna do it! BAN ME! Let's get to it.
Cuz I lays down the rhymes that taunts ya, And my poetry beat's gonna haunt ya I'm like Cummings on a suicide spin, I'm here, but you can't tell where I've been.
BAN ME! I'm so naughty! BAN ME! Me so haughty! BAN ME! You wanna do it! BAN ME! Let's get to it.
So you wanna shut me up, you wanna shut me down But this ain't no cap, son, this is a crown An' I don't wear it back, and it ain't to the side An' you can run, son, but you cannot hide.
You cannot hide, You cannot hide, You cannot hide,
(slow fade)
There. Now I've laid a rap on this here website.
I'm like. . . Chez Whitey White. Foo'.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, you used that tricksy lawyer magic on my brain, didn't see that little guy.
Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
<--- To Scott, from Imogen who is too lazy to log out.
and from tony. Who isn't. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Because, in my blunt opinion, Kevin deserved it.
Hatrackers don't DESERVE attempts at public humiliation or violations of their privacy. If you think they do, take it to the Mods and have them banned. If the Mods disagree, you don't have the right to go start a fight in the Cards' virtual living room. This was not designed to be a forum for public humiliation or insult.
Ced, in particular, has done nothing wrong in years, and has mainly only continued to be so damaging because people keep bringing up old stuff about him up. There'd be no reason to ban him or keep him banned now, as he's not causing trouble. There is nothing arbitrary about him still being here.
[ May 01, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Scott, that was so funny I dropped my hot dog on my shirt. Darn you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've seen exactly two posts by Ced in my entire Hatrack existence and they were this week. I know folks joke about him, but I have no idea why exactly. So I have inadequate information as to whether he deserved what John did, which I am equally ignorant about. I don't defend or support either one. By the way, do we know that Ced hasn't been banned?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On this, as on many other subjects, we disagree repeatedly, Tresopax Suffice it to say that you are, in fact, factually mistaken-but it doesn't occur on the `Rack, but to specific `Rackers.
I don't think Cedrios has been banned because he posted in this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Of course, the really sad thing is that the people who would most enjoy my poking fun with the rap above will never see it-- they don't frequent THIS type of thread.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm another person that hasn't experienced the unforgivable infamy that is Cedrios, so I have some trouble understanding the anger. From what I've picked up, he seems to be a pathological liar who got a lot of people really involved in his lies before hitting them with the truth that he was just screwing around. And he's apparently a horrible person to boot. I guess I understand all that.
Still, isn't there a statute of limitations here? I mean, when someone has been nearly completely absent for a long time, what exactly is the point of kicking the dead horse for the rest of your life? At some point, doesn't anger and revenge get excessive?
I mean this, actually, more as a general question than as a specific criticism of John or an absolution of Cedrios. Again, I was never involved in the original incident, so I'm in no position to say more than that.
So, here's the general question. When someone has done something horrible to you socially, at what point in time after the inciting event does your own vindictiveness become excessive and unwarranted? Do they "deserve it" forever, no matter what, or is there a cutoff when it becomes your problem and not theirs?
[ May 01, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: At some point, doesn't anger and revenge get excessive?
No. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You know, Scott, calling yourself naughty like that made me feel things.
Things I hadn't felt before.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dysentery, probably.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it becomes excessive and damaging if they've apologized and appear to not do it anymore. Again speaking generally and not of this incident. But the definition of "not do it anymore" is fairly subjective.
I apologize to any members that I've insulted by attaching what I consider bad behavior to their names. I'll try not to do it anymore.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Dysentery, probably.
Oh, please.
Hatrack River has been infected for years. I've built an immunity.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Suffice it to say that you are, in fact, factually mistaken-but it doesn't occur on the `Rack, but to specific `Rackers.
The moderators watch over the 'Rack, not specific 'Rackers. It's not their business to moderate fights outside the forum, or ban people for fights outside the forum. They couldn't do it fairly, even if they wanted to. So, if Ced is feuding with people outside Hatrack, deal with him outside Hatrack. But don't bring it in here and start violating the Code of Conduct, especially when he barely posts anymore.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Mmmm....Hatrack River Water bottled and on sale everywere good books are sold. Give us an excuse to inhabit the "reading room" frequently and for lomger periods of time. Yesssss!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*catching up on the story behind the thread
Wow. I can't believe this happened.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
CT, neither can I. I don't know what John did, I only know I miss him. I understand that our moderators don't want to tell us the exact circumstaces, but still, it hurts. The picture thing was rude and maybe a little childish, too. But to me that did not deserved that. So if it's the only reason...
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You know, I can't help but think people are just slightly idealistic about the 'rack.
This is the best damn place on the web, but it's still filled with imperfect people, saying imperfect things, with imperfect hearts and minds.
There is no bastian of all that is good. You're just not going to find it. And if you thought Hatrack was it, don't weep that Hatrack has been tarnished simply because you began with unreal expectations.
We fight, we scream, we pull each other's hair and sometimes we stomp our feet on the ground in temper tantrums. That's people. That's why we are who we are, and ultimately that's why we love each other - because we're still imperfect, YET it remains: This is the best damn place on the web.
Stop with the omg dark side what am I gonna do schtick. If this is the first time you've realized Hatrack isn't perfect, then take about five minutes to lick those wounds, throw some bactine on them, and realize there will be no permanent scar because - tada! - you've finally gotten some perspective!
Welcome to reality. Good news. Hatrack remains cool.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Peppers!
Mmm. . .
Roasted peppers, in marinade.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Preach it, Ralphie.
Can I get an amen?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ralphie, I'm experiencing that "OMG-I was only gone for a few days-thing."
It happens, I know, but it sure sets me back a pace. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
They fight, and fight! And fight and fight and fight! Fight fight fight, fight fight fight... The Books Films and Food.... and Culture Shoooooooow!
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
CT - My post was more directed to whichever non-newbie is currently posting as the Clown guy. (Fecal. Witty.)
Just catching up, I'll bet it's sad. But you're not expressing that you're overwhelmed. We're veterans.
[ May 01, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
All I want to say is that I support the moderators completely and believe they never ban anyone without good reason. Because they won't make public exactly what someone did, how many times they got warned, how they responded to being warned, or any of those things (which must be really hard, not to publicly justify yourself when your friends are questioning your judgement), people are always going to doubt them. But I've come to realize something, that they are far more patient and restrained than I would ever be able to manage were it me.
Heartfelt thanks to the moderators. I've found in my working life that corporate culture always originates at the very top levels of management. I believe this place is the best place on the web specifically because we have fantastic moderators. I'm glad this thread gave me a chance to say that.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:Because they won't make public exactly what someone did, how many times they got warned, how they responded to being warned, or any of those things (which must be really hard, not to publicly justify yourself when your friends are questioning your judgement), people are always going to doubt them.
Having asked, I can answer some of those. No reason was given, no warnings were given, and no response was requested in the form of a warning or simply asking for removal. It came without any warning or explanation. That is why, I think, so many people are asking for some kind of reconsideration.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(((ak))) (((CT)))
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Despite my irritation, I must admit there have been warnings.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
ak, I couln't have expressed our shared belief better than you did if I tried.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now I'm starting to understand why everyone got so excited at the merest hint that Ralphie was coming back.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I stand corrected. There has been censure, but never once a warning before the censure. Unofficial warnings from members, yes, mods, no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You've visited foob too, eh? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Scott R: You said you liked Cold Mountain, so I figured that I HAD to mess up the post, or you might not understand it...
Sorry that I overestimated you....lol
Kwea
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Now I'm starting to understand why everyone got so excited at the merest hint that Ralphie was coming back.
Well, one taste of the Ralphster and it's only a matter of time before they come crawling back for another taste of the sweet, sweet candy.
BAM.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is only the Ralphster that could make that line-so frequently repeated-funny over and over again. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Don't mock me. I'll sick fanboys on you.
Don't think I won't.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm curious if anyone thinks John might have been skating on thin ice as it is with his angry, self-righteous, verbally-abusive stance in the recent homosexuality threads? I mean, he was really over the line there for a while with the whole "My position is so undeniably the correct that I have the exclusive right to call my opponents names because they are such obvious moral cretins, but they had better not say a word about me!" thing. When he later deleted his posts and ran off to pout, I was kind of relieved that he was gone.
Now that there's been a little time and distance from that situation, and it's a Big Scary Banning by the Oppressive Moderators, everyone is suddenly surprised. That I don't get. Yeah, Cedrios hurt a lot of people's feelings. But John has done a lot more of that kind of thing lately. And I don't think that the moderators are obligated to react to a problem member right after the most serious-sounding of their offenses.
I know that many of you know John far better than I do, and many of you have yet to be on the receiving end of his wrath, so my opinion here might just look like sour grapes from a painful argument. But I have met John before, read his work here quite often, and liked him a lot. In this more recent conflict, I kept arguing with him far longer than I usually would because I was in shock. I kept believing that if I said the right thing, he'd suddenly snap to and realize that I wasn't his enemy, and that he was acting like a jerk. But all he did was get angrier and meaner. Totally freaked me out.
I don't want John to be gone. I want John to stay and play nice. But I wonder if he would actually be able to play nice if he stayed. I mean, if he can't even stop haranguing Cedrios after YEARS have gone by ... I don't know. I just think that some of us are too willing to turn a blind eye and accept behavior from John that we would never tolerate from a newbie, because we've known him so long and liked him so well. But that isn't right. A long tenure at Hatrack and a large number of friends should not amount to a license to say and do whatever you want without consequence.
I really think that a person's right to remain at Hatrack should depend, in large part, on their ability to pursue an argument without attacking and insulting the people they are arguing with. That's really what Hatrack is ABOUT. If we decide that one of us has a right to act that way just because we've known him a long time and like him for other reasons, then sure, we get to hold onto that friend ... but Hatrack itself, as an ideal, is destroyed.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You know, as much as I like to disagree with Geoff on principal, I have to say he's pretty spot-on here.
I used to make excuses for John all the time, because I like him and know he's a major sweetheart in real life (even though I've never had the privledge of meeting him in person), but he could undeniably be a major jerk in debates.
I used to stick up for him when Ayelar would (understandably, in retrospect) make statements that she felt it was totally incomprehensible that people didn't see John for what he was, or how he was presenting himself in his posts. I would say something to cushion it to the effect of his being grumpy, until one day he got peeved at me for "excusing his behavior" as if it needed excusing.
But it totally did. And I realized - they're both right. I shouldn't excuse his behavior, and if he wants it to stand on it's own merit, then he'll have to deal with the backlash. I guess this is part of the backlash of that posting style.
I love John. But if you're going to say stuff without empathy or diplomacy, you're just going to have to expect that someone will put the smack down on you eventually.
[ May 01, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
Look, I agree that John was real over the top with the homosexuality stuff. Hell, I wanted to chime in and tell his ass that he could call me a bigot all day long and it wouldn't change the fact that we are not homosexuals, and we do not decide whether they should get married by the church.
SO, lay the smack down on John's ass, yeah, but ban him? It's like taking away one side of the coin. Cuz right now, there's a lot of bleeding hearts on this site, and you need balance.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I'm not saying ban him, Matt.
I'm just saying I don't think it's OMG SRUPRISE!!1
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I know John was cruising for a bruising with his posting style.
I'm pretty sure I've said that several times. What irritates me is that others have behaved in a similar fashion in the past, and have not been banned.
So, no, banning is not consistent. The moderators do not always enforce the rules the same way for everyone. I am, in fact, partial proof of this.
And before (again) it's pointed out that the moderators have that right, I know that, too. They are the only real force for authority here (aside from influence and charisma exercised by many members), and they pay for the upkeep of not just the forum but the entire website from their own time and money and aggravation.
But please, please stop trying to convince me that the rules are enforced in an even-handed, consistent fashion. We all know they are not, and personally I am OK with that for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned.
J4
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I would agree with that, Jeff.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Look, I agree that John was real over the top with the homosexuality stuff. Hell, I wanted to chime in and tell his ass that he could call me a bigot all day long and it wouldn't change the fact that we are not homosexuals, and we do not decide whether they should get married by the church.
Heh, dude, methinks you miss the point. You aren't homosexual, but you may well be a member of a homophobic church (assuming you belong to one, unlike your brother). If you are, you effectively do decide if homosexuals are allotted equal rights and status in your church. If you aren't, hell, your existence as an American citizen helps determine if homosexuals are granted legal equality in the eyes of the supposedly secular government.
So, yes. You have the power. And it really doesn't matter if you're homosexual or not, in terms of working for reform or otherwise.
Posted by m. bowles (Member # 3743) on :
No dude....I don't do church but I do understand a little about the churches viewpoint. Civil unions are another matter. I support them completely. Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
I hate to chime in at this point to correct someone, but my Simpsons Honor holds me bound.
Ayelar, I'm afraid it is: They fight! And bite! They fight and bite and fight! Fight fight fight! Bite bite bite! The "Books, Film...Culture" Show!
please D'oh!n't flame me. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Actually, I stand corrected. There has been censure, but never once a warning before the censure. Unofficial warnings from members, yes, mods, no.
How about we impeach him but then acquit him in the senate? Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I've seen exactly two posts by Ced in my entire Hatrack existence and they were this week. I know folks joke about him, but I have no idea why exactly. So I have inadequate information as to whether he deserved what John did, which I am equally ignorant about. I don't defend or support either one. By the way, do we know that Ced hasn't been banned?
Cedrios did some things that upset the whole forum a couple of years ago. They really don't bear rehashing at this point. Ced was never banned, to my recollection. He did stop posting under the name Cedrios and his other known "cedonyms" after that. That was probably because people pretty much didn't cut him any slack after the big upset, and his comfort level here was drastically reduced - they may be why some people think he was banned.
quote:Yes, I know John was cruising for a bruising with his posting style.
I'm pretty sure I've said that several times. What irritates me is that others have behaved in a similar fashion in the past, and have not been banned.
So, no, banning is not consistent. The moderators do not always enforce the rules the same way for everyone. I am, in fact, partial proof of this.
And before (again) it's pointed out that the moderators have that right, I know that, too. They are the only real force for authority here (aside from influence and charisma exercised by many members), and they pay for the upkeep of not just the forum but the entire website from their own time and money and aggravation.
But please, please stop trying to convince me that the rules are enforced in an even-handed, consistent fashion. We all know they are not, and personally I am OK with that for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned.
Yes, I agree with this, Jeff.
What upsets me, and a lot of other people here, I think, is that John was a valuable contributor to this forum. Yes, he has upset people with his posting style. I have gotten into it with him, too, at times, and gotten pretty annoyed. But he is basically a good guy, and I am just sorry to see him gone from Hatrack. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I'm just saying I don't think it's OMG SRUPRISE!!1
Ralphie, I hope I'm just getting a meaning out of this that you didn't intend at all, but it seems really condescending to me whenever you reply to someone by mocking their post in 1337 speak.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ralphie doesn't need anyone to stick up for her, but that's never stopped me before! (For the record, 'oh my God, don't do that! usually don't work neither)
I doubt Ralphie means any real offense when using l337 speek. Besides, she was right.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now if I had written that, you would be free to interpret it as condescending.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
410 second guesses, uninformed interpretations, and general malcontent.
No, wait-- some kind folks DID dig my rhymes.
That's gotta count for something.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Hey! Mine was just a joke! So, 409...
Far be it from me to second guess any decisions made by our moderators. I'm sorry to see John gone. But I'm sure that no one here has all the information on the situation that they do, and it's not our place to judge.
Rain
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Actually, there have been a lot of jokes and side conversations in this thread, so it's even less than 409.
And Scott, I think people are allowed to discuss things and express their opinions without being called malcontents.
[ May 01, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No they aren't.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
--I--
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Sarah - I pretty much mean it self-parodying. And when I say 'self' that's me first, and then the collective 'we'.
Mostly, I just find it funny.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:I'm just saying I don't think it's OMG SRUPRISE!!1
Honey, I know you're just doing this because it's funny, and, surely, it is. But, take it from someone who knows, what starts out as a joke can eventually get under your skin to the point where you can't stop. I'd hate to have the beauty of your posts marred by a joke gone wrong.
4 rills.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
dear me, is there a cliff notes version of this thread? 9 pages?!
fallow
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
cliff note me did Mr. GrenMe get banned?
If he did, is his parole voteable, if so I vote time served, or possibly no ban at all.
What happened? Can some one fill me in?
Did John kidnap Baldar and force him into weird games of Twister? Was he at Micheal Jacksons birthday parties?
Was it over those goofy, goofy pictures of Cedrios?
What is all of this about?
I vote for PEACE! at Hatrack!
<T>
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Honey, I know you're just doing this because it's funny, and, surely, it is. But, take it from someone who knows, what starts out as a joke can eventually get under your skin to the point where you can't stop. I'd hate to have the beauty of your posts marred by a joke gone wrong.
4 rills.
I'll probably get tired of the device at some point.
However, I like that Hatrack is nearly built on its avoidance of AIM speak (and those who speak it in sincerity) and I'm shamelessly flaunting status to get away with using it on a regular basis.
It'll get retired at some point. For now, though, a lot of times it's just as effective in helping me express my point as a smiley is for other people.
[ May 02, 2004, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*pinches megachops*
"You DO have the best (umm... err) second name?"
*marches right over to Rackacademy awards"
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Thor
quote:cliff note me did Mr. GrenMe get banned?
Yes, he did.
quote:If he did, is his parole voteable, if so I vote time served, or possibly no ban at all.
A lot of people feel this way, but I am sure his ban is not voteable.
quote:What happened? Can some one fill me in?
Was it over those goofy, goofy pictures of Cedrios?
Yes, apparently it was over the pictures of Ced. John was not warned or given any explanation, to my knowledge.
quote:I vote for PEACE! at Hatrack!
Amen to that, brother.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're right about that, pooka. Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:I'll probably get tired of the device at some point.
However, I like that Hatrack is nearly built on its avoidance of AIM speak (and those who speak it in sincerity) and I'm shamelessly flaunting status to get away with using it on a regular basis.
It'll get retired at some point. For now, though, a lot of times it's just as effective in helping me express my point as a smiley is for other people.
Wait, so you know that what you do may be taken offensively by some people, especially those who don't know your reasoning behind it, but you're going to do it anyway? How is this any different from what at least three people have directly accused John of doing? Does this mean you are cruising for a banning? If offensive behaior quirks are all that is required to be eligible for arbitrary banning, shouldn't more people begin to fear for moderation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, berating and labelling people bigots is a bit more severe than using l337 speak mischieviously.
D'uh. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks John shouldn'tve been banned.
J4
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
I see. So, it's a matter of severity? Or a matter of humor? Is it okay as long as the person doing it can call it a joke? "I was only kidding?"
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
::wonders who Alai's Echo is::
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
A friend. Speaking in part on John's behalf.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which is strange, since John has actually said on numerous occassions, "Don't do that."
And this is an absurd argument. There was one (count one) person who asked the meaning behind Ralphie's statements, and Ralphie clarified. The statement was not directed at any single person or group or belief system, and it was not directly insulting.
It is, in fact, a joke by which no insult or condemnation is meant.
So don't act like the two are the same. It makes you look like a freaking moron, because the two are obviously different.
Get it, d00d?
(By which part of this post might a reasonable, average person be more offended, do you think?)
Edit: Oh, and by the way: I wasn't interested one way or another in who you are, but advertising martyred anonymity don't win any points.
[ May 02, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I could defend myself against a contrived arguement.
But I'm not.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You are so a contrived argument!
don't try to deny it!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think it's time for THE COMFY CHAIR.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Someday Stormy is going to run off with me.
Someday.
edit: I meant Stormy! I MEANT STORMY!!!
[ May 02, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
why you mad, stormy?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
He just noticed that everyone else was getting all hot under the collar and figured he should jump on board as well. Now we can talk about how we hurt his feelings for another 3 pages before someone else gets righteously indignant over nothing and we can talk about *that* for another couple of pages. It's awesome.
If people put as much effort into making pies as they did into being offended and then they gave all those pies to me, well son, I’d be a happy man. Or something.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
a fat, happy man.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Really, Btl? What if they gave them to you while they possessed lots of kinetic energy?
*aims*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I should hope they'd have some kinetic energy, otherwise I'd have absolute zero pie.
(I can't believe I made that pun...)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yup, now you deserve this!
*lobs 10 pies in rapid succession, shotput style, at BtL*
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
It appears John's posts have been swept from the forum.
...was that really necessary? The man wrote some excellent material.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know about this time, but every time John's gone off in a huff on his own he deletes most of his recent posts.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Lil paranoid there Lalo, John often deletes his posts.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Except this time he didn't. Lil' anxious to be judgemental there, Sopwith.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So, you're claiming that the mods deleted his posts?
:shrug:
Is Leto maintaining that they did this?
:shrug:
Can I care less?
Yes. You know, I think I CAN conjure more apathy towards this subject. Hold on--
Yes. Oh, YES! Now I am COMPLETELY apathetic!
[ May 22, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
uh, i don't think a banned person can delete posts....
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
If that's true I may have just generated some apathy to the whole forum.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I don't see any evidence that John's posts have been "swept" from the forum.
His last post was on April 28, right before he was banned.
All of the links that I checked on this list of John's recent posts worked fine (I admit I didn't check every last one).
And it would be impossible for John to delete his posts after he was banned, as his IP was banned and his password would no longer work.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
..... nevermind ....
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Rereading this thread made me think of a macro I recently ran into*.
(*Shamelessly filtched from some genius on another forum.)
[ May 23, 2004, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
d00d. PETA will be so pissed when they hear about that poor monkey.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Yeah, but according to Bernard, it could make Taco Bell very happy.
quote:A Rat Named Dog: I really think that a person's right to remain at Hatrack should depend, in large part, on their ability to pursue an argument...
Well, crap. I guess that's my cue to leave...
[ May 23, 2004, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If the admins leave us to fight each other in the dark over issues we're clueless about, we should at least have the sense to realize our predicament and STFU.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
Just cut to the chase if there is one.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Funniest thing I've read all day. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)