He has a great delivery and style.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Are you allowed to make threads again? I thought you were told to stop.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
He is pretty funny.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Are you allowed to make threads again? I thought you were told to stop.
I thought so too. And I looked yesterday when I saw that he'd made a thread about the Simpsons. I didn't see any reversal of that statement. However, it was the Simpsons, so I just ignored it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I must agree that Aziz is pretty funny as well.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Made me laugh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Aziz gets bonus points for making board posting amusing to what I'm guessing is a non-board posting crowd.
Also, Clive's last two posts were on the Simpsons and a comedian. At least he's avoiding controversial topics.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Well since this is a thread relating to stand up comedy...
Here's a video of one of the most painful things I've ever seen. Jamie Foxx humiliates and pretty much destroys the career of a rising comedian:
What a scumbag Jamie Foxx is. I mean, even if the guy wasn't succeeding with the audience there was no need to do that to him.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, Clive's last two posts were on the Simpsons and a comedian. At least he's avoiding controversial topics.
But: 1) Clive has demonstrated his ability to turn even non-controversial topics/statement controversial.
2) As far as any of us know PJ's instructions to Clive not to start new threads still stands, and this in blatant violation of that instruction. PJ didn't say "except for non controversial topics..." after all.
So Clive - unless PJ has lifted his ban on your posting new topics maybe you should cut it out. If I were him and you disregarded my instructions like this I'd just ban you completely and be done with it.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, Clive's last two posts were on the Simpsons and a comedian. At least he's avoiding controversial topics.
But: 1) Clive has demonstrated his ability to turn even non-controversial topics/statement controversial.
2) As far as any of us know PJ's instructions to Clive not to start new threads still stands, and this in blatant violation of that instruction. PJ didn't say "except for non controversial topics..." after all.
So Clive - unless PJ has lifted his ban on your posting new topics maybe you should cut it out. If I were him and you disregarded my instructions like this I'd just ban you completely and be done with it.
Papa Janitor did not forbid me from making threads. Please go away now.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Papa Janitor, from the locked thread: Ok -- this is a temporary thing, while I work through this with the Cards. For the time being, Clive please do not start any new threads.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Papa Janitor wrote this.
quote:Clive please do not start any new threads.
He has not said anything else about it since then so either you are still not allowed to make threads or the forum needs an update on what you are or are not allowed to do.
And frankly I don't think he would have given you permission to make threads again without letting everyone know its okay, because otherwise this would happen.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Papa Janitor sent me an email from which I took that I can make threads -- just not on particular topic/s.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
So why isn't the forum informed of that? We can't take your word for it, you already had comments deleted for doing something you obviously "took" you were allowed to do.
Posted by Hopefully Anonymous (Member # 12299) on :
Yea Clive, you should follow the rules.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I deleted those comments myself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: So why isn't the forum informed of that?
Maybe Pop decided it wasn't our business? If it's not true, he'll deal with Clive. I imagine this thread has already been whistled.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Maybe Pop decided it wasn't our business?
I honestly hope he didn't decide that. Because it *is* all of our business. This forum works best when we have an element of self policing. This is especially important as Pop is not always able to put in the time he would really need to otherwise (not trying to be critical, I know this is something he has himself indicated in the past). So it becomes all of our business to know what the current rules/bans/exceptions are.
I think the lack of a feedback loop from locked/deleted threads is part of what has made the Hatrack spiral so noticeable. We don't really *see* the actions that are being taken by PJ - threads get locked and then drop away over time without ever having a "oh, by the way the decision on that thread was..." moment. I'm not for public humiliation or anything, but rules are better understood, followed and enforced by all when we see what happens when they get broken.
So, in this case a "it's now OK for Clive to start threads" from Pop would be a reasonable expectation. Otherwise the last word we've had from the authorities is that he can't and it appears as if he's getting away with blatantly disregarding the rules.
Or at least that's how I see it.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I ok'd Clive via e-mail to post under certain conditions. Since those conditions are not universal, I did not share them with everyone. (Actually, nobody whistled anything on this thread -- I just had a very busy yesterday so didn't see the controversy here.) Since "following instructions given by the moderator" is a condition for everyone, maybe I needed to make it more clear. Normally I'd think his indication that I sent him an e-mail would be good enough (as it's easy to check), but on a thread that starts with someone talking about how funny it is to lie to people in a forum setting, maybe I shouldn't consider it a given.
--PJ
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Thanks for the update PJ..
One comment/note:
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Normally I'd think his indication that I sent him an e-mail would be good enough (as it's easy to check), but on a thread that starts with someone talking about how funny it is to lie to people in a forum setting, maybe I shouldn't consider it a given.
This isn't just a thread that began that way, but a thread where Clive apparently lied himself about the facts of the situation by saying to me "Papa Janitor did not forbid me from making threads", which is demonstratively false. Maybe he meant that you lifted the ban, but can anyone be surprised that we don't trust Clive at all when he makes these kinds of statement on a regular basis.
So Clive's indication that you sent him an email may have normally been good enough, but in this case Clive had just made a demonstrably false statement in this same thread. If he had told about the email first, instead of denying that the ban occurred (and being rude about it) then maybe we would have believed him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think papa has it well in hand, and that's good enough for me.