Moderators

[hrotha]

You so edgy.

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

You so edgy.

In real life I am a completely boring person. I am not interesting at all. I even still live with my parents. I am nothing.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I am nothing.

Don't say that

 

[Echoes]

I demand an explanation straightway, cowards.

Enough using a poster's schizophrenia as diversion.

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

I demand an explanation straightway, cowards.

Enough using a poster's schizophrenia as diversion.

Schizophrenia is a big word. Are you really sure you know how to use it? At which university did you do your studies?

You will never get an apology or an explanation. I have been banned because a moderator misread my post to mean something completely different to what it clearly meant. I never got any response from the moderator, now they are not a moderator.

Either quit the forum or put it behind you and hope they don't make another mistake involving your posts.

 

[Echoes]

Put my former uni out of this, will you?

When I'm angry I don't know which word to use (and I don't care about your cinema anyway). Except they are cowards. That is definitely accurate. I've never been angry on this forum till now. Censorship is loathsome.

And I won't let it go, okay. I'll get back here any time till I have it or till they permaban me.

 

[ebandit]

luigi

In real life I am a completely boring person. I am not interesting at all. I even still live with my parents. I am nothing.

luigi don't put yourself down............are you aiming to be a moderator?

good luck!

Mark L

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

luigi don't put yourself down............are you aiming to be a moderator?

good luck!

Mark L

Aiming to be a moderator. That is the funniest suggestion ever.

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

Put my former uni out of this, will you?

When I'm angry I don't know which word to use (and I don't care about your cinema anyway). Except they are cowards. That is definitely accurate. I've never been angry on this forum till now. Censorship is loathsome.

And I won't let it go, okay. I'll get back here any time till I have it or till they permaban me.

Okay, do whatever you want. My advise is free and probably worth the same amount.

 

[laurel1969]

I even still live with my parents.

You aren't the only one, judging by what I've just read in this thread

 

[Luigi_Max_Again]

You aren't the only one, judging by what I've just read in this thread

Yeah but I suspect those who do are actually a lot younger than me.

I don't drink or smoke or have sex or do drugs or kiss donkeys. I am totally boring.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't drink or smoke or have sex or do drugs or kiss donkeys.

So you aren't Michel Cound then?

Your posting styles did have a lot in common.

 

[Afrank]

Jeez Echoes, give us a chance to get to it, at the moment there Happens to be 3 other moderator issues/cases I've just finished for now dealing with. And I had to be away from the forum all day yesterday.

But I digress, your post in the chess thread at first glance does read as if you are stereotyping Jewish people and claiming that they are all violent. I can see that that is probably not what you meant with it though. I'll restore the post and edit out the part that can be easily misread. PM me with what you meant by it or by a certain part of it if your not satisfied.

 

[thehog]

Mods how does this work?

Why would it be deemed not important to provide a link in one situation and in another it's imperative?

Some guidance please. Particularly for the fact an older conversation has been brought up in a current conversation.

Wouldn't it be best if the poster involved just report the post if they feel they haven't got the link they require? Or something that they need? Do older discussions need to be posted in full to placate one poster? It doesn't appear right to me. But you may feel different.

I feel that it would derail a thread. Perhaps it moves elsewhere?

Sure, I don't mind doing that. But at least the poster could provide the quotes from 3 weeks ago of the actual discussion, yes?

Rather than throwing it in randomly doesn't make for good discussion. It played out over several pages.

For example; a couple of days ago a person here made claim about Liz Krutez being paid by Armstrong to be his "personal photographer" for the US Pro Challenge. There was no direct evidence by way of a link. He and others could only provide an association between the two that it "might" have occurred. The mods at the time deemed that fine.

Similar situation here. At the time I provided the same detail & it was a discussion between several posters.

I'm not going to be hounded into doing so because a poster wants to change tact and point score. That's not right. If they're not happy with it they should report the post and move on. Why allow constant berating of myself?

TailWindHome should link the posts from 3 weeks and then I can link all the replies. Brian Smith clearly said Sky were supporting him and preparing the defence. JTL was paid up until the suspension was handed down.

It all in the threads.

 

[The Hitch]

But I digress, your post in the chess thread at first glance does read as if you are stereotyping Jewish people and claiming that they are all violent. I can see that that is probably not what you meant with it though.

What else could "they (jews) are usually very violent" full stop, mean?

Especially from this poster who has discriminated against minorities (homosexuals) before, made a number of derogatory claims about atheists (eg that they do not have the intellectual abilities required to understand him) is a defender of General Franco and aside from other wackjob believes, he has in the cycling threads spearheaded a perennial one man terror campaign against anyone who dares say they watch the Tour de France.

And he is quite clearly saying in this very thread that he meant everything that was in his post and wants it restored. Someone who says "Jews are violent" but doesn't actually mean "Jews are violent" usually says something like - oops, that came out wrong sorry, I didn't want to post anti Semitic remarks. Instead he demands that "cowards" restore his post.

 

[the sceptic]

sounds like he could become good friends with bigmac

 

[Afrank]

Perhaps Echoes could explain here what he meant by the comment. He says the post just needs to be read correctly and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But to tell the truth, I'm not entirely clear on what he meant by it if not that "jews are violent."

 

[BigMac]

What else could "they (jews) are usually very violent" full stop, mean?

Especially from this poster who has discriminated against minorities (homosexuals) before, made a number of derogatory claims about atheists (eg that they do not have the intellectual abilities required to understand him) is a defender of General Franco and aside from other wackjob believes, he has in the cycling threads spearheaded a perennial one man terror campaign against anyone who dares say they watch the Tour de France.

And he is quite clearly saying in this very thread that he meant everything that was in his post and wants it restored. Someone who says "Jews are violent" but doesn't actually mean "Jews are violent" usually says something like - oops, that came out wrong sorry, I didn't want to post anti Semitic remarks. Instead he demands that "cowards" restore his post.

Please read this in a friendly tone: Did he not write something along the lines of ''Jews can be very violent''? Either way, I fail to see how it can be considered anti-Semitic or inflamatory at all. Truth is, no one would give a rat's if that statement was about Muslims or even Christians, considering the time spent by you and I, in the past, bashing and accusing said religions of being tools for violence, nothing more. If it read something similar to ''Christians can/are very violent'', I think you would back the claim without thinking twice - so would Christopher Hitchens, the man in your avatar and which you dedicate your username too. How many times did you and I made quite vicious generalizations and adressed this groups (Religion Thread) the same way, or worse. I read it when you linked to it, and it seemed quite normal. Only those who are seeking a misunderstanding can misunderstand that post, I think. I once referred to the Old Testament as trash, or something similar, and quickly got that part deleted from my post by a moderator. Would the reaction have been the same if I was referring to the New Testament or the Quran? I don't think so. I think (am sure) the blue pencil, here, (and forum reaction in general) works/is more often on Jewish related subjects or posts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just PM'd mods about the new sock puppet. If my guess is deemed incorrect, will the mods reply to me to let me know? Or is there simply too much stuff going on / that's not the protocol?

Cheers

 

[King Boonen]

Just PM'd mods about the new sock puppet. If my guess is deemed incorrect, will the mods reply to me to let me know? Or is there simply too much stuff going on / that's not the protocol?

Cheers

Surely you can just check the member suspension thread?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Surely you can just check the member suspension thread?

Not if nothing happens. Which is often the case when I flag posts. But am never told why.

The person may be placed on a watch list, or I may simply be plain wrong.

I am also asking here so the protocol (or not) is made public, rather than asking in the same PM I sent.

Hopefully a real mod will answer soon

 

[King Boonen]

Did he not write something along the lines of ''Jews can be very violent''? Either way, I fail to see how it can be considered anti-Semitic or inflamatory at all. Truth is, no one would give a rat's if that statement was about Muslims or even Christians, considering the time spent by you and I, in the past, bashing and accusing said religions of being tools for violence, nothing more. If it read something similar to ''Christians can/are very violent'', I think you would back the claim without thinking twice - so would Christopher Hitchens, the man in your avatar and which you dedicate your username too. How many times did you and I made quite vicious generalizations and adressed this groups (Religion Thread) the same way, or worse. I read it when you linked to it, and it seemed quite normal. Only those who are seeking a misunderstanding can misunderstand that post, I think. I once referred to the Old Testament as trash, or something similar, and quickly got that part deleted from my post by a moderator. Would the reaction have been the same if I was referring to the New Testament or the Quran? I don't think so. I think (am sure) the blue pencil, here, (and forum reaction in general) works/is more often on Jewish related subjects or posts.

Errr... What? I would have a massive problem with that if I saw it.

 

[King Boonen]

Not if nothing happens. Which is often the case when I flag posts. But am never told why.

The person may be placed on a watch list, or I may simply be plain wrong.

I am also asking here so the protocol (or not) is made public, rather than asking in the same PM I sent.

Hopefully a real mod will answer soon

It just seems obvious, if your suspect is banned they are a sockpuppet. If they're not, then they aren't. It seems determining these things take time, so expect to wait a while, but if they are I'm sure it will be dealt with.

Not sure what the bolded little dig is about?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

So just having read the JTL thread. Really great moderation, guys. Just let people repeatedly make stuff up and when they are caught just let it go.
Spineless.

No wonder people get annoyed when they get warned, posts deleted, whatever for small infractions and yet you encourage other posters to keep posting nonsense.

All posters are equal but some are more equal than others.

Good post Pedro.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It just seems obvious, if your suspect is banned they are a sockpuppet. If they're not, then they aren't. It seems determining these things take time, so expect to wait a while, but if they are I'm sure it will be dealt with.

I am well aware of this. Thank you for taking the time to point it out for the others reading here. If you are hoping to prevent me from asking such questions, you will always fail.

Always.

Not sure what the bolded little dig is about?

I am asking a question of the mods, in the Moderators thread, to be answered by a mod.

You're welcome.