palmerq said:you did call him that twice after I told you stop it :S
Didn't get banned for it, would have made sense, but i didn't. So you must have ruled it not severe enough.
True or not palmy?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
palmerq said:you did call him that twice after I told you stop it :S
Sure - you stopped calling him it until now.boomcie said:@Maser
I did get reported. D_T said he was fed up with me and then I received an infraction.
About the unfairnesS of my ban:
1. Palmer sent me a pm with my first infraction.
2. I did not receive an infraction for insults I made after my first infraction. Palmer did tell me I should stop calling him 'pecker_tifosi'. I stopped calling him that.
Of course thats not a fact - you continued your personal dispute and started complaining about it after you had received the first infraction.boomcie said:3. The next morning i reported the avatar and received my seconde infraction and subsequent ban. Both Susan's doing. Note that I received my second infraction for an insult that was clearly covered by the first infraction. That is seriously unfair. PalmerQ knew at time of my first infraction that I had made comments about D_T in several threads. I did not get banned for making insults AFTER my first infraction. That's à fact. This means i didn't get a fair treatment.
boomcie said:Didn't get banned for it, would have made sense, but i didn't. So you must have ruled it not severe enough.
True or not palmy?
boomcie said:Didn't get banned for it, would have made sense, but i didn't. So you must have ruled it not severe enough.
True or not palmy?
Dr. Maserati said:You think the Mods are on here 24/7?
So you got a warning and then continued the insults - you got what you deserved.
boomcie said:I know which post i got banned for cause Susan included it in her second infraction. It was an old one. Fact.
Dr. Maserati said:Yet you just admitted that you continued on after the first infraction.
You questioned the decision even though you admitted you were insulting another member ..... and then you included the insult you were warned for.boomcie said:Because I was questionning the decission. I didn't get banned for that at all. Fact.
Dr. Maserati said:You questioned the decision even though you admitted you were insulting another member ..... and then you included the insult you were warned for.
I am not questioning your credibility - that went out the window a few pages ago.boomcie said:Because i had received an infraction for the insults as a whole. Not the name changing. I also call el pistolero: el pistolet.
Why do you keep questionning my credibility, it is irrelevant. Unfairness and offensiveness are not influenced by who reports it. Look at the facts. Sad truth is I didn't make those up. Facts are facts.
boomcie said:Didn't get banned for it, would have made sense, but i didn't. So you must have ruled it not severe enough.
True or not palmy?
Zam_Olyas said:This could go on forever, lets all have a joint and share the peace pipe.
Zam_Olyas said:This could go on forever, lets all have a joint and share the peace pipe.
ChrisE said:Are there any rules about accusing me of having another account ie sockpuppet, with zero proof? This is hurting my feelings and making me laught so much that I may lose some sleep tonight. This ranks right up there with some people thinking I am wonderlance.
It seems as if that might fall under the accusations of Public Strategies plants of posters that have different opinions than the pitchfork crowd in the clinic. The mods I thought put an end of this type of buffoonery.
python said:are you a bit paranoid ?
pls provide any direct link or a posts where any recent user accused you specifically and directlyof being what you again whining about (yet admitted to previously on the very thread - to having sock puppets). thank you.
ps. did you fail to read 'political' irony in scott's sarcastic question
and i also asked a simple question of providing a concrete evidence of anyone accusing you of what you're so loudly whining about to the mods in the mod thread?ChrisE said:...I am just asking a question in the mod thread about false accusations. ..
Francois the Postman said:Has been noted. Given your suspicions, losing sleep by a prolongued feeding session might not be the prodictive road forward for anyone.