Reply With QuoteI'll tell him it's the wrong forum if someone else will break the even worse news. Wumpus?
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
I especially like second place: "Women Were Designed for Homemaking."
I'll tell him it's the wrong forum if someone else will break the even worse news. Wumpus?
It's the right forum if you only read the first word in the name of each forum.
[size=1]yeah, i'm an idiot[/size]
Gotta love Cruel.com!
I mentioned the same article in the Christian Scientist thread but it then degenerated into an earnest and intellectual discussion. Highly inappropriate behaviour for that forum, I feel.
Not any more.Originally Posted by freeman
Wait what?Not any more.
Apparently the secret banning squadron struck again. Wumpus doesn't seem to post anymore but Murph is back... hmm.
Are you saying Murph and Wumpus are the same person? Because that would be, like, the most amazing thing ever.
No, but as I recall Murph left because of Wumpus' antics which were the subject of the last Wumpusian poll before his supposed banning.
Seems like we need a scorecard to keep up with all the forum shennanigans.
We weren't trying to keep anything secret. We just felt like it didn't warrant an announcement. But yeah, wumpus and Met_K are gone.
We're happy to discuss this if you guys want, but let's keep it to this thread.
Good thing we've still got Cleve!
This isn't about Cleve. This is about a couple of people who were contacted via email and were warned to stop and didn't. My guess is they didn't really value posting here because we didn't ask much of them.Good thing we've still got Cleve!
Wha? They were my favorite posters (besides that "Hang In There Baby, Friday's Comin" one with the adorable kitten, and that Roger Dean one with psychedelic space rocks that look like mushrooms).
Sheesh - this place used to be like Cheers, and now it's like Stalag 13. Soon I'll be forced to dig my way out using Klink's monocle.
Moderating sucks. If we moderate, we make some people mad just by moderating. We make other people mad by whom we direct our moderating at. We make yet more people mad by whom we don't direct our moderating at. Then if we don't moderate at all, we make some people mad because we're not moderating.
Our only guiding principle is that if we contact you and say, "Hey, don't do this anymore" and that person continues to do whatever we asked him or her not to, we are going to act. We feel like we have to at that point.
It goes both ways. Met_K screaming at Brian Reynolds resulted in Brian leaving. I think about 99% of us would pick Brian over Met_K if we had to choose. But Met_K wasn't banned for that.Wha? They were my favorite posters (besides that "Hang In There Baby, Friday's Comin" one with the adorable kitten, and that Roger Dean one with psychedelic space rocks that look like mushrooms).
Sheesh - this place used to be like Cheers, and now it's like Stalag 13. Soon I'll be forced to dig my way out using Klink's monocle.
Wumpus, I know, drove away at least several people with his needlessly abrasive behavior. He was simply cruel towards other board members at times. Yet he wasn't banned for any of that.
For as much as you liked them and they made these boards entertaining for you, others disliked them and found these boards less appealing as a result of their presence. Yet that had nothing to do with their banning.
What is the value of what you ask him not to do?
It also affects pride and degree of control if he agrees. So its a Catch-22.
This kind of structure gives you carte blanche to ban someone.
Example:
Mark Asher: Do not annoy anyone else ever again.
Wumpus, Met_K: Fuck that! We'll annoy whoever we w[cut off]
Mark Asher: Banned.
Example:
Mark Asher: Do not use the word "tan" in a post ever again.
Wumpus, Met_K: Fuck that! We'll use the word tan whenever[cut off]
Mark Asher: Banned.
What about if they feel your request is not justified? Denial can be a rebellion *against the request*. But according to you, all such rebellions are deserving only of annihilation.
Both Wumpus and Met_K are too valuable to this forum to lose.
If you feel confident and secure in your banning, post what you requested of them and then if the question that they denied was just, we'll be on YOUR side.
voltaic was already mostly ruined by his temporary ban. For Wumpus it would probably just feed his pariah mentality, but I'm a bit worried about Met_K.
Here's a question for you, most wise of all humans...
When a person receives such a request from yourself, and they lose no matter how they answer, is this a good thing?
Here's another question for you...
Is the value of what you ask them to do WORTH the loss of pride and identity when they agree?
Here's another question...
On a forum with only maybe 100 active and frequent posters, what does it mean when in the space of a couple months five people (Huffman, Smart, voltaic, Met_K, Wumpus) are banned?
At what point do you get alarmed... 5%, 10%, 20%?
At this rate the forum should be reduced to Asher and Chick within a few years, or else it will turn into some bland mediocrity where people agree to Asher's requests simply in order to not be banned.
Frankly, the circumstances are none of your business, Brian. This isn't about sides and this isn't a majority rule. If you don't trust us to not start arbitrarily banning people for writing to word 'tan', then there's nothing keeping you here.
And I don't know why you're worried about Met_K, who pointedly *asked* us to ban him. Bryce is a friend of mine, he was at Shoot Club tonight, and there was zero ill will about the whole thing.
Four people. Voltiac is still welcome to participate if he wants. What it means is that those four people regarded the forum as a place where they could do whatever they pleased, regardless of polite requests from me and Mark over the course of several emails.
Starting with the foofighter crap, it became clear that this was no longer an open house for anyone to post anything. After the stuff with Derek, who returned under three separate names *after* he was banned and emailed threats to me and Mark about continuing to create fake accounts, we realized we had to require email authentication. Then all the stuff came up with Cleve, which has done a remarkable job of bringing out the worst in some people. It's pretty disheartening to see how some of you have reacted.
It's unfortunate, but this isn't the forum we started a few years ago. It's a different place, in some ways better, in some ways worse. If you don't wish to participate anymore, we certainly understand. But in the meantime, we're trying our best to do what it takes to make it the best place it can be for the most people.
Or something along those lines.
-Tom
It was obvious, to me at least, wumpy was toeing the line and kept pushing. As stated, Met_K couldn't really care less anymore and seemed a bit tired of not being Head Troll in Charge anyway. It turns out he was not the biggest dick on the planet as was his title previously. Only the biggest dick here and that did not last. Its amazing the level of dickosity some of the new folks can reach.
I am not really sure why its so hard to understand. Their house. Their rules. This is not some democratic, majority rule, town hall gathering. Its the Tom & Mark Show. They pick the guests. If you tear in half a picture of the Pope and they do not want to invite you back for an encore of Nothing Compares to You, then you ain't comin' back.
It's called "dicketry".
Well, I liked wumpus quite a bit and will miss him, but he was begging for it there towards the end.
Knowing that it's human nature to create a pecking order, who's going to be game enough to go for head troll this time?
Psychos like Cleve and Koontz have their own place in the pantheon but who is going to promote(?) themselves to go for the title?
I support Tom and Mark because I see it's a no win situation. But it is weird when you realize guys like wumpus and Met_K have become oddly endearing over the years.
Maybe just Met_K. Just kidding, I miss them both ever so much.
Here's a thought: Stop pushing the boundaries. I don't know why some people are so fascinated by toeing the line.
I find it more fascinating to figure out a way to get along with everybody.
WTF does toeing the line mean? I thought it meant you were doing your part, and I thought it was spelled towing the line. I think you guys have really screwed the porch on this old saying.
Actually, it is "toeing the line." It means "not to stand out," as though everyone had his or her toes on a line in formation. I'm seeing people use it with the exact opposite meaning, like Warlord did above, though, in the sense of pushing the boundaries. But that's not what its original meaning is.
That old Johan Freeberg malapropism is hilarious.
EDIT 1 expanded explanation
EDIT 2 removed superfluous apostrophe
It's "toeing the line". It refers to being obedient and following orders to the letter, from the military practice of standing in precise ranks for inspection.
It is often spelled "towing the line", but this is a misunderstanding of the original. Like people who use "begging the question" wrong.
Troy
You're saying Dad was WARNING me? My god, now it all makes sense. :)
Just when you think it all makes sense, Bruce and Troy clarify. :) At least now I know Dad was proud of me.
BRUCE! BRUCEY! GERYK-MEISTER! How have you been? I haven't seen you in forever! I miss having you write digests about how hilarious I was on usenet!Actually, it is "toeing the line." It means "not to stand out," as though everyone had his or her toes on a line in formation. I'm seeing people use it with the exact opposite meaning, like Warlord did above, though, in the sense of pushing the boundaries. But that's not what it's original meaning is.
That old Johan Freeberg malapropism is hilarious.
Posting Permissions