|
The entire post read, "There's an under-age twit who has been rejected three times for membership in SB1. Is there any way of permanently rejecting someone so that he cannot reapply for membership?"
Chris understood what I meant, Nish did. Why, I wonder, didn't you?
Where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: under-age
Forget what fat_boy said; this is why. As far as your stated goal is concerned, this piece of information is irrelevent, and thus the only good explanation of why you included it is that you wanted to draw Chris Maunder's attention to it for the purpose of my removal from the site.
A petty and asinine ulterior objective, to be sure.
You still haven't explained your redaction of that thread yet, by the way. It's funny, you commanded me to apologise even after eradicating the very thing I was supposed to apologise for. Chatting on the Internet is a deadly serious business, no?
Let me ask you this: how many times in the past did you lie to me when I asked you whether or not you were going to ban me, or whether or not I was ever welcome? What awoke such passion in you that you would execute me for a crude look, before wiping your fingerprints and walking away?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I can easilly read that as permenant exclusion from CP.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind."
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, IPCC
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
Against my better judgement, I let him in the first place based on the promises he made regarding his behavior within the forum. In spite of repeated warnings, he repeatedly violated those promises, and he is, therefore, no longer welcome.
Where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: In spite of repeated warnings, he repeatedly violated those promises, and he is, therefore, no longer welcome.
Let's face it, all I did was have the gall to suggest that you could be wrong about something, and then showed - in your eyes - inadequate deference when you demanded that I apologise. I know you know this as well, considering how carefully you edited the thread in order to portray yourself in a positive light. Insecure in your position? Ashamed of what you said?
|
|
|
|
|
Honest question. If Oakman's treated you so badly in the past, why do you *want* to go back? Just because he's acted like a jerk to you doesn't give you the right to harass him back.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Harass? I applied to join SB1.0 a paltry three times...
I want to know why I was kicked out. I want to understand. Moreover, I don't want him to be able to debase my name for no good reason. He himself knows that the incident was so trivial that it didn't warrant me being banned, which is why he deleted it - he wanted to conceal the fact that it was opportunistic and arbitrary, and completely ignored the possibility that other people may have wished me to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: Just because he's acted like a jerk
How so? Because I warned him many times (so many that Fat Boy has decided that I don't "like" the kid, whatever that is supposed to mean) that his behavior was unacceptable, before doing what I should have done month earlier, instead of waiting until he became personally insulting?
For the record, I neither like nor dislike Ravel; because I do not know him personally. However, I removed him from a forum designed for the discussion of adult subjects in an adult manner, because his behavior was disruptive and more suited to the back room. If I don't do that, then my title as moderator is a joke.
to quote someone whose thoughts I respect:
"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill.
You are invited in and asked to abide by and be accountable to the terms of that invitation. Should you choose not to respect the establishment you are in you will be asked to leave." ~ Chris Maunder
Chris was smart, he reacted as soon as he became aware of unacceptable behavior. I was dumb enough to think I could change the behavior by pointing out the consequences.
Where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: Dan Neely wrote: Just because he's acted like a jerk
How so?
I was responding to Ravel, and phrased my reply in that context. Ravel thought you were treating him badly, and I was telling him trying to rejoin a group where you were abused by the people in charge (as he seems to feel is the case), that trying to get back in is stupid.
I don't know who's to blame, and even if the thread you booted him over wasn't partially deleted don't care enough to take a more detailed look now.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: I was responding to Ravel, and phrased my reply in that context.
I knew. I just had a couple of points to make and that seemed the perfect jumping off place, rhetorically speaking.
Dan Neely wrote: I don't know who's to blame
Always blame the guy with more money or less muscles, depending on the situation  I dunno about "blame," but I'll certainly take responsibility.
Where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. What gives Oakman the right to speak to you that way?
|
|
|
|
|
Ravel H. Joyce wrote: Wow. What gives Oakman the right to speak to you that way?
I'm not even sure which of his posts triggered that reaction from you (nor do I particularly care). I've been going online in one form or another for almost 20 years, it takes a lot more than he's written to get any sort of reaction from me.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: when/why'd he get booted?
That's an interesting question, one that you should ask Oakman about in more detail. It was because of one thread in particular, but unfortunately Oakman has tampered with it beyond the point where you can piece together what happened. It was pointing out and asking about this tampering that got me kicked out. But, obviously people with such power do not modify the past if it portrays them favourably, and the fact that he deleted many of his own messages is curious indeed...
|
|
|
|
|
I fear your long stay in France has impaired your ability to read English. The point of the OP is that I don't want him bothering me, contacting me, or otherwise coming to my attention. Understand, now?
Where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Got to you has he? 
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind."
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, IPCC
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
I just switched to FF4 (and already am regretting it). I suddenly have 2 issues:
1.
When deleting a forum message, it brings you to a confirmation page, which, when clicking the "Confirm" button, throws a dialog with two buttons: "Leave Page" and "Stay on Page" which I hadn't seen before. That was very confusing, as what is meant really is Yes/OK versus No/Cancel. Maybe you could do something to make that look more intuitive? (or not throw a dialog at all).
2.
While composing this very message, I tested the behavior on another browser (Chr10), it does not throw a dialog at all, so I unintentionally removed one of my today's messages, a rather long and good one, the only reply this question[^] had gotten so far. Any chance you can still reinstate it?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code. modified on Monday, March 28, 2011 2:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I have come across yet another message in Q&A from a user asking to have their account removed, and redirected them here. Would it be useful to have some option added to user settings so people could do it themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] is the user Richard is talking of.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I forgot to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Anytime! 
|
|
|
|
|
This has been asked before, and if I remember rightly Chris is reluctant to do it because sadly a lot of us will accidently delete our accounts. Given a big red button, the majority of us won't be able to resist the urge to press it.
|
|
|
|
|
Oooh, big red button; I wonder what happens if ...
|
|
|
|
|
Makes me think of Ronald Reagan in the Spitting Image show, where he had two red buttons close to each other beside his bed: Nuke and Nurse
|
|
|
|
|
I know if you e-mail CP and request to have an account deleted then either Sean or Chris will get verification on the account and will delete it/deactivate it with no problem. However, most people don't know this, especially if you are a new member.
Maybe a noticeable link and a request page would be appropriate...who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
