…i and, oh I don’t know, sends five pounds of chocolate to certain influential people?
It’s clear to me that he broke the rule against being a sock. It’s a good rule and I understand the reason for it, but he seemed like a reasonably bright and educated member who would have added much to community, not least because he seems to be something of a Classics scholar, and we don’t have a great many of those running around here.
Willful sock puppetry seems out of character for the sort of person I imagined him to be. Did he do something else wrong besides?
I liked him too (and this whole thing seems way out of character, which just goes to show that you never know and that’s a fact), but do you really want to walk down this road? If the moderators must decide when and when not to enforce the rules based on how much of an asset the delinquent is, then we’ll end up with a situation where we have to vote on whether a particular member should be allowed back, where Pit threads about the values of a certain bannee are debated, where members complain that their favourite poster was banned while other members make sure that their opinion of “good riddance” isn’t missed…
Personally, I can’t imagine myself giving a shit if anybody got banned, so I’m always a bit bemused by these threads. But how many banned posters have ever come back? It seems to me, if you’ve done enough to be banned, especially for such a blatant (and dumb-ass/pointless) violation of such a basic rule, you’ve fucked yourself with full awareness of the consequences and should stay fucked as a reminder of your dumb-assery. I mean, it might matter what kind of “personal shit” you’re going through if you have a meltdown, but I can’t see problems at home driving you to create a sock. If you guys are concerned about him (?), his e-mail’s still up in his profile - e-mail him. This thread seems like an exercise in futility.
Your username intrigues me.
I assume it’s some kind of historical reference, but alas I am not a Classics scholar. :smack:
Perhaps one will come alnog sometime…
Alas, and alack. We are out there (not that I expect anyone to have noticed me in particular)! I must say I didn’t notice According to Pliny in a lot of the Classics threads, but maybe I wasn’t paying attention. I think there are actually quite a lot of Classics-folk around… hmm, maybe a thread is in order.
Well, there was this one, but it was some time ago.
And it’s actually a mythological reference. Euripides, in his play the Helen, makes use of an unorthodox mythological tradition - that Helen never actually went to Troy but stayed in Egypt for the duration of the war, while her ‘eidolon’ (sometimes translated ghost, image, phantom, double) went instead. Sorry for the hijack!
I look at According To Pliny the same way I do Pete Rose. There is an unbreakable rule, posted plainly for all to see. He broke it. Banned for Life. No huhu.
