Heh that’s old news. It creeped me out at the time because in the post that got him banned he had quoted me. Shortly after that another long time poster was banned with the mods quoting me. I started wondering if I had the touch of death.
And then you had to go ahead and quote me . :eek: Thanks, dickwad. :wally 
I think you’ll be ok. I haven’t been responsible (even in a tangentical sense) for a banning in awhile now. 
I was really cheering for Hydro to get the boot but Coldfire smoked him on a day I wasn’t even on…I still think that was unfair.
How does this jibe with the liberal conspiracy that runs this board theory? Either we’re a buncha commies or a buncha fascists!
Oh, I thought we were all a bunch of loonies. Maybe we’re commie-loonies and fascie-loonies. _
Well done!
Well. As one of the ‘threatened’ parties, who was away all day and just discovered this thread, I think I should say something.
This was the post that elicited the ‘scimitar’ reponse:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4647834&postcount=9
You may disagree with me, but note that nowhere do I say a word about black silk tents, deserts, etc. Of course I don’t feel physically threatened by a bored Saudi with a computer connection–but am I not permitted to feel a bit of disgust and anger at him reading a post that I thought was a sincere plea for him to try to see the other side and responding with that hateful scenario?
And in the subsequent 11-year-old human bomb thread which Alde tried to make skid to a halt, I posted this to explain why I kept trying to engage him:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4682625&postcount=70
(sorry, links don’t work in Opera).
IANA Mod nor do I play one on TV, but I think Alde has reached the end of his usefulness to this board. It is now impossible to get him to answer a question objectively. His refusal to name his home country makes any discussion with him flawed to start with–I’m pretty sure he’s Saudi, but if he refuses to confirm it how can we research the sort of stuff he’s hearing and reading? If he’s Moroccan or Jordanian or Egyptian there’s a whole new set of questions we could be asking, but by being so coy he is remiss in his claim to represent ‘the Arab POV’. The personal attacks and insulting tone can no longer be simply dismissed as problems with English, since he also refuses to take on board any corrections, even by people who are sympathetic with his points (such as they are).
And such language to the Mods is not something this Board should let slip by, no matter who it’s from. The free ride should end.
I feel sure that we will get an Arab poster soon whom we all can feel comfortable talking to, in the true spirit of scholarship, not polemicism. Frankly, I think that if Alde is to be taken as the Voice of the Arab Street he is lowering the opinion of his people on this board in the eyes of at least one poster. That’s me. I’m ashamed to admit this about myself. But he’s just been so relentless and so hateful he’s worn me down. Maybe this is just my problem.
But I don’t think so.
Nope. I disagree.
Both those posters were warned multiple times. The individual incidents for either of 'em might have just gotten another (unwarned) poster a note saying “Hey, knock it off” or maybe an official warning…but the posters you mention already been given those chances and you can’t look at the specific banning incident in isolation.
Think of it this way: imagine driving home from work and speeding a little (say, 5 mph over the limit). A cop pulls you over and says “Hey, you were speeding. I’m not gonna give you a ticket this time but don’t do it again.” The next day, you speed and the cop pulls you over again and again only gives you a warning. The third day, same deal. On the fourth day, the cop finally gives you a ticket. How much sympathy are you going to get if you then point out to the cop that he just let someone else off with a (first) warning?
They’d used up their goodwill and continued to push the envelope. You can’t take each incident in a vacuum, you have to consider the posting history.
Fenris
suggests that Lynn’s imagination is quite limited, so limited in fact, that all she can muster up for the ‘greatest scum one can imagine’ is some whiney irritating poster on a message board. I’m quite convinced that Lynn can imagine quite a bit better than that.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Zenster was not banned for anything having to do with picket lines. County, in a thread about the supermarket strike (IIRC) suggested that axe handles are quite useful in maintaining the integrity of picket lines. In a subsequent thread on parking in front of hydrants, county mentioned that he likes parking in front of hydrants. Zenster then stated very clearly that if county did such a thing in front of Zenster’s residence and caused a delay in Fire Department response, that Zenster would wind up with a rather worn out axe handle, hint, hint.
While I’m not sure that Aldebaran is (by his own words) “greatest scum she can imagine”, I’m more than willing to donate a bottle of 409 to the cause. (What’s the worst that could happen? He cleans up his act & leaves the moderators alone?)
The difference is that one example is a direct threat, and the other is implied - or, at least, that one could very generously infer it.
You honestly do not see the difference between a direct threat and an implication?
All transgressions are taken on a case-by-case basis, and it’s rare that a person is banned for exactly one transgression (that rare case usually involves trolling or socks).
Really?
Seems to me exactly the same as (well a little more graphic)
(he also mentions throwing nukes back and forth but I don’t think that’s what got him in trouble and I think that’s what’s confusing some people)
Seems to me Aldebaran’s post is worse. Not only does he threaten two posters but tells them even if they ‘dream’ of it. Dreams he’s sure they have so he’ll attack them for behavior he’s already decided they are guilty of. Now I do know he doesn’t literally mean it but come on. If the first case is valid the second one is too.
And what world do you live in where Aldebaran has only one transgression? It’s certainly NOT true that every transgression is taken case by case. There’s plently of people that got banned only to have the masses howl because their last action wasn’t ‘bad’ enough to get banned. Heck I can think of two off the top of my head (not counting Zenster) and I’m sure I could come up with more.
Yes, really. One example is a direct threat, and the other is an implied threat.
At no point did I say he has made only one transgression. What I said was that each transgression is examined on a case-by-case basis. It’s often been noted that people aren’t kicked off from here for one transgression, but rather for a series of them. However, their transgressions should not be directly compared with those of another person unless they are virtually identical.
Since you don’t see a difference between that which is implied and that which is directly stated, you believe them to be virtually identical. We’ll just have to disagree on that point.
I don’t know why you believe that it’s “certainly NOT true that every transgression is taken case by case.” The number-one rule here is a simple one on the surface: Don’t be a jerk. And yet it’s open to quite a bit of interpretation. Why? So that the powers that be can look at each transgression individually. Now, of course, if the same person has several transgressions, each is not looked at as if the others did not exist - they build off each other, simply put.
Had Aldebaran said, “If you ever plan to take part of an invasion of my country - even in your dreams which I am sure you have -, please send me a note. I will blow you up with a big nuclear bomb,” then he’d be guilty along the same lines as Zenster was. He did not, so in this particular instance his transgression should not be compared with Zensters. However, what he’s said in the past should be taken into consideration.
gotta say that I also don’t see a real distinction between : “if you (to do blah blah blah” and “were you (to do blah blah blah)” the only distinction between the two examples that I see is in one case it’s an individual (virtual) action, on an individual (virtual) poster, vs. the other where it’s more of a " (virtual) group action against a group of which I’m a member" (assuming that the poster wouldn’t attempt to invade, nuke or other wise attack an entire country alone). And That, to me, is a crucial difference. In the one, the poster is assuring anyone else, that should forceful military action be taken against one’s homeland, that one would resist forcefully (a position most, I believe, would agree with), vs. the other where one poster suggested that should another poster do something rude/illegal that resulted in even a minute bit of harm to the other poster, that said poster would wreck havoc on the other’s person.
I think you’re missing the key distinction then, wring. Now, bear in mind I’m talking about two specific examples. In those two examples, one states a specific action that will be undertaken, whereas the other merely says the poster “shall be waiting to welcome you and your co-invaders.”
This is all really nitpicking, of course, because both are threats of some sort, and I don’t think they’re tolerated here to any degree.
What I’m saying is that it’s useless to compare Aldebaran’s rantings with the words of Zenster - apples and oranges, that’s all.
[Another difference is (as mentioned earlier in this thread) that one threat is eminently more believable (the axe-handle) than the other (the nuking).]
So let us say I am an angel dancing on the head of a pin with a bunch of other angels and a poster claims he is an angel entitled to dance on the head of the pin with us but we warn him that there is no space for him on the head of this pin and he should find the head of another pin. A heated argument follows regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and I say “If you attempt to dance on the head of this pin I promise I will curse you to hell where you shall be forced to dance on the pointy ends of pins for all eternity”. Should that be considered a direct threat deserving banning here? Discuss. 
dan I suspect we’re in essential (and virtual) agreement - and certainly there’s the entire posting history to be taken into account. but the difference between "were you to " and “if you” isn’t where I personally would want to hang my concern.
and sailor - clarification on the style of dancing, please. 
Me either, which is why I am talking about other distinctions…
Ahh ‘lovetaps’ and ‘hide somewhere ungreased’ seems as ambiguous as ‘welcome you’. Neither says exactly what the action will be but both are VERY clear on what they mean. If we went by literal interpretation Zenster would have lovelingly stroked county then then placed his axehandle a myriad of places. A warm garage perhaps? While Alderbaran would be waiting at the border for all young invasion dreamers with a big welcome banner. By that standard I could say “If poster X is in my neighborhood he should just know I have a fully loaded gun here for him” or in this split hair argument would an even more vague “If poster X comes to my house I’ll welcome him with exactly what he deserves.” be acceptable? Sorry I know you want to agree to disagree but I think the point is utterly valid. If it’s not then there is indeed no case against Alderbaran because then the rule wouldn’t have been applied in that way before and the conspiracy nuts would be right.
You don’t know why I believe it’s not the case every transgression is taken case by case yet you admit the past history of a person is taken into account? er…ok. I guess I’m just wacky that way.