grr I meant to include this in my last post. In your own words ’ However, their transgressions should not be directly compared with those of another person unless they are virtually identical.’
Virtually. You seem to want a word by word duplication with exact syntax in order to compare. This is Red apples vs Green Apples not apples and oranges.
Maybe so- but I don’t remember any warnings to DITWD and a search of the archives don’t show any (well, there is one, but even that’s a maybe). Satan posted so damn much and for so long there could have been many warnings I’ll admit. Still, I couldn’t find any- but I’ll admit my search wasn’t 100% by any means. However, in Satans case there were indications there were significant private emails being exchanged. And, I also see that DITWD sort of self destructed there at the end.
I will agree that the History is important. But “the evil that men do…”. Few posters can survive here long without being warned at least once, and after a while that means every long term poster will get banned. Look at Handy fer example.
Satan (and Handy) posted many many times- and got warned a couple of times. Maybe the length of time being a member and the number of posts needs to be considered. If every fucking time you post you’re an asshole- maybe you need to be banned. if you transgress twice in 10000 posts and 5 years, maybe you need to be forgiven. Zenster also posted a lot- and the posts I saw were mostly innocuous, and rarely angry.
Alde seems to nearly always be controversial and angry.
ahhh Handy however was specifically told never to post on medical topics again. He did and he was kicked for it. He’s a poor example of a long term poster that was banned just for sheer volume of posts.
There’s plenty of counter examples of long term posters that are 1. Currently not banned and 2. Have no current warnings.
I’d even go out on a limb and say some long timers have no warnings in their history at all.
Just because it came up, here’s where Satan was given a pretty clear last warning by the staff: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=45692
As for DITWD, I don’t recall how much there was in the way of official statements, but he did get into the Pit a good number of times as seen in this thread (see my post in the thread for the full list): http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=61819
And let me just say that digging this stuff up sure brings back memories. People I haven’t heard about in years that seem to have disappeared. Techchick68 was banned; not terribly surprised, but she was one of my favorite posters at one point. Actually, a damn decent number of old regs seem to have been banned. Anyways, just wanted to help clarify those two points, not get bogged down in sentiment about the “good old days”.
Well, without meaning to sound all goodie-two-shoes, I gotta say that I’ve never been warned and I’m pretty certain that there are a lot of other high count, long term posters who haven’t either. I’m fairly certain that wring, Una, Scylla, Tomndebb to name a few haven’t been warned. I’d lay money that Polycarp hasn’t been warned 
I think that’s the case: I think it’s the time between warnings as well. IIRC both Zenster and Satan were warned at least twice within a few months of their banning. I remember one in particular for Zenster was about a really nasty flame in MPSIMS and the warn-er was Coldie.
Sorry, but this isn’t making sense to me.
Aldebaran talks of defence in response to (implicitly US) aggression, not an act of aggression of itself (as per Zenster). As such it’s conditional on being attacked (by the poters) first - purely responsive.
He’s just saying he’ll defend himself if folks come knocking. Seems like a good policy to me.
How about you - are you a pacifist, perhaps ?
sheesh.
He made a conditional statement that he would kill two posters if they ‘dreamed’ of invading his country.
dreamed.
Dreams he’s sure they’ve had.
How is that not a threat? He creates a condition and declares them guilty of violating that condition before hand. Can I say “If poster X dreams of breaking into my house-dreams I’m sure they’ve had-I will greet them with my 9mm”? After all I would blow anyone away that broke into my house. And breaking into my house is an act of aggression against me. My guess would be no.
Zenster I will love tap you with a axe handle if you park in front of a fire hydrant and my house burns for one second longer then it has to.
And yet even though these two things are so totally different they can’t even be rationally compared this exact same argument was being used when Zenster was banned! (I didn’t take part in that argument just for the record)
He also seems to be saying that he’ll defend himself from an invasion that is merely planned in the dreams of certain posters. Or maybe not, I’ll concede, but I can see how it would be read that way.
With all due respect ** Darkhold **, I do think you’re trying to see a parallel that isn’t quite there (between Zenster’s pro-active axe and Aldebaran’s dream defence); one’s aggressive, the other defensive and conditional on being attacked.
And now you’re talking of a “conditional statement that he would kill two posters if they ‘dreamed’ of invading his country” – hmm, well, if that’s what you honestly see, then I’m going to walk out the door slowly and leave you with it.
I could be wrong, but I think you might be in a pretty small minority with that interpretation; seems a little eccentric, if you will.
btw, if you come into my home uninvited, I too would give you a very warm welcome. And I’d be surprised if you didn’t do the same.
so now we’re on the difference between ‘pro active’ and ‘defense’?
Give me a break. I know I’m starting to sound repetitive but I just don’t know how many ways a person can say this.
Zenster. Made a statement. Conditional of a poster blocking a fire hydrant. This is an illegal act. One that could even be construed as an aggressive act. (I know that’s a stretch but I’m not the one trying to define everything into non existence as what seems to be the tactic being used here) at the very least it’s a very ignorant and reckless.
Alderban claimed he’d kill two posters there’s no other way to read ‘welcome’ from the context (As I already pointed out I never thought he meant this literally. No need to back out of the room). Posters he singled out. He did not say 'if the US invades my country I’ll respond" He did not say “if you attack me first I’ll be forced to respond” He said “if you dream about it, dreams I’m sure you had” There is no other possible way to interpret this other then a direct threat. I guess my problem with the post boils down to two points. He named two posters in particular and he labeled them as guilty. Either one would be sufficient for at least a warning. Two combined plus his past history of walking the line it’s way too far.
Now if you’re willing to say the Zenster banning was uncalled for then I’ll drop my entire line of argument for there can be no agreement. However if the first was a proper inference of the rules then this is as well.
And I’m sorry my interpretation is so odd and unusual. I guess I’m the one that warned him and is discussing his posting with the mods. (and before anyone pulls that argument from authority crap on me I’m merely pointing out I’m not the only one that thinks this so I’m not some random nutcase)
Weirdly before all this I was sorta on the fence and just wanted to point out some parallels but if anything thinking about this has made me become entrenched.
Okay, I see your view. It isn’t really mine, but there we are . . .
The dream thing is curious though, I wonder what something like the standard English response of “in your dreams” becomes in a non-English head. I suspect Aldebaran may have built on a platform of misconstruing a phrase like that, or that, then translated it back into English again, and got Babblefish-speak . . . but who knows . . .
It’s odd, though.
heh Frankly I think he has a better grasp of the English language then I do.
So how’s the weather? 
Well, I’m consistant- I didn’t think Techchick68 OR Handy OR Satan OR DITWD OR Zenster or any of a bunch of dudes that I had some enjoyable reads from should have been banned. In other words- if their posting history contained “significant contributions” (or what’s that term they use for Porno? 
) even if they were jerks once on a while- I woulldn’t have banned them. Frankly, my bannings would be limited to socks, trolls, spamsters and the like. I am too damn tolerant & forgiving I guess. But that’s just me, I am not a Staffer.
Well a case could be made for any of the posters you mentioned.
Except for Technochick. She threatened to hack the boards and support any who would help her. She didn’t just flame out truely went that extra mile.
He didn’t say “lovetaps” - he said more than lovetaps. I think it’s a safe bet that he’s talking about physically beating county about the body with an axe handle.
Your literal interpretation, then, is wrong.
I think you’re confusing the issue.
If you said, “If poster X is in my neighborhood he should just know I have a fully loaded gun here for him,” that is a direct threat. Period. End of story. There is zero ambiguity.
If you said, “If poster X comes to my house I’ll welcome him with exactly what he deserves,” that is also a threat - but it’s not a specific one. It’s not as direct as the first example, because one must imagine the exact method of attack.
We’re talking about two different things here.
The transgression of Poster X is taken as a case separate from a transgression of Poster Y. Those two cases are taken individually - what Poster X does (and its consequences) is not especially relevant to what Poster Y does (and its consequences).
The past history of any poster, however, is not taken on a case by case basis. If I screw up one time, I get a warning. If I’ve been screwing up constantly - or have received multiple warnings - then I will suffer more dire consequences if I screw up again. If I’ve been a jerk for two months straight, then one further incident of jerkiness will be sufficient to have me banned. However, if I’ve been a model poster for two months straight, then one incident of jerkiness will earn me (likely) nothing more than a warning.
Let me add this, Darkhold… I don’t think anyone is saying (at least I’m not) that Aldebaran’s comments do not constitute a threat of some sort, a threat made to fellow posters. And yes, he should, IMO, be warned for such nonsense, because in general that’s forbidden.
What I’m saying is that it’s not reasonable to say that even though what ultimately got Zenster banned (i.e., his final posts) was also seen as a threat to a fellow poster, his situation should not be directly compared with that of Aldebaran. The past histories of each poster are very relevant, just not to each other (that is, Zenster’s history is relevant to Zenster, as Aldebaran’s is to Aldebaran, but Zenster’s is irrelevant to Aldebaran’s).
So which is this: a direct threat or an implied one?
jmizzou - No idea.
What’s the equivalent insult in Anglo-Saxon society, that I’m going to fuck your baby sister up the arse and come over your mothers face – no, I have no idea either. Aldebaran seemed to take it pretty personally, though.
Which, I guess, was the plan. Very cool.
I assume you’ll need someone better briefed in the rules of grammar than me if you want to determine whether something in quotation marks can constitute a direct threat of the contents of that quotation – perhaps you can take it to teacher as you seem to like bringing things to the attention of the grown ups.
Well Aldebaran is still a member, and since he hasn’t posted in a while, still has his nose out of joint.
Have I mentioned the anticipation is killing me?
Bravo!