I object to the Mozart 1220 banning

[Larry_Borgia]

First I want to say I have no patience for 9/11 conspiracy theories.

That being said, I’m a little troubled by someone being banned for espousing those dumbass notions. I’m not sure I understand the reasons why he was banned. If it’s for ducking questions I can think of at least 4 members off the top of my head who do the same thing, even worse than Mozart. If it’s for being insulting in the thread, I can sort of see that, but again, I don’t see his paranoid wounded tone as being worse than a lot of other people.

If it’s board policy that 9/11 conspiracy theories aren’t going to be tolerated, ok, though that should be in the rules. Right now it seems like someone was banned for holding unpopular-- albeit deservedly so–ideas.

Mozart seemed OK in other threads, so it’s not like he was going around trolling the board. I can think of several long term posters who behave a lot worse than he does, but who rarely get warned, let alone presumptively banned without a suspension.

relevant thread

[Marley23]

He wasn’t banned for Trutherism, although I admit I don’t have much patience for watching their arguing tactics over and over. He was banned for ignoring moderator instructions: he kept insulting people and kept ignoring questions after being told (in posts and by PM) that he needed to answer them instead of wasting people’s time. In the future I don’t plan to let conspiracy theorists string people along for pages on end by dodging questions and ignoring factual rebuttals.

[Marley23]

tomndebb and said this to Mozart1220 with the mod hats on:

@tomndebb

@Mozart1220

How about you just ask whatever question you seem to think I’m avoiding again. Otherwise, Bite me.

You demanded that he re-post the question.
He re-posted the question.
Now you are pretending that he did not ask the question again, while being inappropriately rude.

@Mozart1220

He should stop acting like one. Move on.

You are now claiming that a poster who has simply sought your (odd) opinion in straightforward language is “acting like a Republican” when the most brief survey of his opinions would indicate that he is not–and you are again doing it rudely.

These CT threads do have their amusing moments, but eventually, we always seem to get to the point where the CT adherent begins to stop even pretending to have a point and begins to make wild accusations about other posters, generally in an inappropriate fashion.

You have now entered that (predictable, because so often repeated) stage. If you continue in this fashion, you will probably be banned.

For now, simply answer the question from post #153 or declare that you will not answer it and stop playing games. In the meantime, dial back your hostility and pay enough attention to the other posters to be able to refrain from trying to insult them by making wildly inaccurate guesses about their political affiliation.

[ /Moderating ]

@Marley23

@Mozart1220

Wow. Go back to college and tell whatever professor that taught you that way of thinking that Fox news is hiring.

I remind you of what tomndebb said earlier:

@tomndebb

These CT threads do have their amusing moments, but eventually, we always seem to get to the point where the CT adherent begins to stop even pretending to have a point and begins to make wild accusations about other posters, generally in an inappropriate fashion.

You have now entered that (predictable, because so often repeated) stage. If you continue in this fashion, you will probably be banned.

For now, simply answer the question from post #153 or declare that you will not answer it and stop playing games. In the meantime, dial back your hostility and pay enough attention to the other posters to be able to refrain from trying to insult them by making wildly inaccurate guesses about their political affiliation.

@Marley23

@Mozart1220

Yup, just like the magic bullet. Ah…the Warren Commission trained you well.

It’s bad enough that you ignore questions and logic. The next time you insult someone or dismiss their statements with a snide remark like this, I will be happy to ban you. In the meantime try responding to questions and employing logic.

@Marley23

@Mozart1220

There were no beams, girders or floors in it at all? Wow.

At this point you’re either doing a horrible job of reading, or you’re trying to avoid answering questions. This is not going to end well for you if it continues.

After that post I sent him a message saying he needed to answer those questions. He made two more posts in the thread: one where he said he was giving up on the argument, and then another 15 minutes later where he was insulting people again.

@Mozart1220

And since I do not think inside the tiny boxes you guys seem to be locked into, I’m sure it won’t be long before I am banned.

But, to ensure that no one’s feelings are hurt by my refusal to accept the governments obviously flawed explainations, I will give up on this argument.

@Mozart1220

They get away with things like this by ridiculing anyone who questions the “official answer” and thretening to “silence” anyone who won’t fall in line (See Kennedy assasination)

Why do you think anyone who says the word “conspiricy” gets labeled as a nutcase?

[Oakminster]

To summarize, then:

*Rooster Cogburn: Mr. Rat, I have a writ here says you’re to stop eating Chin Lee’s cornmeal forthwith. Now it’s a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of the same. See, doesn’t pay any attention to me.
[shoots the rat]
Chen Lee: [Runs into the room] Outside is place for shooting!
Rooster Cogburn: I’m servin’ some papers! *

[Larry_Borgia]

I am way too drunk to comment coherently on the replies, but they seem to make sense to me.