Was, in fact ‘A’ banned as well? From Ed’s post, it seemed that only ‘B’ was banned for the lawsuit threat.
Zev Steinhardt
Not quite. There was recently a poster who went around here stating things like “all Jews are racists.” Being a Jew, I stood up for myself in the forum. I did not threaten to sue the messageboard. Poster ‘B’ didn’t just stand up for himself, he threatened to take down the whole board. What he should have done was go back to the same thread and say “I did not say that. Poster ‘A’ deliberately changed my words…” and he should have opened up a Pit thread about ‘A.’
Zev Steinhardt
:rolleyes:
People have stood up for themselves thousands upon thousands of times on this board without threatening the Chicago Reader with a lawsuit.
Poster ‘B’ went a bit further than ‘standing up for himself’, as I understand it. Calling out Poster ‘A’ would’ve been self-defense. Threatening the Board and the Reader with legal action in order to obtain information they don’t have is way over the top.
Fenris:
Which is why I inquired if such repeated action violated the “Jerk” rule, which was in effect at the time. But, if it isn’t jerkish in the opinion of the Mods and Admins, then I guess that’s it.
So, where do you buy those boxes of cracker jacks that have the law degrees in them?
I wanna be a lawyer too! Spend all day in court, wearing a tie raving like a mad man trying to win lawsuits I file against the owners of goldfish that flush their dead goldfish down the toilet, into the same sewers that I use thereby causing my goldfish phobia to act up preventing me from masturbating to barney porn.
But seriously, there are qualified and unqualified people in every field. The problem with law is that it offers the attraction of ‘free money’ (settlements) and toss in the bottom 15% of the lawyers in the country and you’ve got some great comedy. Now that they sometimes win, and that all of the stupid ass lawsuits make the news so we all know about it.
Science is the same way, that small group of biologists (a few of em were botanists) who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS… The difference between Law and Science is that the dumbest 15% don’t get airtime on national TV
I dunno, but “A” still has “member” under his name Zev.
Ah! Sorry Tranq, I completely misread your earlier post. Sorry 'bout that!
Fenris
Thank you hawthorne. I didn’t see the post in question (or if I did, I don’t remember it) and, as such, I don’t know who A or B are…
Zev Steinhardt
I would. Discrimination on the basis of religion seems much worse to me than discrimination on the basis of political orientation. Such blanket statements are fundamentally stupid, of course, but condemning, e.g., Catholics is a lot worse than condemning, e.g., Greens Party members.
In an unfortunate train wreck of a thread I started recently, I had the pleasure of someone quoting me directly and then paraphrasing it to mean something entirely different. When it happened again, I told him he had done it twice now and to knock it off.
HE accused ME of misquoting him and demanded to be shown the basis for my accusations. He even felt the need to point out that mods take the matter of misquoting quite seriously and to use caution. I replied that I hoped they did take it seriously cause he was the one wrongfully paraphrasing and that he needed to reread the thread. He must have seen it his error in that regard cause he didn’t accuse me of misquoting anymore but instead resorted to harrassing behavior by following my posts in entirely unrelated threads and demanding that I come back and defend myself in the original thread.
I finally asked to have the thread closed because I was tired of dealing with his foolish ass which prompted him to make a post claiming victory over me. :rolleyes: and then post a thread mocking me and equating littering with animal abuse. Oh yeah they are exactly the same thing.
My point is that people get so agitated over minor points and side arguments that they lose their ability to use common sense even to the point of “suicide by mod”.
But “B” does as well, so that’s no help either way.
I’ve really done my best to be good here, but I’ve snapped. The curiosity is eating away at my soul. WHO WERE A AND B? Aaaargh!
(Of course, nobody should answer that. If the mods wanted to tell us then we would know. But goddammit!)
pan
I was beginning to think that I was the only one who didn’t know. Thanks kabbes! 
Zev Steinhardt
I don’t know either and it is driving me crazy!
(Childish taunting)
Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah
I know who A and B are
la la la la la la
(/childish taunting)
Maybe we could use the nomenclature of the 19th century novel
“One day, along the Champs Elysees, le Comte B_____ challenged the Duc d’A____ to a duel, following scurrilous articles, published pseudonymously in le Chicago Lecteur by certain scriveners in M. le Comte’s pay, that assailed the honor of the House of B_____.”
Aha! It was the Count de Money!
Yeah, me too. Someone spill, dammit.
I don’t know who A and B are either. And since we’ve been told in an above post that B still doesn’t say BANNED, I guess I won’t bother to keep on looking.
(I had my ideas, and was surfing through GD, but it sounds like I won’t find what I’m looking for.)
Ah well. Curiosity killed the cat.
You can always email a mod: “Who was Doper B and why was he banned?” Since Doper B is no longer around to defend himself, however, it might not be entirely polite to name names here.
kabbes, shoot me an email (my email is in my profile; yours isn’t), and I can describe the whole sordid mess to you if you’d like. Or I can just name names.
There’s nothing wrong with that, is there? I mean, people are gonna want to know?
On preview, everyone else wants to know too. My offer stands – email me and I’ll let the beans out of the bag. Or whatever (mods, if this ain’t kosher, let me know. I won’t be responding to email for another hour or two anyway).