My last post was #115. The mod warning was post #125. I did not disregard the instruction.
My warning stated there might be more to come. I was under the weather yesterday and just stepped in to get the thread back on track. Don’t misrepresent what I posted. What did you think “and probably suspension coming up” meant? I would think that meant the posters actions were still being reviewed.
Also, do you do realize that you just bothered 8 posters with your @'ing them? Did you mean to?
You’re kind of being a jerk if you did it on purpose. So please refrain. Also as usual you seem to be wrong. Very wrong about at least 2 of the posters you just bothered for no reason at all.
Maybe not, but I’d like to try to understand why he believes it. That would be a useful discussion to me.
So start a new thread and invite him to it. Pretty simple solution. If he wants, he will join you.
Well, he’s not banned. You can @ him and invite him for a conversation.
ETA: what he said…
The initial mod instruction was to bring the conversation back to Trump. When the warned did that, I responded to him. His insane comment about China changing votes to Biden concerned Trump’s opponent. Tangentially about Trump, I suppose.
I didn’t ignore nuthin.
Don’t lie about me.
I responded ONCE to dolfinwriter, with a post about the connection between Soros hate and Russian disinformation. This was before the warning.
Yes, I did make several posts to the thread after the warning……posts that were directly responsive to the conversation. I answered a question asked by another poster who doubted that Donald Trump had committed federal crimes by listing and discussing the federal statutes that I believe Donald Trump violated. It may have not been pleasant reading for a Trump sycophant, but it was on point for the thread.
I made one other short post responding to the hijack and immediately deleted it after seeing a warning that was posted while I was typing my response.
I know a certain percentage of the population that lacks a sense of personal responsibility think “Hey, look over there mommy, my sister did something bad, too why don’t you spank her instead” is the appropriate response whenever they get caught breaking the rules.
But don’t make false accusations about me in defense of your cronies.
Nice personal insult there.
Just FYI, I have frequently challenged mods on this board, and quite often they have reversed their decision. Far from wrong “as usual”
And if you mean that other thing, in every case4 I have consulted actual scientists, and other experts. It has always been a case of me backed up by 50 scientists on other boards vs about 6 people on this board, who aren’t scientists, and constantly misrepresent whatever I say. The fact that the moderators let them get away with it is disgusting.
They posted here already. Aren’t you reading your own thread?
Yep. Unnecessary belligerence is very rarely given a formal warning. “Take it to the Pit” might as well be our unofficial slogan.
When WE? mentioned the belligerence, I read it as adding context rather than levying an additional charge.
But what if the case was more clear cut? What if What Exit had said:
"I am giving you a warning for ignoring moderator instructions and personal insults outside of the pit."
And then Hari had come in and said,
"Since that’s two flagrant rules violations, I’m making this two formal warnings."
That would still be fine. This isn’t Costco. You don’t get discounts for breaking the rules in bulk.
Agreed, I think the way they did it was fine and the way you proposed was also fine.
WE already explained that he was under the weather yesterday and I’m sure he missed the insult part of the warning, so it was appropriate for Hari to come in and warn for that as well.
It seems to me that one warning for two separate and individually actionable rules violations should carry the same weight as two separate warnings. So it’s no more piling on to do separate warnings than to put it all in one.
Are you oblivious?
Read the replies from the posters you bothered and oh by the way insulted.
If you mean Ann_Hedonia, she said:
“I made one other short post responding to the hijack and immediately deleted it after seeing a warning that was posted while I was typing my response.”
That is an admission that she ignored the instruction. The fact that she deleted her post doesn’t change the fact.
I don’t know who the other one is.
Dude, sound out the big words.
She ignored the instruction that wasn’t visible to her when she posted it?
And I suppose 6you are going to ignore ann’s direct insults to me as well.
Look at Johnny’s and Indy’s replies.
Also, your wrong about Anne’s post. That is not how things work here.
She ignored the original instruction that was posted some time earlier.
She then deleted her post when she saw the second instruction. Doesn’t change the fact that she made it.
Stop trying to mod, you’re not one.
The mod warning was at 14:20. Ann_Hedonia’s post was edited at 14:22. Isn’t it possible that rather than ignoring the warning, she didn’t see it until after she posted? And then she deleted her post after she saw it?
There’s a difference between ignoring a post, and not seeing it until after you’ve posted.