Knead - I know. I was just using him as an example of a poster of quality who’s no longer active on the SDMB.
Me too, Gingy. And I really wish he was back here, despite the fact that I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning given for the decision.
Just to second what RT said, thanks to the mods for coming forward and sharing your thoughts. It made a difference to me as well.
I’d fall into this category, so I’ll answer. First, I have an opinion about nearly everything; it’s my tragic flaw. Well, one of many flaws, but let’s move on.
My opinion is not about Satan. He may or may not be a great guy, and I’ll be fine whether or not he ever posts again. I’ve never interacted with him, so I’ve no opinion on him as a person. Though I should add one caveat: out of curiosity I followed the link to his journal, and I found parts of the apology somewhat incongruent with complete contrition. Failure to remember several of the arguments is bit hard to believe, but even if you accept this at face value, it was my impression that this was presented as proof that the arguments were ‘no big deal’ rather than incidents in need of apology. And although an answer had obviously been given by the time they were written, the comments about Anthracite were not consistent with a true willingness to let bygones be bygones. No offense to the man if he is reading this, these are just my objective impressions. Hell, maybe even if I’m correct here, he would still be a good pitizen.
My protest was to the thread in general, and to some of the arguments being made therein. Do we need to discuss what other posters were or were not allowed to do? Mention it once, and maybe you are searching for precedent, make an issue of it, and it becomes a playground argument. We are all unique, and such things are obviously handled case by case. And the whole matter could have been addressed discretely via email. It was folly to think public opinion should or could sway the decision, so why not let Satan himself handle it via email?
What harm did this do? Well, Mr. C seems to have left, which is a shame. I also believe any real chance Satan may have had have been submarined. One of the key objections was the result of dirty laundry flung a sock, who like the rest of us, probably should not have been involved.
tris
I ain’t married to the metaphor. It had already served its purpose when techchick decided to call me rude and oafish for daring to post it.
I ain’t married to tecxhchick either (praise [insert desired source of blessings here]), but I have never much liked when people call me names based upon incomplete or dishonest readings of my words. I can be both rude and oafish, but I prefer to be tarred for what I actually present, not for the fevered imaginations of a careless reader.
techchick
Before I get to what you did post, I think I will note what you did not post:
[ul][li]examples of “unfairness” in my posts in this thread[/li][li]A retraction of your unsubstantiated charge of unfairness.[/ul][/li]I guess someone hasn’t managed to add “integrity” to her list yet.
I must commend you on your disguise. It is quite impenetrable.
I have seen very few people around here who read so unkindly, or so poorly, that they will parse “Please bear in mind that I am not equating Brian with a rapist” as an attempt to equate Brian with a rapist. In fact, at the moment I can think of only one.
My wording was quite careful, as was my disclaimer.
I cannot, unfortunately, anticipate the myriad forms in which dishonesty and idiocy might manifest in a techchick. C’est la vie. You will take what offense your fevered interpretations yield, and I shall resign myself to pointing out that you hurl charges without substantiation and make assertions that directly contradict the written record.
Many? Have you chosen a new psuedonym, or is this the techchick equivalent of the “royal we”? To date, you are the only poster who has proven unable to accurately interpret what was written.
Interesting, and yet you posted:
[ul][li]**The law is the law, the laws of the SDMB are subjective and quite often left to a “jury” of mods and admins that are not using real evidence but often do go off their emotions. ** Of course, nothing in my analogy had to do with the law, and nowhere in the analogy did I rely upon the objective or subjective nature of the evidence.[/li][li]This is their right as this is not a court of of law but to even “slightly” compare the two is just asinine regardless of your disclaimer. Of course, no court of law appeared anywhere in my analogy, so the slur upon my comparing the two is just asinine. Well, it would have been simply asinine, but since you assure me that you completely understood the analogy it is simply dishonest. You insult me for making a comparison which you “completely understood” that I had never made.[/ul][/li]Once again, I commend you on your unparalleld ability to disguise your intelligence and understanding, but I really wish you had added “integrity” to your list instead.
Yes. I also “got it” when you posted: bringing up extreme analogies that have nothing to do with or even make any sense to the SDMB Powers and how they make decisions?
[ul][li]“Nothing to do with”[/li][li]“off topic”[/li][li]never[/li][li]Integrity[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]Analogy. [/li][li]Complete[/li][li]Understand[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]Liar[/li][li]Bad liar[/ul][/li]
[ol][li]This is another example of techchick’s uncanny skill at disguising her charm and intelligence.[/li][li]This is another example of techchick being too blindingly stupid to read and comprehend simple English.[/ol][/li]
It’s so hard to tell, when one is dealing with the “poster of a thousand faces”.
Sweden. 
Hiya Kim, I miss y’all back in DC. I left for several reasons, but it’s not a “permanent” leaving (I posted in a different thread last week in MPSIMS). I’m not lurking here anymore, but only come over, occasionally, from links in LJ or when someone points a thread out to me (like both Mr. C and Gingy have done with this one).
Maybe I will become a more active poster again, maybe I won’t. I’m not making a big deal about it, either way. If I don’t come back, it’s nothing to do with anyone in particular (well, maybe someone…, but nevermind him), it’s just that I didn’t find the time.
Anyway, carry on.
Huh? First of all, as was already pointed out, you have no idea how long someone may have been lurking. Do you really think that someone couldn’t have gone back over old threads and formed a valid opinion even though they didn’t read them real time? In addition, I think that a reasonable opinion can be formed reading the LJ entry that was linked in this thread, the commentary on that entry and the infamous Dec 10th entry.
That being said, I have an opinion but not a strong one. In the end it doesn’t matter to me either way. I just find the notion that registration date is somehow correlated to what opinions you can have to be silly.
Haj
I’d like to read it, seems I’m out of the loop without it. I felt the same way after the banning, like the pertinent info was not on SDMB, but in the back rooms of other sites and private communications. Could someone cut, paste, and e-mail the relevant parts to me, or teach me how to unblock personal sites on my work computer?
Hi Michael, good to see you, if only for a drive-by. Hope you’re assimilating over there (are you blond and blue-eyed yet? ;)). Give Anniz a hug for me, OK? 
Thanks for the e-mails!
so your beef should be with the person who started a public thread where this exact result would be highly predictable.
I’m not suggesting that you should now be upset w/Joe-Cool but pointing out another predictable ‘bad result’ of a thread such as this.
Let’s not quibble over semantics. It’s a PERSONAL journal, then. Does that make you happy? Not much of a difference, and the implications are the same. Those words were not intended for eyes here.
Intended for? I think you are probably correct. Intended to be kept from? Transparently not.
I do not agree, though, that the implications are teh same. One has no presumption of privacy when writing notes on a wall that anyone can see.
I’ve got one of those. It’s spiral-bound, has ruled paper, and cost $1.29 at the corner stationer’s. I keep it under the mattress. And all the web access in the world isn’t gonna get you a peep at it.
People are responsible for their own actions, the thread is not. The problem is people overreacting and flying into a frenzy at the mention of a guy’s name, not the fact that I opened a thread to discuss it. For example, I didn’t start a fight between Stoid and Anthracite. Nor did Satan, nor did the presence of a thread discussing him. There obviously are some other issues underlying their interaction that existed whether or not this thread existed.
Some folks obviously have an irrational dislike, and some have irrational admiration for the guy, and that’s their own problem, not mine, and I don’t appreciate the implication that I bear any responsibility for bad behavior that took place in this thread.
Anyway, it’s probably time to stop arguing over what evidence should and shouldn’t have been considered. The fact is, it was, and the request was denied. Do I agree? No. Do I think it’s unfair? Maybe. But the fact is that it is the official decision, and I don’t think it’s about to be reconsidered if we just bitch louder.
Not even if I get an AdultCheck ID?
Have to agree wholeheartedly with that. This has come up a couple of times before and I confess befuddlement when confronted with the Net generation that thinks nothing of posting their most private business on the single most public space in the universe, and then get offended when that information is used or referred to in any way.
If you don’t want it used as fodder, don’t offer it for public consumption.
Under the mattress is not the best hiding place, in my opinion. I’ll never forget the day my mother found my private reading material while making up the bed. She even threw out Miss July. The inconsolable sadness.
I strongly disagree Joe.
Unless you can explain to me how you could reasonably think that opening a thread about ‘how bout y’all let banned poster come back in’ could continue without folks saying “he did this sort of thing, therefore he shouldn’t be allowed back” and some one else bemoaning it, poiinting out that the banned poster by virtue of being banned could not respond in the thread.
no, you’re not responsible for the feud 'tween Stoid & Una.
but, as I said back on page one, the original banning was a polarizing event. people had strong emotions both ways. Re-examing the scar in a public venue without expecting it to re-open wounds, re-establish and remind folks of past nastiness is pretty damn naive.
Like I said, people are responsible for their own behavior.
Arnold…
I would like to preface the following with this:
Coupla things about this are bugging me.
Reluctantly? Maybe I’m just confused here, but I don’t see how someone can be “reluctantly banned” for something he never did.
I know that Brian had been issued a warning or ten prior to his “you weasel” comment. Valid warnings-- IMO, he deserved them.
But to my mind, a warning means “Don’t be a jerk again”.
A warning, to me, doesn’t mean “We will find some way to ban you, regardless.”
Well, he wasn’t a jerk. He told someone that they weaseling out of a debate.
It’s almost like someone in Admin was running a search for “you weasel”, and when one popped up under Satan’s name, he was automatically banned, context be damned.
That’s hardly what I’d call “reluctantly.”
No, you’re not soulless machines, and it’s possible, probable even, that even the biased mods were acting honestly in what they felt was the best interest of the board.
Personally, though, if I wasn’t 100% certain that I could reason through my bias, I would have recused myself.
This is very troubling to me: How many of the “biased mods” were biased to such an extent that they knew that Brian hadn’t violated his most recent warning, yet they voted to ban him anyway?
And, finally:
Well, given the reasons I’ve listed above, I can’t fault him for viewing some, if not all, of the SDMB mods in this very bad light.
Again, personally, I would look past the LJ entries. It is in no way surprising that he doesn’t trust many of you…
-David