Unban Satan!

[Polycarp]

LOL!

The point is, while I have a reputation for a tone that never approaches bannability, I’m just like any other poster – I’m obliged to follow the rules, too. I am not privileged to call His4Ever a purblind goat-felcher in GD, just because her stance on what constitutes a good Christian differs from mine. And if I did, Gaudere or David B. or Buck would be all over me with warnings.

At least once I thought that I was in imminent danger of banning due to the umbrage one poster took to my statements regarding his stance and his apparent belief that I had falsely misrepresented him. (We worked that one out.) And what I posted above was the precise step I would have taken with Gaudere in the event that he did in fact report me and I were banned, with regard to the Pit thread in which he questioned whether I’d wilfully misrepresented him.

So it wasn’t merely a theoretical exercise or a means of exculpating Brian – it was (in my mind at least) a very real possibility.

[Stoid]

** Poly, Poly, Poly **, you slay me, man, you oughta be a comedian! No, really!

I think if you actually hunted down and bitchslapped a fellow Doper, the staff would ban the person you bitchslapped for provoking you to that degree.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

Well, this has been a long, uncomfortable read that took a few sittings. But hell, we think of ourselves as a community so we pretty much have to accept that it ain’t all smiles all the time. The very diversity of opinions and personalities preclude that. And it’s that diversity that makes this place a place I want to be.

As far as the OP goes, I’m of the opinion that the record speaks for itself. Which is why I’m glad it exists. So it can speak. I’m satisfied.

I also think that letting the link to the LJ remain was a good decison.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Gah. Can’t you just drop it? Everybody interprets “fair” differently. Chicago Reader owns the board. Their reps say what goes, fair or unfair. But I think that (almost) all of them try to be fair within their own interpretations of fairness. **

And yet we have a forum in which we can air our grievances, voice our disagreements, and put forth our own interpretations of fairness.

Isn’t that awesome?

Or do you believe it is just for show, never to be used, like the guest towels and furniture with plastic slipcovers?

[Liberal]

Nine pages, Joe. Nine pages. Use the towel, yes. But when its frazzled and worn beyond all recognition, it’s time to toss it out.

[JerseyDiamond]

Good point. But shall we count the number of times you’ve posted to say “let it go”? Trying to pad your count a bit?

[Liberal]

As if my count needs padding…

[astro]

I propose we unban SqrlCub.

[Joe_Cool]

SqrlCub was banned? I had noticed I hadn’t seen him around for a while, but didn’t know that.

Arnold, regarding what Stoid said, about a date when Satan can petition again for reinstatement, I think she might be onto something, but I’d generalize it instead of making it a special circumstance for Satan:

Would it be possible to, at the time of banning and based upon the severity and likelihood of recurrent behavior, give the banned poster a time frame at which point he/she is eligible for “parole”, so to speak, and if that petition is denied, then maybe a date for a second “hearing”? I’m not trying to dictate policy or anything, I know you guys have to put up with enough crap from us without that, but I think that’s a reasonable idea, and one that I’d be willing to implement if it were my board.

Just a thought.

[vanilla]

I still say we bring back Phaedrus.
He was more entertaining, for sure.:eek:

[tomndebb]

Well, first off, Phaedrus was never banned: he left on his own.

Second, if you really want to interact with him, I’m sure you could wander out to Ashtabula or Mahoning county and look for a super-genius, pharmaceutical entrepeneur who hates white people and have your own discussions with him. I’m sure he wouldn’t be hard to find.

(Your notion of “entertaining” indicates a real need for some serious psychiatric counselling, by the way.)

[vanilla]

he hated white people?
Must’ve missed that post.

No, I need no psychiatric evalution, just fine here.

[astro]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**Well, first off, Phaedrus was never banned: he left on his own.

Second, if you really want to interact with him, I’m sure you could wander out to Ashtabula or Mahoning county and look for a super-genius, pharmaceutical entrepeneur who hates white people and have your own discussions with him. I’m sure he wouldn’t be hard to find.

(Your notion of “entertaining” indicates a real need for some serious psychiatric counselling, by the way.) **

Wile E. Coyote is selling crack these days?

[tomndebb]

No, I need no psychiatric evalution, just fine here.

I did not suggest an evaluation. I’m sure you’re no more loopy than the rest of us–maybe even more sane than many of us. I suggested counselling because considering P entertaining (even with the :eek: smiley) is just odd.

YMMV, of course.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**Would it be possible to, at the time of banning and based upon the severity and likelihood of recurrent behavior, give the banned poster a time frame at which point he/she is eligible for “parole”, so to speak, and if that petition is denied, then maybe a date for a second “hearing”? I’m not trying to dictate policy or anything, I know you guys have to put up with enough crap from us without that, but I think that’s a reasonable idea, and one that I’d be willing to implement if it were my board.

Just a thought. **

Good fuck.

How many times must they say say “No”?

You sound like a ten-year old:

Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
If I eat my peas, will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
I’ll hold my breath unless you unban him!
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
So, what’ll I have to do to make you unban him?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him now?
Will you unban him later?

No?

Well, when will you unban him?
:rolleyes:

Get over it, or start your own fucking message board where you can set whatever guidelines trip your trigger.

Fenris

[Joe_Cool]

How about you read my post instead of acting like an ass? I specifically said that I was NOT talking about him.

“Good fuck” yourself.

[samclem]

he hated white people?Must’ve missed that post

Of course you did, sweetie.

Phaedrus last posted in January, 2000.

You registered in March, 2000.

While you may have lurked, my guess is you didn’t follow the threads.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**How about you read my post instead of acting like an ass? I specifically said that I was NOT talking about him. **

How 'bout you read your own post instead of lying? You can’t even tell the truth when the truth is right there about 10 posts up. You wrote:

Arnold, regarding what Stoid said, about a date when Satan can petition again for reinstatement, I think she might be onto something, but I’d generalize it instead of making it a special circumstance for Satan:

You never said you weren’t talking about Satan, you only said that a rule should be made that allowed banned posters (including, but not limited to Satan) back

:rolleyes:

Fenris

[Joe_Cool]

Nice try, but you didn’t even get that much right. I said that a rule should be made giving banned posters a date at which time they can be heard regarding reinstatement.

There’s already a rule allowing people back. It’s called “e-mail the admins and see if they’ll let you back.”

[wring]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
**How about you read my post instead of acting like an ass? I specifically said that I was NOT talking about him.

“Good fuck” yourself. **

Hmm. The post referred to is this

Arnold, regarding what Stoid said, about a date when Satan can petition again for reinstatement, I think she might be onto something, but I’d generalize it instead of making it a special circumstance for Satan:

Would it be possible to, at the time of banning and based upon the severity and likelihood of recurrent behavior, give the banned poster a time frame at which point he/she is eligible for “parole”, so to speak, and if that petition is denied, then maybe a date for a second “hearing”? I’m not trying to dictate policy or anything, I know you guys have to put up with enough crap from us without that, but I think that’s a reasonable idea, and one that I’d be willing to implement if it were my board.

Just a thought

Which most certainly does not contain the words "I am **not ** talking about Satan. You don’t suggest the ‘new rule’ should be retroactive, but neither do you specify that it should only be for the future. So, at the very least, it’s ambiguous on the subject "Did JoeCool desire that said rule be inclusive of the Satan situation or not.

Now, you may have meant that you didn’t think it should be retroactive to include Satan, but you most certainly didn’t say that.

So, in any event your admonision to Fenris re: his reading abilities was, well, wrong. It was your writing that was ambiguous at best.

Of course, if you really wish your intentions to be clear, you could clarify it now - did you intend that the ‘rule’ you were suggesting be set up to act retroactively, so that posters who had been banned would also be included?