Even if I was the only one, what difference does that make?
I don’t think I’ve implied that CiM was an innocent saint and I have stated outright that I am not attacking Rico.
If CiM was banned because they hadn’t yet figured out the intricacies of message board protocol then I think that is an unwarranted banning.
Personally, I think it would be nice if anyone who quoted the entirety of the OP in the second post was summarily banned, but that’s not going to happen.
Fighting Ignorance is a joke, literally and figuratively. Part of the “humor” comes from the idea of taking it seriously, as though there would be a time when the fight was over. Likewise with the idea that “we” are fighting and some nebulous “they” are making it more challenging than it ought to be.
Of course, it is taken seriously, to the point of being a de facto mantra of the boards.
But ignorance is not just the state of being unaware of some more or less objective facts. If Newton or Einstein or Leibnez were reanimated today, would we consider them ignorant for not being able to figure out how to post?
I’m sure we would, because they wouldn’t know how to do it.
That wouldn’t mean that we couldn’t learn something from them and it definitely doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have valid criticsms of our discourse.
My apologies on the reading failure. My point is, it’s a legit banning even if you think CiM was posting in earnest and not trying to stir up trouble.
I never said you were attacking anyone.
There’s really nothing intricate about this, though. Chippewa wasn’t banned for using a sig twice or not knowing that you’re supposed to link to the column. The problem was, he/she took that crazy tone from the beginning, then kept posting it over and over, then freaked out on the posters who tried to cool things off and on Rico, who made an effort to politely explain how things work and sent the question to Cecil.
If you ran a store and somebody came in ranting and raving about one of your signs, insisted on speaking to the owner and shouted at your customers and staff no matter how often you tried to explain, would you say “Come back in a week?” or “Get out!”
Chippewa was either a troll or a loon. Good riddance.
Seconded.
Why is it that some people can’t take “no, that’s not how it works here” for an answer? :rolleyes:
A question was raised. It’s been answered. Yes, one can posit it being handled differently, but there seems to be clear consistency among the staff-types that support the method that was used. At that point, there really isn’t much reason to continue pressing your own position on the subject; arguing is not the same as discussing.
Oh please, give us a break. Chippewa was not banned merely for being unable to figure out “message board protocol” (which is not exactly rocket surgery in the first place), but for being persistently hostile, obnoxious, and irrational even in the face of reasonable attempts to get her to understand how things are done here. While we want to be welcoming to people, and do cut newbies some slack, we are hardly obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate them when they adamantly refuse to cooperate. I saw nothing in Chippewa’s posts to indicate she was actually interested in participating in the board, only ranting about Cecil’s column. I am highly skeptical that she would have returned to become a regular poster if she had been suspended instead of banned.
I can see several reasons why she should have been given the chance to test that idea.
I also recognize that that seems to be an opinion of one.
This sounds like the proper action was taken. They can now think about their behavior and beg to be reinstated if they show an ability to control themselves. I bet they continue this via email or a new virgin account.
In my experience, it’s not worth the trouble. Very, very few people who start out in that manner will shape up in the short term…or long term. It’s far more common for them to continue to flame and shout and generally refuse to obey the rules.
Is The Controvert related to Chippewa in Michigan? How many capital threads would you want to have for God’s sake? Pushing the Mods buttons?
I assume not, since The Controvert joined in 2001 and has over 2,500 posts.
The defense doesn’t seem immediately related to the accusation.
Seven threads. Rico emailed him/her directly and explained. I’d say that’s enough leeway.
I assume that Harmonious Discord was joking, not making a real accusation. I also assume that ISPs were checked.
While it was light hearted, all questions were a possibility. Mostly I was wondering about the pushing the mods buttons bit, because why would you open new threads in different forums? Not threads pointing to the main thread, but multiple independent threads.
No wonder my joke about two things being redundant fell flat. 
I admit that I don’t seem to pick up on a lot of jokes. Even now I’m not sure what’s supposed to be funny about it.
I guess it’s something like the Am I the only one that doesn’t find Monty Python funny? thread. Different Strokes…
I’m probably missing the joke here too, but just for the sake of clarity, all of CiM’s posts and threads were in CoCC.
HD made a reference to The Controvert, who started several threads about one topic. The confusion arose when he jokingly linked **The Controvert **to Chippewa in Michigan. My joke was in the thread started by The Controvert.
Clear as mud, right? 
…but it covers the ground.