Authorities?

[Carlos]

This topic is not intended to be another Latinijral's thread.You already created a lot about him.

The following viscousmemories' quote was taken from another thread ( guess about who) and made me think about how the administrators philosophy really is or how they feel it should be.

He's attacked me and livius repeatedly since signing up here, but since we're administrators I don't think that really means anything more than he hates authority (a reasonable enough position ).

My point or my concerns are :

Is authority the correct term from a forum that pretends to be open enough?

Who is the main authority? Livius or Viscousmemories? I mean like God and the Pope , like the Chief Commander and the General, like the Queen and ...etc.

Are the authorities of this forum connected , in a certain way, to the other authorities of different boards? ( Like the Interpol for example). It will be helpful to inform the posters about the "bad guys".

Does this kind of feeling ( the authority feeling) give an extra power to your inner life?

Does the authority here is always showing their nose and smelling bad things all over the board?

Does the authority promotes ignore , celebrates insults , give biassed opinions about posters that doesn't feel like slaves or servants of a system?

Enough for now.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Crumb]

Welcome to :ff: Carlos.

What is Interpol?

[Skep]

Hi Carlos. I will miss you when you're gone.

[Carlos]

Welcome to :ff: Carlos.

What is Interpol?

http://www.interpol.int/

International experts brought together on Interpol Panel Strategic Advisory Group to enhance police co-operation

TY for your welcome ( the same to everybody that will put it).

[viscousmemories]

Is authority the correct term from a forum that pretends to be open enough?
That's a good question, Carlos. I was being somewhat flippant with that comment, but generally speaking I really do think hating authority is a reasonable enough position. But is 'authority' the correct term to use for forum administrators? I think so, but to a very limited extent. Granted our authority is limited to being able to decide who can access the forum software, but I think that's still accurately described as authority.

Who is the main authority? Livius or Viscousmemories? I mean like God and the Pope , like the Chief Commander and the General, like the Queen and ...etc.
We cooperate on all major decisions.

Are the authorities of this forum connected , in a certain way, to the other authorities of different boards? ( Like the Interpol for example). It will be helpful to inform the posters about the "bad guys".
We are not connected with the administrations of other boards in any official way. We are on friendly terms with some of the administrators at other sites, but that's the extent of it.

Does this kind of feeling ( the authority feeling) give an extra power to your inner life?
No, it doesn't give me any extra power or good feelings in my inner life. Generally speaking I hate having the responsibility, but it does make me feel good to know that I completely understand and agree with the rationale behind the rules and policies here--unlike any other forum on the Internet--because I cooperated in making them and I get to contribute to their evolution.

Does the authority here is always showing their nose and smelling bad things all over the board?
I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean, but yes livius and/or I read everything on this board and have since we started the forum nearly a year ago. We've seen a lot of things we really enjoy and personally approve of and a lot of things we don't. Fortunately thus far we've seen much more of the former than the latter, though.

Does the authority promotes ignore , celebrates insults , give biassed opinions about posters that doesn't feel like slaves or servants of a system?
Yes, we do promote the idea that in general people should ignore those posts/people that offend them and concentrate instead on the more substantive and/or interesting content here. We don't celebrate insults although as people we aren't above them. Similarly we do occasionally state our opinions (biased though they may be) of posters here and/or intervene in conflicts, but we do make a concerted effort to limit ourselves in both those regards.

Thanks for the interesting questions.

[Carlos]

That's a good question, Carlos. I was being somewhat flippant with that comment, but generally speaking I really do think hating authority is a reasonable enough position. But is 'authority' the correct term to use for forum administrators? I think so, but to a very limited extent. Granted our authority is limited to being able to decide who can access the forum software, but I think that's still accurately described as authority.
My concern was more philosophy (... cally?) directed , not really about semantical, literal meanings or about the software itself.
If you read your quote on my OP , it seems you had been attacked by the individual from the beginning then you appeared as the authority you feeled. As far as I had read ,the individual was gentle enough with you all from the beginning.I read on the other side that he was the one who recieved a lot of insults and the administrators celebrated it.Too bad.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=1&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0


We cooperate on all major decisions.
Banning a person because of "special circunstances" must be a major decision.
You are two separate persons , who did the first step to ban the individual?
As far as I read he didn't brake any rule.


We are not connected with the administrations of other boards in any official way. We are on friendly terms with some of the administrators at other sites, but that's the extent of it.
Do you share private information of the posters? For example ,ISP posters of whom you consider with bad antecedents(...)? The free use of your autorithy power?My ISP?

From another topic If we have watched you disrupt four or more forum communities with trolling, verbal abuse, slander, stalking and harassment of women, posting pictures and other ostensibly private information over the course of two years to the point where you were banned from each one, we will give you two months of free rein to post here until we are reasonably confident that you have no intention of doing anything other than what you did at every prior forum, then we'll ban you too.
Of whom you are talking about? Could you be more specific?
Are you giving me two months? Some people could think I did all the above.


No, it doesn't give me any extra power or good feelings in my inner life. Generally speaking I hate having the responsibility, but it does make me feel good to know that I completely understand and agree with the rationale behind the rules and policies here--unlike any other forum on the Internet--because I cooperated in making them and I get to contribute to their evolution.
Are you aware you failed recently on your board's philosophy?


Yes, we do promote the idea that in general people should ignore those posts/people that offend them and concentrate instead on the more substantive and/or interesting content here.
Did you have positive results? In which board you had been you saw it had a positive result that kind of constant promotion ?


We don't celebrate insults although as people we aren't above them.
I saw some of those celebrations. Is "bub" an insult?
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=3&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0


Similarly we do occasionally state our opinions (biased though they may be) of posters here and/or intervene in conflicts, but we do make a concerted effort to limit ourselves in both those regards.

Thanks for the interesting questions.
Your biassed opinions are welcome too.
You are dealing with normal people ( the most).

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

My concern was more philosophy (... cally?) directed , not really about semantical, literal meanings or about the software itself.
If you read your quote on my OP , it seems you had been attacked by the individual from the beginning then you appeared as the authority you feeled. As far as I had read ,the individual was gentle enough with you all from the beginning.I read on the other side that he was the one who recieved a lot of insults and the administrators celebrated it.Too bad.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=1&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0
That's a long thread you've linked to, Carlos. If there are specific instances of either livius or myself 'celebrating' any insults directed at latinijral I'd appreciate it if you would link directly to those posts.

For my part, here is a link (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&onlybyuserid=3) that will show you only my posts in that thread. As you can see the first many posts of mine were perfectly reasonable responses to latin's virtually indecipherable arguments.

It was only in this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=60097#post60097) that I finally expressed some frustration with him, and only because he was attempting to malign my character by lying and mischaracterizing my posts elsewhere. Even then, I concluded that he was a fairly benign troll and decided to ignore him. Which I did until he decided to start spreading his insults and antagonism to various other threads here.

Banning a person because of "special circunstances" must be a major decision.
You are two separate persons , who did the first step to ban the individual?
As far as I read he didn't brake any rule.
I don't know if I can really answer that question to your satisfaction. It was a major decision and we talked about it quite a lot. Believe it or not, we started talking about whether we might have to ban latin (and you, for that matter) before we even started this forum, since we are also members of JREF and SkepticalCommunity and we were there when you were banned from both.

Do you share private information of the posters? For example ,ISP posters of whom you consider with bad antecedents(...)? The free use of your autorithy power?My ISP?
No, we haven't shared that information with anyone, as explained in our Privacy Policy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136#post136).

Of whom you are talking about? Could you be more specific?
Are you giving me two months? Some people could think I did all the above.
That was a general comment, not an official policy statement. There is no important relevance to the amount of time it took us to decide that latinijral was more of a detriment to this community than an asset. It is entirely possible someone could convince us much more quickly that they have no interest in contributing to any of the discussions here and their only purpose is to disrupt the community. As I mentioned I know a bit about your history elsewhere too, but as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to post here until you break the rules or give us good reason to believe you are only here to cause trouble, as latinijral did.

No, it doesn't give me any extra power or good feelings in my inner life. Generally speaking I hate having the responsibility, but it does make me feel good to know that I completely understand and agree with the rationale behind the rules and policies here--unlike any other forum on the Internet--because I cooperated in making them and I get to contribute to their evolution.
Are you aware you failed recently on your board's philosophy?
I'm aware that some people think that for various reasons. You would have to be more specific about what exactly you believe our philosophy to be and how we've failed to uphold it before I could really respond to that assertion.

Yes, we do promote the idea that in general people should ignore those posts/people that offend them and concentrate instead on the more substantive and/or interesting content here.
Did you have positive results? In which board you had been you saw it had a positive result that kind of constant promotion ?
I think the results have been positive so far, yes. As I said earlier I think the majority of the content on this site is of very high quality and that the majority of the regular members here are fairly happy with the forum as it is. I'm sure there's room for improvement, but no I can't think of another forum that I would cite as an example of a completely successful policy.

[quote=vm]We don't celebrate insults although as people we aren't above them.
I saw some of those celebrations. Is "bub" an insult?
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=3&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0
Again, that's a long thread. Links to specific posts and/or comments would be preferable.

Your biassed opinions are welcome too.
I'm glad you think so.

You are dealing with normal people ( the most).
Ah, but normal is a very subjective term, Carlos. :wink:

[livius drusus]

Is "bub" an insult?

It's not, actually (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bub). It's a familiar term of address related to "brother". I found it funny when Beth used it because it's such an old fashioned word, like something from a 40s novel.

[Dingfod]

But "asshole" is. So is "pseudoskeptic" when used like latinirjal used it. So, if the shoe fits, wear the goddamn motherfucking thing.

[Carlos]

My concern was more philosophy (... cally?) directed , not really about semantical, literal meanings or about the software itself.
If you read your quote on my OP , it seems you had been attacked by the individual from the beginning then you appeared as the authority you feeled. As far as I had read ,the individual was gentle enough with you all from the beginning.I read on the other side that he was the one who recieved a lot of insults and the administrators celebrated it.Too bad.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=1&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0
That's a long thread you've linked to, Carlos. If there are specific instances of either livius or myself 'celebrating' any insults directed at latinijral I'd appreciate it if you would link directly to those posts.



For my part, here is a link (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&onlybyuserid=3) that will show you only my posts in that thread. As you can see the first many posts of mine were perfectly reasonable responses to latin's virtually indecipherable arguments.

It was only in this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=60097#post60097) that I finally expressed some frustration with him, and only because he was attempting to malign my character by lying and mischaracterizing my posts elsewhere. Even then, I concluded that he was a fairly benign troll and decided to ignore him. Which I did until he decided to start spreading his insults and antagonism to various other threads here.


Livius already said "bub" was not an insult he was celebrating.He was just laughing at it. I hope "honesty" still means the same now.

I am curious of one thing you seems to avoid it. Reading your posts and reading his posts , I still not see Latinijral " attacked you and livius repeatedly since signing up here" as you said so. On the contrary, I see the administrators allowing other members to insult him . He seems to me very polite at the most part of the thread with you two and with everybody.


Banning a person because of "special circunstances" must be a major decision.
You are two separate persons , who did the first step to ban the individual?
As far as I read he didn't brake any rule.
I don't know if I can really answer that question to your satisfaction. It was a major decision and we talked about it quite a lot. Believe it or not, we started talking about whether we might have to ban latin (and you, for that matter) before we even started this forum, since we are also members of JREF and SkepticalCommunity and we were there when you were banned from both.

Let me understand this. Are you saying the "special circunstance" rule implies to ban a person who had been banned from other boards where you also been a member?
You better put this field before any poster join this board :You are not welcome here if you had been banned from JREF and SkepticalCommunity ( example Latinijral and Carlos)

Do you share private information of the posters? For example ,ISP posters of whom you consider with bad antecedents(...)? The free use of your autorithy power?My ISP?
No, we haven't shared that information with anyone, as explained in our Privacy Policy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=136#post136).

That is the policy. Nobody can stop you to share the information. It is a friendly norm. You have friends administrating those forums ( you post there also), why not? who will care? who will know?


Of whom you are talking about? Could you be more specific?
Are you giving me two months? Some people could think I did all the above.
That was a general comment, not an official policy statement. There is no important relevance to the amount of time it took us to decide that latinijral was more of a detriment to this community than an asset. It is entirely possible someone could convince us much more quickly that they have no interest in contributing to any of the discussions here and their only purpose is to disrupt the community. As I mentioned I know a bit about your history elsewhere too, but as far as I'm concerned you are welcome to post here until you break the rules or give us good reason to believe you are only here to cause trouble, as latinijral did.

Your "general comment" was adressed on a topic about why you banned Latinijral .
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71404&postcount=85

Are you giving me two months?
Please tell the posters here ,the reasons why you think I was banned from those forums you mentioned.



Are you aware you failed recently on your board's philosophy?
I'm aware that some people think that for various reasons. You would have to be more specific about what exactly you believe our philosophy to be and how we've failed to uphold it before I could really respond to that assertion.

Let me tell you how I was notified of this board. I have a person who I consider a friend writing here as regular poster from the beginning of this board.
He thinks I was unfairly banned from JREF and Skeptical Community, since I didn't brake any law. he told me about this board and invited me to post here. He told me about how open mind and honest he thinks you are. I lurked for a while. The same person told Latinijral about this forum. He joined it. He didn't brake any rule. You banned him.
That is the way I see you. Now help me, what is your real philosophy?



Did you have positive results? In which board you had been you saw it had a positive result that kind of constant promotion ?
I think the results have been positive so far, yes. As I said earlier I think the majority of the content on this site is of very high quality and that the majority of the regular members here are fairly happy with the forum as it is. I'm sure there's room for improvement, but no I can't think of another forum that I would cite as an example of a completely successful policy.

I am not talking about how the forum is. My question was related about how useful was your public promotion to ignore some posters ( for example : Latinijral ).I saw a poll about him. The results are the opposite they expected.
Do you really need to carry those people who can't ignore some posters like little kids or immature persons they seem to be?



Your biassed opinions are welcome too.
I'm glad you think so.

I hope you don't mind if I wanted to get things clear first.
I really don't want to call you all the time : "Yes , My Authority".


You are dealing with normal people ( the most).
Ah, but normal is a very subjective term, Carlos. :wink:

I know , like calling "trolls" to the people here.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

I am curious of one thing you seems to avoid it. Reading your posts and reading his posts , I still not see Latinijral " attacked you and livius repeatedly since signing up here" as you said so. On the contrary, I see the administrators allowing other members to insult him . He seems to me very polite at the most part of the thread with you two and with everybody.
For me to "avoid" a point, you would have had to bring it up. Since you did not previously ask me for evidence of my claim that latinijral attacked livius and I repeatedly since signing up here, your insinuation that I have avoided the issue is deceitful. I have not avoided anything, Carlos, and if you imply that I have one more time this conversation will be over. I'm not going to waste my time answering your questions if you are going to mischaracterize my responses.

Now, is it possible that I was being hyperbolic when I said that latinijral had attacked livius and I repeatedly? Yes, it is. But I have no desire to spend hours of my time going back through his posts to count the number of lies and insults he directed toward us just to determine whether it was an exaggeration. As I said we didn't count his comments to us against him, so that isn't even relevant to why he was banned. Anyone who is interested in the details can search out the posts themselves; we haven't deleted a word of his here.

Let me understand this. Are you saying the "special circunstance" rule implies to ban a person who had been banned from other boards where you also been a member?
You better put this field before any poster join this board :You are not welcome here if you had been banned from JREF and SkepticalCommunity ( example Latinijral and Carlos)
As you know, there is no "special circumstance" rule, much less one that has anything to do with JREF or SC. At this time there are only two reasons we will ban someone:

1. Three violations of the written rules
2. We decide that your posting here is a net loss for the community

As mentioned elsewhere we have already amended our rules since then to add "The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion."

Your "general comment" was adressed on a topic about why you banned Latinijral .
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71404&postcount=85

Are you giving me two months?
Please tell the posters here ,the reasons why you think I was banned from those forums you mentioned.
I have already explained our policy in my previous response. I'm not sure why you were banned from JREF or SkepticalCommunity, but from what little I do know I have no reason to believe we will find it necessary to ban you here.

Let me tell you how I was notified of this board. I have a person who I consider a friend writing here as regular poster from the beginning of this board.
He thinks I was unfairly banned from JREF and Skeptical Community, since I didn't brake any law. he told me about this board and invited me to post here. He told me about how open mind and honest he thinks you are. I lurked for a while. The same person told Latinijral about this forum. He joined it. He didn't brake any rule. You banned him.
That is the way I see you. Now help me, what is your real philosophy?
Our forum administration philosophy is always evolving. If you haven't already, I recommend you read this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2952), this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3079), and this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3026) for a good idea of where I stand today. Long story short, in the year since we started this forum I have come to believe that strict adherence to pre-determined rules is an ineffective forum administration policy. "Laws" (such as they are here) need to be flexible enough to accomodate new problems.

I am not talking about how the forum is. My question was related about how useful was your public promotion to ignore some posters ( for example : Latinijral ).I saw a poll about him. The results are the opposite they expected.
Do you really need to carry those people who can't ignore some posters like little kids or immature persons they seem to be?
What would you recommend instead?

I hope you don't mind if I wanted to get things clear first.
I really don't want to call you all the time : "Yes , My Authority".
No I don't mind. I'm not interested in suck-ups. I prefer for people to be honest and straightforward.

I know , like calling "trolls" to the people here.
Yes, if I believe someone is only trolling here I will call them a troll. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. I don't believe I was wrong in the case of latinijral.

[koan]

Excuse me, Carlos, I believed that latin was trying to get banned. Is he not happy? I'm sure many here would be surprised and interested in knowing this.

If he is happy, why are you protesting on his behalf? If he is not happy, did he learn anything about continuing to harass people when they express their displeasure? It really just comes down to social skills, which latin did not seem to possess.

[Carlos]

I am curious of one thing you seems to avoid it. Reading your posts and reading his posts , I still not see Latinijral " attacked you and livius repeatedly since signing up here" as you said so. On the contrary, I see the administrators allowing other members to insult him . He seems to me very polite at the most part of the thread with you two and with everybody.
For me to "avoid" a point, you would have had to bring it up. Since you did not previously ask me for evidence of my claim that latinijral attacked livius and I repeatedly since signing up here, your insinuation that I have avoided the issue is deceitful. I have not avoided anything, Carlos, and if you imply that I have one more time this conversation will be over. I'm not going to waste my time answering your questions if you are going to mischaracterize my responses.

Now, is it possible that I was being hyperbolic when I said that latinijral had attacked livius and I repeatedly? Yes, it is. But I have no desire to spend hours of my time going back through his posts to count the number of lies and insults he directed toward us just to determine whether it was an exaggeration. As I said we didn't count his comments to us against him, so that isn't even relevant to why he was banned. Anyone who is interested in the details can search out the posts themselves; we haven't deleted a word of his here.

My OP was bassed on your comment (He's attacked me and livius repeatedly since signing up here, but since we're administrators I don't think that really means anything more than he hates authority (a reasonable enough position ).
I still don't see that he attacked you and livius repeatedly since signing it here.
I agree with you. Yes, you were hyperbolic.

Let me understand this. Are you saying the "special circunstance" rule implies to ban a person who had been banned from other boards where you also been a member?
You better put this field before any poster join this board :You are not welcome here if you had been banned from JREF and SkepticalCommunity ( example Latinijral and Carlos)
As you know, there is no "special circumstance" rule, much less one that has anything to do with JREF or SC. At this time there are only two reasons we will ban someone:

1. Three violations of the written rules
2. We decide that your posting here is a net loss for the community

As mentioned elsewhere we have already amended our rules since then to add "The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion."

Now you can sleep well. Rules are amended. You learned from Renata?

Your "general comment" was adressed on a topic about why you banned Latinijral .
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71404&postcount=85

Are you giving me two months?
Please tell the posters here ,the reasons why you think I was banned from those forums you mentioned.
I have already explained our policy in my previous response. I'm not sure why you were banned from JREF or SkepticalCommunity, but from what little I do know I have no reason to believe we will find it necessary to ban you here.
Yes I know, unless you need to create a new rule to fix my ban, for whatever reason you wiill not "like" about me.

Let me tell you how I was notified of this board. I have a person who I consider a friend writing here as regular poster from the beginning of this board.
He thinks I was unfairly banned from JREF and Skeptical Community, since I didn't brake any law. he told me about this board and invited me to post here. He told me about how open mind and honest he thinks you are. I lurked for a while. The same person told Latinijral about this forum. He joined it. He didn't brake any rule. You banned him.
That is the way I see you. Now help me, what is your real philosophy?
Our forum administration philosophy is always evolving. If you haven't already, I recommend you read this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2952), this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3079), and this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3026) for a good idea of where I stand today. Long story short, in the year since we started this forum I have come to believe that strict adherence to pre-determined rules is an ineffective forum administration policy. "Laws" (such as they are here) need to be flexible enough to accomodate new problems.

Yes , I also saw you writing that you can not ban Latinijral just for trolling your board , since was against your philosophy.

I am not talking about how the forum is. My question was related about how useful was your public promotion to ignore some posters ( for example : Latinijral ).I saw a poll about him. The results are the opposite they expected.
Do you really need to carry those people who can't ignore some posters like little kids or immature persons they seem to be?
What would you recommend instead?

Why don't you try those babies little milk bottles when they are crying about how they can not ignore some poster?

I hope you don't mind if I wanted to get things clear first.
I really don't want to call you all the time : "Yes , My Authority".
No I don't mind. I'm not interested in suck-ups. I prefer for people to be honest and straightforward.
That is the best way to get things clear.
It is very easy to be honest with our philosophy.

I know , like calling "trolls" to the people here.
Yes, if I believe someone is only trolling here I will call them a troll. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. I don't believe I was wrong in the case of latinijral.
I am sure more than one poster started trolling Latinijral first. Maybe he learned and felt you allowed here to do it.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Carlos]

Excuse me, Carlos, I believed that latin was trying to get banned. Is he not happy? I'm sure many here would be surprised and interested in knowing this.

If he is happy, why are you protesting on his behalf? If he is not happy, did he learn anything about continuing to harass people when they express their displeasure? It really just comes down to social skills, which latin did not seem to possess.

Hi Koan :

You are free to believe whatever you want.
I think he was positive to this forum. Sometimes very funny.
Even the administartors learned a lesson with him.

I am not defending him . I am attacking the double speech of the admiinistrators of this forum. Now it seems this forum will be like the rest of all the skeptical and believers boards.

If he happy? He must be. He proved his point.
I much prefer you to be happy.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

I agree with you. Yes, you were hyperbolic.
I did not say I was hyperbolic, I said it was possible. And your repeated mischaracterizations of what I post is enough to convince me that you probably aren't going to be satisfied by any other answers I can provide.

[Carlos]

I agree with you. Yes, you were hyperbolic.
I did not say I was hyperbolic, I said it was possible. .

I agree with you under your posibility.
Since you are not sure of why you wrote it.


And your repeated mischaracterizations of what I post is enough to convince me that you probably aren't going to be satisfied by any other answers I can provide.
I am sure you failed convincing a lot of people with your decision.
Anyway , good luck with your forum.
Carlos

[Carlos]

Excuse me, Carlos, I believed that latin was trying to get banned. .

Hi Koan:
You made me remember a story ( a kind of bad joke) :

At the news : " A man was found dead at his house. The death body presented 8 shots from a gun in his chest, 6 injured hurts in his back produced by a knife. The police (authority) report was : SUICIDE "

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

I agree with you under your posibility. Since you are not sure of why you wrote it.
Heh, okay let me give you the benefit of the doubt and be more clear. I wrote it because that was my perception of events at the time. However, I accept that because human beings are fallible and I am a human being, my perception in that case may not have been completely accurate. However, you have not made a persuasive argument of that. All you have done is conveniently overlook latinijral's nastiness and claim that he was nothing but polite even when I gave you direct links to the relevant posts. I think your own bias is showing a little bit here, Carlos.

Nevertheless, as I have said repeatedly how latinijral treated livius and I was not a consideration in our decision to ban him, it was how he treated others. So as I said it's an irrelevant point.

I am sure you failed convincing a lot of people with your decision.
I'm sure you're right. I genuinely hope that anyone who feels we have failed in our efforts to properly administrate this forum takes it upon themselves to create their own forum and do a better job of it. But we're always looking for ways to improve how we do things here, is there a forum on the Internet that you personally believe does a better job of administration?

Anyway , good luck with your forum.
Thank you.

[Carlos]

All you have done is conveniently overlook latinijral's nastiness and claim that he was nothing but polite even when I gave you direct links to the relevant posts. I think your own bias is showing a little bit here, Carlos.

Nevertheless, as I have said repeatedly how latinijral treated livius and I was not a consideration in our decision to ban him, it was how he treated others. So as I said it's an irrelevant point. .

Your repeated mischaracterizations of what I post is enough to convince me that you probably aren't going to be satisfied by any other answers I can provide.


I'm sure you're right. I genuinely hope that anyone who feels we have failed in our efforts to properly administrate this forum takes it upon themselves to create their own forum and do a better job of it. .

Why not trying to be honest with your philosophy?


But we're always looking for ways to improve how we do things here, is there a forum on the Internet that you personally believe does a better job of administration?.
Of course they are a lot more. I don't like to post on them.
I really still have faith in this forum. You will learn how to do it according to your philosophy.


Anyway , good luck with your forum.
Thank you.

You are welcome ,
Carlos

[Corona688]

I am sure more than one poster started trolling Latinijral first. It is evident that several people knew him on sight and weren't happy about it, but I saw no indication of anybody trolling him. "so and so doesn't like me" is a piss-poor excuse for his behavior anyway.Maybe he learned and felt you allowed here to do it. So it's our fault he was trolling? I refuse to believe that. Nobody was trolling him... a few obviously didn't like him from the start, but there were a great many more here who never knew him before. I was one of those, and let me tell you, the only impression he managed to create in this onlooker was a very bad one.

Call me a pseudo skeptic faggot if you want, but calling someone a "pseudo skeptic faggot", and almost never doing anything but calling people -- perfect strangers, not just people he knew -- "pseudo skeptic faggots" doesn't lend me to believe he was attempting anything productive. The unfriendly reception might be the root cause of his escalation but by no means excuses it, his response was far out of proportion, misdirected at people who had nothing to do with him, and completely counterproductive.

I also refuse to believe that the long, long list of boards he has been banned from is because of skeptic oppression. Skeptics aren't that organized. He seems to blacklist then attack an entire board after taking offense from a few people, then tries to prove how "suppressive" a board is by escalating until he is banned.

Yes, he improved this forum; in much the same way an airliner through a skyscraper improves security. I do not think he is not to be lauded for it.

[livius drusus]

Why not trying to be honest with your philosophy?

Our philosophy is not quite as flat as all that, actually. From the beginning we intended a software solution to perpetual internet problems like spamming, trolling, flaming, all kinds of negative behaviors which can interfere with the free exchange of ideas. Our intention was never to allow a total free for all where anybody could say anything without repercussions. It's just that the repercussions we had planned involved a point system and an ignore filter instead of post edits, thread deletions and bannings.

Unfortunately the software solution failed within a few days of our opening, and since then we've had to use administrative action to plug holes as they appeared. We created a no spam rule when spammers became so prevalent they were the top posts on the forum index. When we installed some more hacks, we added a clarification that our rules applied to non-forum areas of the board as well. When latin's insults became so prevalent they were the top posts on the forum index, we banned him.

Is this action consistent with our philosophy? If you were here from the very beginning and recall the post voting discussions, it is. Is it what we wanted? Most assuredly not.

[Gurdur]

I also refuse to believe that the long, long list of boards he has been banned from is because of skeptic oppression...
If you look closely at one of Carlos' posts, he slams both "skeptics" and "believers".
IOW, he's got pretty much the whole world covered in that one slam.
Must be hard, being either Carlos or latin.

[Carlos]

I am sure more than one poster started trolling Latinijral first. It is evident that several people knew him on sight and weren't happy about it, but I saw no indication of anybody trolling him. "so and so doesn't like me" is a piss-poor excuse for his behavior anyway..

Then just because you didn't see anybody trolling him , it is suppose that anybody trolled him?
Banning him just for trolling few members is a piss-poor excuse and against of the philosophy (of that time) of this board.


Maybe he learned and felt you allowed here to do it. So it's our fault he was trolling? I refuse to believe that. Nobody was trolling him... a few obviously didn't like him from the start, but there were a great many more here who never knew him before. I was one of those, and let me tell you, the only impression he managed to create in this onlooker was a very bad one..

Let me tell you that you gave me a bad impresion when you started to threat the board with your leaving if they would not ban Latinijral.
Wasn't hard for you to ignore him?
You sounded to me like a baby crying to his momy.
I am sure you have some better attitudes.

Call me a pseudo skeptic faggot if you want, but calling someone a "pseudo skeptic faggot", and almost never doing anything but calling people -- perfect strangers, not just people he knew -- "pseudo skeptic faggots" doesn't lend me to believe he was attempting anything productive..

If you can provide me the list of the people he called " pseudo skeptic faggot", I can respond to your affirmation.
Did you also talked about his penis?



The unfriendly reception might be the root cause of his escalation but by no means excuses it, his response was far out of proportion, misdirected at people who had nothing to do with him, and completely counterproductive..

Do you want only people like you posting here?

I also refuse to believe that the long, long list of boards he has been banned from is because of skeptic oppression. Skeptics aren't that organized. He seems to blacklist then attack an entire board after taking offense from a few people, then tries to prove how "suppressive" a board is by escalating until he is banned..

Only few people here were "offended" by Latinijral ( they started topics about it) The game was even.

Yes, he improved this forum; in much the same way an airliner through a skyscraper improves security. I do not think he is not to be lauded for it.

I think he showed the weakness of the philosophy of this board.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Just for the record and in case anyone didn't follow this drama before, on April 3rd I saw user SkepticReport (otherwise known as CFLarsen and Claus Larsen) make what I considered to be an insulting comment toward latinijral at the Skeptic Forum (http://www.skepticforum.com). Since the forum was new and I wasn't sure exactly how the rules were intended to be applied or enforced yet, I started a new thread to ask how the users are expected to respond in such a situation. I said, in part:

But what should I do when I see a post that clearly contravenes the rules here? (Such as this one, for example).
And I included a link to the post in question. A brief discussion of their forum policy between myself and the forum administrator, Maestro, ensued. On April 21st, nearly 3 weeks later, latinijral posted the following comment to Beth here:

58928
You remind me one administrator of this board , who claims to be against of hard moderation , but.......surprise !!!!! He went asking for hard moderation to another board ....guess why? ........to ban Latinijral ....
I give you a tip: His nick starts with a ......V.

Bwahahahahahhaha...pseudo skeptics losers and cowards.

As part of my response to this allegation, I said:

As should be obvious to anyone who reads and can understand that thread and the example that I cited in it, I was asking for this clarification because some insults directed at latinijral by another forum user there had not been edited by the moderators. Why latinijral would perceive that as an attempt on my part to get him banned is beyond me, but I suppose it does say something about the probable worth of his other claims and accusations here and elsewhere.

But despite appearing to understand that he had misread my intent there, did latinijral admit his error and apologize for the false accusation? Of course not. Instead, he tried to paint me as a coward and a fool for not having been "direct" enough in the thread there:

60339
The correct support to avoid any missunderstanding are the words that never appeared :"I am asking for clarification because of some insults directed at latinijral by Claus Larsen, here is the link"

What is the fear to be direct?

60409
Your weak/indirect protest let Maestro treat you as a fool , you even thanked him , you dirty server of the double standards.

And a day later, he proved to me that he is both a liar and a troll (as I told him explicitly) by repeating the insinuation that I tried to get him banned during another barrage of insults (emphasis mine):

60508
You never did it. Maestro fooled you. You ran with your tail between your legs saying in other words : thank you Maestro , forgive me ,I was wrong.
<snip>
Don’t keep acting as a servile fool coward , and with your naïve thinking that after !2 days , Maestro listened to your “suggestion” .
Unless you are referring about baning Latinijral.
<snip>
You are just another psedo skeptic fanatic with fear of what I write.
<snip>
Lot of pseudo skeptics cowards. ….
I am laughing at you.
Another victory of Latinijral in their same territory.
There. Hopefully these examples of latinijral repeatedly attacking me will make it clear that I was not in fact being hyperbolic when I said that he had. I will however admit that I may have been wrong about his repeatedly attacking livius. But clearly if my comment was hyperbolic, it was so only in the sense that his attacks were limited to me and not both of us. And to reiterate, this was almost a month before he was banned here, and not part of our rationale for the ban.

[PinkRose]

Carlos they are picking on me too. i hate fucking forums that are more concerned about what you say when they have no fucking clue what you are thinking or implying? you're either racial or bashing, iim not a child. free speech, my ass & bearded clam. :whup:

[viscousmemories]

Carlos they are picking on me too. i hate fucking forums that are more concerned about what you say when they have no fucking clue what you are thinking or implying? you're either racial or bashing, iim not a child. free speech, my ass & bearded clam. :whup:
Free speech has a cost, PinkRose. You are free to make racial slurs and gay-bashing comments here (as you have been) and I am free to tell you that I find them offensive. If you think I shouldn't be allowed to tell you I'm offended, maybe you aren't really as big a fan of free speech as you think.

[Beth]

Carlos they are picking on me too. i hate fucking forums that are more concerned about what you say when they have no fucking clue what you are thinking or implying? you're either racial or bashing, iim not a child. free speech, my ass & bearded clam. Perhaps you should try to better articulate yourself then, Paula. I have heard several slurs against Native Americans in a few of your posts. To me, that would imply that you are being bigoted. I take offence to that because you are insulting a certain segment of my family.

signed,
Barbie

[Corona688]

I am sure more than one poster started trolling Latinijral first. It is evident that several people knew him on sight and weren't happy about it, but I saw no indication of anybody trolling him. "so and so doesn't like me" is a piss-poor excuse for his behavior anyway..

Then just because you didn't see anybody trolling him , it is suppose that anybody trolled him? Yes. It's not like anything is edited out here except for spam and personal information as per the rules, and I was around for the whole fracas. If you think otherwise, the search feature is available for your persual.Banning him just for trolling few members is a piss-poor excuse and against of the philosophy (of that time) of this board. Latinj was hardly selective in his trolling, and instances of it are hardly "few". By the time he was banned he was invading and derailing many threads in many subforums with repetitive posts of pure insults. His goal seemed to be to make this forum unlivable, and had he not been banned, I am of the opinion he would have succeeded.Let me tell you that you gave me a bad impresion when you started to threat the board with your leaving if they would not ban Latinijral. Been digging through my posts for juicy bits, have you? You missed some important posts in which I explained I was NOT threatening to leave, and precisely what I meant and why.

Why should I threaten to leave, anyway? I like this place, and I know damn well such threats would be stupid. My ego is not of such magnitude that I think anyone would really care if I left, I have no special influence with the admins, and I'm not interested in looking like an emotional 12-year-old.

What I did explain was that Latinj was making this forum considerably less worthwhile by his pointless antagonism, spamming, and trolling; not just less worthwhile for me, but for many people.Wasn't hard for you to ignore him?
You sounded to me like a baby crying to his momy.
I am sure you have some better attitudes. Oh you wound me, really...! not. This is someting else I've also explained many times, like here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73005&postcount=236):
As I have explained many, many, many times, I did use these features. I'm not the one who banned him, either, since everyone seems to have missed that.

These ignore features mean I don't have to read his posts, which is nice. But it does absolutely nothing to deal with the problem -- namely, the killing, derailing, and disruption of threads and forums by a serial troll with a chip on his shoulder who's managed to get himself ejected from at least 4 other forums.

Can you see why people keep accusing you of misrepresenting them, Carlos? It's because you, well, are.
Call me a pseudo skeptic faggot if you want, but calling someone a "pseudo skeptic faggot", and almost never doing anything but calling people -- perfect strangers, not just people he knew -- "pseudo skeptic faggots" doesn't lend me to believe he was attempting anything productive..

If you can provide me the list of the people he called " pseudo skeptic faggot", I can respond to your affirmation. Finding everyone latinj pointlessly antagonized would be a massive undertaking, but I will try...

Justaman (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71212&postcount=466)
Everybody (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70926&postcount=101)
Warren (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71030&postcount=103)
Beyezelu (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70915&postcount=21)
Justaman (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70910&postcount=451), again
viscousmemories (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70891&postcount=155)
Ex-Zombie (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70880&postcount=34)
viscousmemories, jref in general (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70864&postcount=150)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70612&postcount=20)
Ymir's Blood (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70607&postcount=6)
LiveToRide (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70599&postcount=73)
Warrently (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70396&postcount=131)
Shake (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70428&postcount=29)
Everyone in a thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70430&postcount=19)
Lunachick (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70359&postcount=5)
Beth (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70113&postcount=18)
Koan (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69621&postcount=46)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70110&postcount=22)
Me (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69907&postcount=448)
Everyone on JREF again (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69875&postcount=16)
Ex-Zombie and Beyezelu (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69784&postcount=24)
Everyone using ignore features (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69887&postcount=20)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69891&postcount=4)
Livius Drusus (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69790&postcount=61)
godfry 'n'glad (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69862&postcount=30)
Crumb (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68561&postcount=44)
JoeP (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68990&postcount=407)
John Carter (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60917&postcount=345)
Gurdur (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56972&postcount=252)
Xouper (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=55402&postcount=207)

Good grief. It's not like I'm taking these out of context, either -- almost every single one of his later posts is like this. A 7 page list of posts of insults. It's rare to see one that is NOT purely an insult. He even admits to his modus operandi in This one (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60546&postcount=328) -- damn right he was trying to get banned, he thinks it's a "victory", nevermind that he was banned for flooding and the resulting disruption, not for what he thinks about James Randi... He'd stopped posting anything of substance long, long before he was banned.

Also don't forget we took a hell of a lot more abuse than some other boards before he was finally banned. He tried to get banned for his opinions, and couldn't. Only then did he start with the blatant insults and "pseudo skeptic faggot" stuff in his own thread, and he found he couldn't get banned either. In the end he had to resort to flooding random threads with insults to people random and otherwise before Liv and VM decided that enough is enough.


The unfriendly reception might be the root cause of his escalation but by no means excuses it, his response was far out of proportion, misdirected at people who had nothing to do with him, and completely counterproductive..

Do you want only people like you posting here? See why people keep accusing you of misrepresenting them? That's because you kind of do. I fail to understand how you could derive anything remotely resembling that from what you quoted above.
I also refuse to believe that the long, long list of boards he has been banned from is because of skeptic oppression. Skeptics aren't that organized. He seems to blacklist then attack an entire board after taking offense from a few people, then tries to prove how "suppressive" a board is by escalating until he is banned..

Only few people here were "offended" by Latinijral ( they started topics about it) The game was even. Non-sequitor. He wasn't banned because people were offended. He was banned because he had finally escalated to the point where he was becoming disruptive. If that hadn't been enough, I have no doubt he would have escalated further to achieve his stated goal of being banned.I think he showed the weakness of the philosophy of this board. Indeed. Fortunately that seems to have been rectified.

[Carlos]

Just for the record and in case anyone didn't follow this drama before, on April 3rd I saw user SkepticReport (otherwise known as CFLarsen and Claus Larsen) make what I considered to be an insulting comment toward latinijral at the Skeptic Forum (http://www.skepticforum.com). Since the forum was new and I wasn't sure exactly how the rules were intended to be applied or enforced yet, I started a new thread to ask how the users are expected to respond in such a situation. I said, in part:

But what should I do when I see a post that clearly contravenes the rules here? (Such as this one, for example).
And I included a link to the post in question. A brief discussion of their forum policy between myself and the forum administrator, Maestro, ensued. On April 21st, nearly 3 weeks later, latinijral posted the following comment to Beth here:

58928
You remind me one administrator of this board , who claims to be against of hard moderation , but.......surprise !!!!! He went asking for hard moderation to another board ....guess why? ........to ban Latinijral ....
I give you a tip: His nick starts with a ......V.

Bwahahahahahhaha...pseudo skeptics losers and cowards.

As part of my response to this allegation, I said:

As should be obvious to anyone who reads and can understand that thread and the example that I cited in it, I was asking for this clarification because some insults directed at latinijral by another forum user there had not been edited by the moderators. Why latinijral would perceive that as an attempt on my part to get him banned is beyond me, but I suppose it does say something about the probable worth of his other claims and accusations here and elsewhere.

But despite appearing to understand that he had misread my intent there, did latinijral admit his error and apologize for the false accusation? Of course not. Instead, he tried to paint me as a coward and a fool for not having been "direct" enough in the thread there:

60339
The correct support to avoid any missunderstanding are the words that never appeared :"I am asking for clarification because of some insults directed at latinijral by Claus Larsen, here is the link"

What is the fear to be direct?

60409
Your weak/indirect protest let Maestro treat you as a fool , you even thanked him , you dirty server of the double standards.

And a day later, he proved to me that he is both a liar and a troll (as I told him explicitly) by repeating the insinuation that I tried to get him banned during another barrage of insults (emphasis mine):

60508
You never did it. Maestro fooled you. You ran with your tail between your legs saying in other words : thank you Maestro , forgive me ,I was wrong.
<snip>
Don’t keep acting as a servile fool coward , and with your naïve thinking that after !2 days , Maestro listened to your “suggestion” .
Unless you are referring about baning Latinijral.
<snip>
You are just another psedo skeptic fanatic with fear of what I write.
<snip>
Lot of pseudo skeptics cowards. ….
I am laughing at you.
Another victory of Latinijral in their same territory.
There. Hopefully these examples of latinijral repeatedly attacking me will make it clear that I was not in fact being hyperbolic when I said that he had. I will however admit that I may have been wrong about his repeatedly attacking livius. But clearly if my comment was hyperbolic, it was so only in the sense that his attacks were limited to me and not both of us. And to reiterate, this was almost a month before he was banned here, and not part of our rationale for the ban.
Why don't you explain about your antagonism to Claus Larsen.
You were not defending Latinijral as you claimed here.
Thanks,
Carlos

[beyelzu]

Carlos they are picking on me too. i hate fucking forums that are more concerned about what you say when they have no fucking clue what you are thinking or implying? you're either racial or bashing, iim not a child. free speech, my ass & bearded clam. :whup:
Free speech has a cost, PinkRose. You are free to make racial slurs and gay-bashing comments here (as you have been) and I am free to tell you that I find them offensive. If you think I shouldn't be allowed to tell you I'm offended, maybe you aren't really as big a fan of free speech as you think.
:shakefist:

damn you vm

:tmtongue:

seriously, I completely ditto your above comment. I find pinkrose's bitching about people calling her on her racial comments to be fucking hilarious.

[Carlos]

Yes. It's not like anything is edited out here except for spam and personal information as per the rules, and I was around for the whole fracas. If you think otherwise, the search feature is available for your persual.

I already read where Latinijral wrote. Now it is time for you to do it.Start with the thread latinijral created.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203



His goal seemed to be to make this forum unlivable, and had he not been banned, I am of the opinion he would have succeeded.

Your opinion was not shared by the majority of this forum.
I didn't know you can predict the future.


Been digging through my posts for juicy bits, have you? You missed some important posts in which I explained I was NOT threatening to leave, and precisely what I meant and why.

Why should I threaten to leave, anyway? I like this place, and I know damn well such threats would be stupid. My ego is not of such magnitude that I think anyone would really care if I left, I have no special influence with the admins, and I'm not interested in looking like an emotional 12-year-old.

What I did explain was that Latinj was making this forum considerably less worthwhile by his pointless antagonism, spamming, and trolling; not just less worthwhile for me, but for many people.


Define "many people".


Oh you wound me, really...! not. This is someting else I've also explained many times, like here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73005&postcount=236):
As I have explained many, many, many times, I did use these features. I'm not the one who banned him, either, since everyone seems to have missed that.

You better check your bad use of "everyone".
WOW! You even made a poll about him.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2915

Even Latinijral wrote in your poll and refered about you. You missed that insult to your intelligence.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70111&postcount=17

The results of your poll were against your expectations ?
Are you really sure the people who voted YES , really had him on ignore?




Can you see why people keep accusing you of misrepresenting them, Carlos? It's because you, well, are.


"People"? You and who else?Why don't you try "another" poll?


[quote]
If you can provide me the list of the people he called " pseudo skeptic faggot", I can respond to your affirmation. Finding everyone latinj pointlessly antagonized would be a massive undertaking, but I will try...

Justaman (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71212&postcount=466)
Everybody (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70926&postcount=101)
Warren (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71030&postcount=103)
Beyezelu (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70915&postcount=21)
Justaman (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70910&postcount=451), again
viscousmemories (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70891&postcount=155)
Ex-Zombie (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70880&postcount=34)
viscousmemories, jref in general (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70864&postcount=150)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70612&postcount=20)
Ymir's Blood (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70607&postcount=6)
LiveToRide (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70599&postcount=73)
Warrently (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70396&postcount=131)
Shake (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70428&postcount=29)
Everyone in a thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70430&postcount=19)
Lunachick (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70359&postcount=5)
Beth (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70113&postcount=18)
Koan (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69621&postcount=46)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70110&postcount=22)
Me (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69907&postcount=448)
Everyone on JREF again (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69875&postcount=16)
Ex-Zombie and Beyezelu (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69784&postcount=24)
Everyone using ignore features (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69887&postcount=20)
MooseIBe (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69891&postcount=4)
Livius Drusus (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69790&postcount=61)
godfry 'n'glad (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69862&postcount=30)
Crumb (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68561&postcount=44)
JoeP (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68990&postcount=407)
John Carter (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60917&postcount=345)
Gurdur (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56972&postcount=252)
Xouper (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=55402&postcount=207)


Is that all you got? Most of them don't contain "the people he called pseudo skeptic faggot". I asked only for those.
You keep bad using the word "everybody".

But since you think I will be impressed because I read some insults , let me tell you that my confessionay priest is on vacations at the Bahamas ( with two blonde prostitutes, shhhhh)

You don't want me to make a list of all the insults Latinijral recieved before you read those he did? Do you? Are you making a contest of who did the best insult?

Good grief. It's not like I'm taking these out of context, either -- almost every single one of his later posts is like this. A 7 page list of posts of insults. It's rare to see one that is NOT purely an insult. He even admits to his modus operandi in This one (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60546&postcount=328) -- damn right he was trying to get banned, he thinks it's a "victory", nevermind that he was banned for flooding and the resulting disruption, not for what he thinks about James Randi... He'd stopped posting anything of substance long, long before he was banned.

So you think he was banned for insulting somebody at other board ?Any proof?

Also don't forget we took a hell of a lot more abuse than some other boards before he was finally banned. He tried to get banned for his opinions, and couldn't. Only then did he start with the blatant insults and "pseudo skeptic faggot" stuff in his own thread, and he found he couldn't get banned either. In the end he had to resort to flooding random threads with insults to people random and otherwise before Liv and VM decided that enough is enough.
Any evidence?


See why people keep accusing you of misrepresenting them? That's because you kind of do. I fail to understand how you could derive anything remotely resembling that from what you quoted above.

I think the same from you. And I don't need to use the word "people " to support my opinion.



Non-sequitor. He wasn't banned because people were offended. He was banned because he had finally escalated to the point where he was becoming disruptive. If that hadn't been enough, I have no doubt he would have escalated further to achieve his stated goal of being banned.


Escalated is a subjective term. Do you allow trolling only once a day? Once a week? Two times for day? Only to a single poster? To "everybody" but not for you?
Make your own menu and put it on the rules.


I think he showed the weakness of the philosophy of this board. Indeed. Fortunately that seems to have been rectified.
According to them they never rectified. They did what they had to do , no matter was against their initial philosophy ( foolosophy? ).
And they will continue. Their philosophy is still with weakness.
But the board are not the rules, niether what the administrators think it should be. The board are the posters and what they write.
And some posters here has very interesting points of view. A very few , but it is enough for me.That doesn't mean I agree with them.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Carlos]

Carlos they are picking on me too.
Hi Pink Rose:

Pickers.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Gurdur]

.....But since you think I will be impressed because I read some insults ,..... Are you making a contest of who did the best insult?
....
.....Any evidence?

Good one, Carlos, first off you demand proof, then you ignore it, then you demand some more proof.
I have an idea for you and latin, Carlos: piss off and start your own bulletin board, if you have such "problems" with everyone else's.

[Carlos]

.....But since you think I will be impressed because I read some insults ,..... Are you making a contest of who did the best insult?
....
.....Any evidence?

Good one, Carlos, first off you demand proof, then you ignore it, then you demand some more proof.
I have an idea for you and latin, Carlos: piss off and start your own bulletin board, if you have such "problems" with everyone else's.

Define "everyone" and "problems".

Thanks,
Carlos

[Gurdur]

Define "everyone" and "problems".
Thanks,
Carlos
No, instead, why don't you quit playing stupid games, and if you and latin have a different "philosophy", start your own bulletin board, instead of whining about all the other bulletin boards ?

[Corona688]

Yes. It's not like anything is edited out here except for spam and personal information as per the rules, and I was around for the whole fracas. If you think otherwise, the search feature is available for your persual.

I already read where Latinijral wrote. Now it is time for you to do it.Start with the thread latinijral created.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203 I read every single post latinj made in order to ensure I properly understood the situation before replying. Every single ones, not just the once with juicy quotes. I do not think you can say as much in your perusal of my posts; you missed a great deal of context.Your opinion was not shared by the majority of this forum. Irrelevant. FF is not a democracy, and latinj was not banned because of my opinion of him. I have no more clout here than you do.I didn't know you can predict the future. Anyone can "predict the future" to a certain degree, given enough information.

FACT: latinj stated that his goal was to get banned.
FACT: latinj has gotten himself banned on at least 4 other forums.
FACT: latinj's modus operandi, observed from these, is to escalate until he is banned.
FACT: latinj's behavior was escalating.

If he'd been banned from one or two forums I might not be so certain, but FOUR? Weighing the possibility of systematic pseudo-skeptical conspiratorial suppression across many corners of the internet versus the possibility of latinj being an incorrigible troll, the latter seems far more likely, especially when that's what he behaves like.

From this, I extrapolated that latinj quite probably is not going to get any better, instead he's likely to get worse, escalating until banishment.Define "many people". You weren't here to experience it, so that's a good honest question.

At the height of his flooding, latinj had posted insults in enough threads to make the "recent posts" part of the forum index essentialy useless -- all they would take you to is off-topic derails floods of insults, and posts from other users were extremely sparse. Whether they were complaining about it or not, I feel latinj was clearly keeping many people away, a fact substantiated by that poll I made -- extremely few people were ignoring him.WOW! You even made a poll about him.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2915 Indeed I did. It had been suggested that if a critical number of posters ignored latinj instead of responding to him, he might get bored of trolling here and go away. I doubted we'd get enough, but instead of claiming that without facts, I made a poll to measure it.The results of your poll were against your expectations ? On the contrary, that's pretty much what I expected. If people were by and large ignoring him he wouldn't have been so effective at disrupting the forum.Are you really sure the people who voted YES , really had him on ignore? No, but by the same token I doubt most of them lied either. The best I ever expected was a sort of general picture.

And no, I didn't miss that post. The ignore features were broken at the time, so was still aware of his defacement of the thread even if I didn't know what he said."People"? You and who else?Why don't you try "another" poll? Point taken. I will limit "people" to "another person in this thread".Is that all you got? Most of them don't contain "the people he called pseudo skeptic faggot". I asked only for those. Is "pseudo skeptic faggot" of any particular significance I'm unaware of? Limiting instances of pointless insults to that particular one is like trying to say "fcuk you" isn't an insult because it's not literally the same as "fuck you".You don't want me to make a list of all the insults Latinijral recieved before you read those he did? Do you? Are you making a contest of who did the best insult? People here can give as good as they get, I don't deny that at all. My point is not who has the better insults, nor who started it, but that latinj's posts tended to be nothing but insults -- no discussion, no point at all, just insults.

Do you understand the significance of that? It rules out everything. There is nothing he could have been doing except trolling, and nothing that could possibly be accomplished except disruption.

Other people generally have the decency to not pop into random threads for the sole purpose of informing people they're faggots. latinj had no such decency.So you think he was banned for insulting somebody at other board ?Any proof? Nice try, but the goalposts stay where they are.

He says his goal is to get banned, that he feels he's accomplished something when this happens. He also appears to be very good at this, having gotten himself ejected from at least 4 other boards. He was banned for his behavior here, but I believe it's his behavior on other boards that convinced the admins not to warn him first -- that would be pointless since his behavior is unlikely to change, and would give him a chance at a "parting shot". (admins, if I'm wrong, please correct me.)Also don't forget we took a hell of a lot more abuse than some other boards before he was finally banned. He tried to get banned for his opinions, and couldn't. Only then did he start with the blatant insults and "pseudo skeptic faggot" stuff in his own thread, and he found he couldn't get banned either. In the end he had to resort to flooding random threads with insults to people random and otherwise before Liv and VM decided that enough is enough.
Any evidence?[/quote] On IIDB he'd be warned then banned rapidly for all the insults he flings around, but I will admit perhaps I overstated my point in that respect.

As for his pattern here, that is much clearer:

03-27-2005: First Post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51263#post51263). No insults directed at anybody, but an unpopular viewpoint, and frankly spam, cut-and-pasted from elsewhere.
Between this, heated argument, can't blame anyone for that.
4-14-2005: First all-insult post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56763&postcount=249)
05-12-2005: First all-insult derail of thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68371&postcount=39). Actual discussion on his part no longer occurs after this point.
05-16-2005: All-insult thread Derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2842)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69784&postcount=24)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69857&postcount=28)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69875&postcount=16)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69887&postcount=20)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69891&postcount=4)
05-17-2005: Unmistakable Trolling (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70119&postcount=1)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70396&postcount=131)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70428&postcount=29)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70430&postcount=19)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70607&postcount=6)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70612&postcount=20)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70910&postcount=451)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70915&postcount=21)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70923&postcount=5)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71031&postcount=24)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71036&postcount=12)
05-20-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71203&postcount=4)
Banned Starting on the 17th, he derailed 17 threads in 2 days posting nothing but off-topic insults, and didn't stop until he was banned. On a board this size, that doesn't leave much NOT derailed. If that's not a pattern, nothing is.
See why people keep accusing you of misrepresenting them? That's because you kind of do. I fail to understand how you could derive anything remotely resembling that from what you quoted above.

I think the same from you. And I don't need to use the word "people " to support my opinion. If I were twisting your words to make you say things you didn't, I'd be misrepresenting you. Thus far my argument hasn't really dealt with you at all; you weren't there, afterall.
Non-sequitor. He wasn't banned because people were offended. He was banned because he had finally escalated to the point where he was becoming disruptive. If that hadn't been enough, I have no doubt he would have escalated further to achieve his stated goal of being banned.

Escalated is a subjective term. Do you allow trolling only once a day? Once a week? Two times for day? Only to a single poster? To "everybody" but not for you? 17 threads derailed in 2 days with posts consisting purely of insults and NOTHING else -- 17 DIFFERENT threads, mind you, I didn't count them twice. On a board this small, he didn't leave many stones unturned! This is what I mean by "disruption".

Nearly half his total number of posts occurred in the 3 days leading up to his banning, though he'd been here several weeks. Unlike his previous posts, nearly all of these were insults, probably in an attempt to get banned. This is what I mean by "escalation".

And again, what my critera are for banning really doesn't matter worth a damn. I can't ban anybody, censor anybody, or what have you. All I'm saying is I agree with Liv and VM's decision to ban latinj for a variety of reasons which I think are really quite good.According to them they never rectified. They did what they had to do , no matter was against their initial philosophy ( foolosophy? ).
And they will continue. Their philosophy is still with weakness.
But the board are not the rules, niether what the administrators think it should be. The board are the posters and what they write. I see what you're getting at. From that point of view, perhaps you are correct. I look at it differently.

[koan]

Excuse me, Carlos, I believed that latin was trying to get banned. .

Hi Koan:
You made me remember a story ( a kind of bad joke) :

At the news : " A man was found dead at his house. The death body presented 8 shots from a gun in his chest, 6 injured hurts in his back produced by a knife. The police (authority) report was : SUICIDE "

Thanks,
Carlos

I was thinking it was more like a guy walking into a tough bar where guns are permitted (let's say we're in a western flick) the guy pulls out a bb gun and starts firing. When he is met with one hundred real bullets in response he cries "murder" because he only had bbs. Reality: pull guns in guntoting country and your bound to die.

edit: in this scenario the idiot pulling the bb gun in the bar pretty much committed suicide

[viscousmemories]

Why don't you explain about your antagonism to Claus Larsen.
You were not defending Latinijral as you claimed here.
That's because my feelings about Claus Larsen and whether or not my whole intent was to defend latinijral are both irrelevant, of course. Why have you avoided acknowledging the fact that I proved that latinijral had repeatedly attacked me as you requested?

[Carlos]

I already read where Latinijral wrote. Now it is time for you to do it.Start with the thread latinijral created.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203 I read every single post latinj made in order to ensure I properly understood the situation before replying. Every single ones, not just the once with juicy quotes. I do not think you can say as much in your perusal of my posts; you missed a great deal of context.

Let me expalin you how I select what to read and what to respond and to whom to respond.
*The opening post must be interesting to me.
*The topic must be interesting to me.
*The people( no matter they are few) who are writing on that topic , must write something new to me or at least controversial.
*I respond to every person who quote me , that is polite enough and that is asking a response from me.
*If that person ( you for example) doesn't fix on my first 3 points, and is debating with me about something (in your case: Latinijral), I use to investigate what you wrote about it .

I am so sorry your other posts didn't interest me so far. I will try to do it on the future.


Irrelevant. FF is not a democracy, and latinj was not banned because of my opinion of him. I have no more clout here than you do.

You must be proud at least with the dictators ( authorities?), You were part of the campaign to ban him.They pleased you.

Anyone can "predict the future" to a certain degree, given enough information.

FACT: latinj stated that his goal was to get banned.
FACT: latinj has gotten himself banned on at least 4 other forums.
FACT: latinj's modus operandi, observed from these, is to escalate until he is banned.
FACT: latinj's behavior was escalating.

If he'd been banned from one or two forums I might not be so certain, but FOUR? Weighing the possibility of systematic pseudo-skeptical conspiratorial suppression across many corners of the internet versus the possibility of latinj being an incorrigible troll, the latter seems far more likely, especially when that's what he behaves like.

From this, I extrapolated that latinj quite probably is not going to get any better, instead he's likely to get worse, escalating until banishment.

FOUR, five , six BOARDS, who cares the number? The main thing is if he broke any rule to be banned.



At the height of his flooding, latinj had posted insults in enough threads to make the "recent posts" part of the forum index essentialy useless -- all they would take you to is off-topic derails floods of insults, and posts from other users were extremely sparse. Whether they were complaining about it or not, I feel latinj was clearly keeping many people away, a fact substantiated by that poll I made -- extremely few people were ignoring him.

Your poll? Your poll and every poll of that kind is a nonsense and inmature IMO. Be real.

WOW! You even made a poll about him.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2915 Indeed I did. It had been suggested that if a critical number of posters ignored latinj instead of responding to him, he might get bored of trolling here and go away. I doubted we'd get enough, but instead of claiming that without facts, I made a poll to measure it.
You measured what?

The results of your poll were against your expectations ? On the contrary, that's pretty much what I expected. If people were by and large ignoring him he wouldn't have been so effective at disrupting the forum.

Not even you ignored him. Get real. Latinijral never get ignored. Not even on the other 4 forums. Or you think you were original with your poll?

Are you really sure the people who voted YES , really had him on ignore? No, but by the same token I doubt most of them lied either. The best I ever expected was a sort of general picture.

You will never be sure if you are doing a nonsense poll. Don't take this as an offense or insult to you. Latinijral was posting at the board by the time you did the poll, some guys can find offensive and juvenile this kind of polls.


"People"? You and who else?Why don't you try "another" poll? Point taken. I will limit "people" to "another person in this thread".

When you use "people" and "everybody" ,you always sound like a lot or all the people are with you.


Is that all you got? Most of them don't contain "the people he called pseudo skeptic faggot". I asked only for those. Is "pseudo skeptic faggot" of any particular significance I'm unaware of? Limiting instances of pointless insults to that particular one is like trying to say "fcuk you" isn't an insult because it's not literally the same as "fuck you".

Please try to read again what you wrote and what I asked you. You were the one who said Latinijral called "pseudo skeptic faggots" to all the people.


You don't want me to make a list of all the insults Latinijral recieved before you read those he did? Do you? Are you making a contest of who did the best insult? People here can give as good as they get, I don't deny that at all. My point is not who has the better insults, nor who started it, but that latinj's posts tended to be nothing but insults -- no discussion, no point at all, just insults.

You are totally wrong. Are you aware of how many posts Latinijral did?How many days he posted? Your statics are wrong.
Now try to recollect all the insults Latinijral had before his "escalation". Maybe you will need three days to do it.


Other people generally have the decency to not pop into random threads for the sole purpose of informing people they're faggots. latinj had no such decency.

Do you prefer when people pop into random threads for informing people they are "assholes"instead of "faggots"?
Do you feel touched ? Did he called you faggot? Are you gay?Is faggot a big insult?



So you think he was banned for insulting somebody at other board ?Any proof? Nice try, but the goalposts stay where they are.

He says his goal is to get banned,

Where? The "victory" stuff? About getting banned because he proved the double standards of the board?


that he feels he's accomplished something when this happens. He also appears to be very good at this, having gotten himself ejected from at least 4 other boards. He was banned for his behavior here, but I believe it's his behavior on other boards that convinced the admins not to warn him first -- that would be pointless since his behavior is unlikely to change, and would give him a chance at a "parting shot". (admins, if I'm wrong, please correct me.)

If somebody thinks Latinijral wants to come back , let me tell you that you will have to beg louder to him. He proved his point. Maybe he is laughing at you.It is not Latinijral style to come back. He is not Terminator.
Anyway, try.


Any evidence? On IIDB he'd be warned then banned rapidly for all the insults he flings around, but I will admit perhaps I overstated my point in that respect.

As for his pattern here, that is much clearer:

03-27-2005: First Post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51263#post51263). No insults directed at anybody, but an unpopular viewpoint, and frankly spam, cut-and-pasted from elsewhere.
Between this, heated argument, can't blame anyone for that.
4-14-2005: First all-insult post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56763&postcount=249)
05-12-2005: First all-insult derail of thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68371&postcount=39). Actual discussion on his part no longer occurs after this point.
05-16-2005: All-insult thread Derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2842)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69784&postcount=24)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69857&postcount=28)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69875&postcount=16)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69887&postcount=20)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69891&postcount=4)
05-17-2005: Unmistakable Trolling (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70119&postcount=1)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70396&postcount=131)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70428&postcount=29)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70430&postcount=19)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70607&postcount=6)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70612&postcount=20)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70910&postcount=451)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70915&postcount=21)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70923&postcount=5)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71031&postcount=24)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71036&postcount=12)
05-20-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71203&postcount=4)
Banned Starting on the 17th, he derailed 17 threads in 2 days posting nothing but off-topic insults, and didn't stop until he was banned. On a board this size, that doesn't leave much NOT derailed. If that's not a pattern, nothing is.

Derailed ? He was ever on topic. He made good advices. He was funny. Yes , he insulted a lot , but insults are permited here. Nothing new. If you didn't liked his style you should it ignored him ( I mean, for real).




I think the same from you. And I don't need to use the word "people " to support my opinion. If I were twisting your words to make you say things you didn't, I'd be misrepresenting you. Thus far my argument hasn't really dealt with you at all; you weren't there, afterall.

You keep thinking I am defending Latinijral on this thread.


Escalated is a subjective term. Do you allow trolling only once a day? Once a week? Two times for day? Only to a single poster? To "everybody" but not for you? 17 threads derailed in 2 days with posts consisting purely of insults and NOTHING else -- 17 DIFFERENT threads, mind you, I didn't count them twice. On a board this small, he didn't leave many stones unturned! This is what I mean by "disruption".

Nearly half his total number of posts occurred in the 3 days leading up to his banning, though he'd been here several weeks. Unlike his previous posts, nearly all of these were insults, probably in an attempt to get banned. This is what I mean by "escalation".

And where is the "escalation" rule to be banned?

According to them they never rectified. They did what they had to do , no matter was against their initial philosophy ( foolosophy? ).
And they will continue. Their philosophy is still with weakness.
But the board are not the rules, niether what the administrators think it should be. The board are the posters and what they write. I see what you're getting at. From that point of view, perhaps you are correct. I look at it differently.

I understand , you are on your right to defend Liv and VM's decision to ban Latinijral, but on the records you will find he was banned because an "special cirscunstance" that was not at the rules he signed. He didn't brake any rule.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Carlos]

Why don't you explain about your antagonism to Claus Larsen.
You were not defending Latinijral as you claimed here.
That's because my feelings about Claus Larsen and whether or not my whole intent was to defend latinijral are both irrelevant, of course.

Let me get this thing clear. You were not the one who claimed to be defending Latinijral ? You even brought that topic here.
So you don't want to confess your antagonism with Claus Larsen?OK


Why have you avoided acknowledging the fact that I proved that latinijral had repeatedly attacked me as you requested?bv

What? I understand now your defensive attitude.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Farren]

His goal seemed to be to make this forum unlivable, and had he not been banned, I am of the opinion he would have succeeded.

Your opinion was not shared by the majority of this forum.
I didn't know you can predict the future.



Carlos, lick your finger and hold it up to the wind. Which way is it blowing? East? Ding ding ding! WRONG!

You need to get that finger serviced.

[viscousmemories]

Why don't you explain about your antagonism to Claus Larsen.
You were not defending Latinijral as you claimed here.
That's because my feelings about Claus Larsen and whether or not my whole intent was to defend latinijral are both irrelevant, of course.
Let me get this thing clear. You were not the one who claimed to be defending Latinijral ? You even brought that topic here.
Okay, I can see I'm not being clear enough for you to understand so let me try to rephrase it. Claus made an insulting comment to latinijral which appeared to me to be in violation of the forum rules there. However, the comment was not edited and the moderators said nothing. So, I started a thread to ask what us users were expected to do in such a situation. I was only "defending" latinijral in an indirect sense, as he was the subject of Claus' insult. I was not "defending" latinijral because I disagreed with Claus. On the contrary, in my opinion what Claus said about him was indisputably true.
So you don't want to confess your antagonism with Claus Larsen?OK
I try not to make a habit of talking shit about people behind their backs, and as far as I know Claus doesn't even know this forum exists. Nevertheless, anyone who reads my posts at JREF, SC and/or SkepticForum and finds the relatively few interactions I've had with him would probably be able to deduce that I'm not his biggest fan.
Why have you avoided acknowledging the fact that I proved that latinijral had repeatedly attacked me as you requested?bvWhat? I understand now your defensive attitude.
Okay, so I assume that you now understand that you were wrong when you claimed that latinijral never repeatedly attacked me. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.

[Carlos]

Let me get this thing clear. You were not the one who claimed to be defending Latinijral ? You even brought that topic here.
Okay, I can see I'm not being clear enough for you to understand so let me try to rephrase it. Claus made an insulting comment to latinijral which appeared to me to be in violation of the forum rules there.

All those skeptics forums! When are you going to learn they dedicate, make the rules only to Latinijral ?The rules are not for the fanatics of the owners of the forum.!


However, the comment was not edited and the moderators said nothing. So, I started a thread to ask what us users were expected to do in such a situation. I was only "defending" latinijral in an indirect sense, as he was the subject of Claus' insult. I was not "defending" latinijral because I disagreed with Claus. On the contrary, in my opinion what Claus said about him was indisputably true.

WOW! You should edit your post here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60344&postcount=312
Bolds are yours:
"So in other words you are now aware of the fact that I was actually defending you in the post that you claimed was an attempt on my part to get you banned, yet instead of thanking me for defending you, you accuse me of being a coward because I wasn't "direct enough".



So you don't want to confess your antagonism with Claus Larsen?OK
I try not to make a habit of talking shit about people behind their backs, and as far as I know Claus doesn't even know this forum exists. Nevertheless, anyone who reads my posts at JREF, SC and/or SkepticForum and finds the relatively few interactions I've had with him would probably be able to deduce that I'm not his biggest fan.

It is curious, you like to go bitching about moderation on other boards? Was Cleopatra who called you like that at the JREF forum?
Now, Coincidentaly you go bitching again to a post of Larsen. When are you going to learn about how fanatism is on those boards?
Let those "dirty" things to Latinijral, he knows how to do it.He is direct enough.He doesn't care if he get banned.



What? I understand now your defensive attitude.
Okay, so I assume that you now understand that you were wrong when you claimed that latinijral never repeatedly attacked me. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.
You are assuming wrong.
I am the one who is waiting your response why you wrote "He's attacked me and livius repeatedly since signing up here".
As I told you before , he treated you and Liv with respect most of the time, no matter you allowed ( and got silence or laugh) the insults to him since the very beginning he signed here.
Will you please alaborate : "since signing up here".Did you mean from the "very beginning"?

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

WOW! You should edit your post here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60344&postcount=312
Bolds are yours:
"So in other words you are now aware of the fact that I was actually defending you in the post that you claimed was an attempt on my part to get you banned, yet instead of thanking me for defending you, you accuse me of being a coward because I wasn't "direct enough".
I know what I wrote and I have not contradicted myself. You need to read more carefully, I won't explain it again.

It is curious, you like to go bitching about moderation on other boards? Was Cleopatra who called you like that at the JREF forum?
Now, Coincidentaly you go bitching again to a post of Larsen. When are you going to learn about how fanatism is on those boards?
Let those "dirty" things to Latinijral, he knows how to do it.He is direct enough.He doesn't care if he get banned.
And ironically you appear to have registered here primarily to bitch about our administration of this forum, just like you're bitching about the administration of all these skeptic forums. When are you going to learn?

What? I understand now your defensive attitude.
Okay, so I assume that you now understand that you were wrong when you claimed that latinijral never repeatedly attacked me. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.
You are assuming wrong.
I am the one who is waiting your response why you wrote "He's attacked me and livius repeatedly since signing up here".
As I told you before , he treated you and Liv with respect most of the time, no matter you allowed ( and got silence or laugh) the insults to him since the very beginning he signed here.
Will you please alaborate : "since signing up here".Did you mean from the "very beginning"?
No, I didn't mean that he attacked us consistently from the very beginning. I meant that in the span of time between when he signed up here and when we banned him he attacked us repeatedly. I've already explained that from every other possible angle I can imagine, so if you persist in maintaining that he was respectful toward us "most of the time" I will assume you are being deliberately dishonest.

And with that I have already spent more time than I wanted on this thread, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't get a chance to say anything more to you here.

[Carlos]

WOW! You should edit your post here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60344&postcount=312
Bolds are yours:
"So in other words you are now aware of the fact that I was actually defending you in the post that you claimed was an attempt on my part to get you banned, yet instead of thanking me for defending you, you accuse me of being a coward because I wasn't "direct enough".
I know what I wrote and I have not contradicted myself. You need to read more carefully, I won't explain it again.
If you think so.
It is saved for posterity.

It is curious, you like to go bitching about moderation on other boards? Was Cleopatra who called you like that at the JREF forum?
Now, Coincidentaly you go bitching again to a post of Larsen. When are you going to learn about how fanatism is on those boards?
Let those "dirty" things to Latinijral, he knows how to do it.He is direct enough.He doesn't care if he get banned.
And ironically you appear to have registered here primarily to bitch about our administration of this forum, just like you're bitching about the administration of all these skeptic forums. When are you going to learn?

Bitching you? Not at all! This is not an skeptic Forum!
I just wanted to be sure if you like bitching about unfair moderation on the boards.
It is ironic! You like it! Like me!


You are assuming wrong.
I am the one who is waiting your response why you wrote "He's attacked me and livius repeatedly since signing up here".
As I told you before , he treated you and Liv with respect most of the time, no matter you allowed ( and got silence or laugh) the insults to him since the very beginning he signed here.
Will you please alaborate : "since signing up here".Did you mean from the "very beginning"?
No, I didn't mean that he attacked us consistently from the very beginning. I meant that in the span of time between when he signed up here and when we banned him he attacked us repeatedly.
Next time put it that way. To many hiperbolic and indirect responses make people missunderstand your real honest intentions.


I've already explained that from every other possible angle I can imagine, so if you persist in maintaining that he was respectful toward us "most of the time" I will assume you are being deliberately dishonest.

Most of the time : How many months he was here? It is just a matter of "time".Dishonest in which way?


And with that I have already spent more time than I wanted on this thread, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't get a chance to say anything more to you here.
You already showed yourself the way I expected.
Have fun . I am writing on some other topics.

Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Next time put it that way. To many hiperbolic and indirect responses make people missunderstand your real honest intentions.
It would be impossible for me to phrase things in such a way that everyone will understand exactly what I mean every time. I expect people to ocassionally have to ask for clarification and I don't mind giving it. What I mind is when people appear to be trying to twist my responses to satisfy their foregone conclusions.

Most of the time : How many months he was here? It is just a matter of "time".Dishonest in which way?
I have already quoted a number of examples of latinijral being disrespectful and insulting to me. Can you quote all the examples of him speaking to me respectfully? If he was respectful "most of the time" then you shouldn't have any difficulty with that.

You already showed yourself the way I expected.
I'm not surprised. Some people have an amazing capacity for seeing what they want to see. Your comments here have proven to me that you don't know the first thing about who I am or what I believe in, nor do you seem to fully understand our rationale for administrating this forum as we have. But you seem to be more interested in passing judgement on our forum "foolosophy" (as you so quaintly put it) than in really understanding it, so I don't expect your opinion will change.

[Corona688]

Let me expalin you how I select what to read and what to respond and to whom to respond.
*The opening post must be interesting to me.
*The topic must be interesting to me.
*The people( no matter they are few) who are writing on that topic , must write something new to me or at least controversial.
*I respond to every person who quote me , that is polite enough and that is asking a response from me.
*If that person ( you for example) doesn't fix on my first 3 points, and is debating with me about something (in your case: Latinijral), I use to investigate what you wrote about it . It is the 'investigative' part you've got a bit off. The filters you apply to what you read cause you to miss a great deal of context.I am so sorry your other posts didn't interest me so far. I will try to do it on the future. You'd do well to remember that just because you don't find something interesting, doesn't mean it's not relevant.
Irrelevant. FF is not a democracy, and latinj was not banned because of my opinion of him. I have no more clout here than you do.

You must be proud at least with the dictators ( authorities?), You were part of the campaign to ban him.They pleased you. Actually, no, not entirely. You are correct in that latinj was not banned for a specific rule. There's ongoing arguments as to whether he fell under the spamming rule or not, but that's not why he was banned at the time even if they decide he is.

Let's get to the root of this. The rules didn't pop out of nowhere, Liv and VM made them; nor does anyone pretend they are perfect or complete; nor are they supposed to be an immutable moral high ground. They are there to prevent and deal with problems on this message board.

Spammers, for instance, were a problem that weren't covered under the rules. When this became obvious, a new anti-spam rule was added to deal with it. Were rules and principles compromised because Liv and VM decided to change the rules to disallow spam? No! The rules aren't there to sit there and be perfect, they're to deal with problems. Spam was a problem they wanted to deal with, and the rules needed modification to do so.

They also judged latinj to be a problem. Did they violate the rules in banning latinj? No! The rules aren't there to sit there and look perfect, they're there to deal with problems. Once they took care of the emergency, they sat back and decided precisely what they wanted to do with the rules, and in fact I'm not entirely happy with their solution. It's certainly better than no solution at all, though.FOUR, five , six BOARDS, who cares the number? The main thing is if he broke any rule to be banned. The Rules aren't perfect, immutable laws handed down from on-high, and they don't serve as a moral high ground. The rules here are created by Liv and VM for the purpose of dealing with problems. VM and Liv decided that latinj was a problem sufficient to warrant banning of.

And frankly, I don't give a damn what rules he didn't break to get banned elsewhere. Rules are there to deal with problems, and if the rules are what's preventing a legitimate problem from being dealt with it's time to fix the rules. If his behavior here is any indication, they did well to get rid of him.

Actively trying to get banned isn't some noble endeavor. In his own mind maybye he thinks he's some kind of noble crusader, but all his behavior amounts to is finding new and interesting ways of disrupting things as much as he possibly can. I cannot imagine a single reason why any board anywhere would want to tolerate that kind of behavior, and any board that refuses to deal with it isn't the sort of place human beings would want to inhabit.Your poll? Your poll and every poll of that kind is a nonsense and inmature IMO. Be real. That seems to be the way it turned out, yes. People just posted all their opinions. Assume the worst of me if it makes you feel better, that is not why I created it.You measured what? The intention was to measure the proportion of people ignoring him. I don't really trust the results any farther than saying the number of people ignoring him is smaller than the number of people not.Not even you ignored him. I ignored his posts, but I did not ignore his effect on this forum.You will never be sure if you are doing a nonsense poll. Or any other kind of poll, for that matter. That's statistics for you. That's life for you.Is "pseudo skeptic faggot" of any particular significance I'm unaware of? Limiting instances of pointless insults to that particular one is like trying to say "fcuk you" isn't an insult because it's not literally the same as "fuck you".

Please try to read again what you wrote and what I asked you. You were the one who said Latinijral called everyone a "pseudo skeptic faggot". Again, what is the significance of "pseudo skeptic faggot"? My point, as I've been telling you for some time now, is that he was pointlessly insulting, frequently insulting, and by the time he was banned, was doing nothing but insulting people. Is this really the kind of behavior you want to defend?People here can give as good as they get, I don't deny that at all. My point is not who has the better insults, nor who started it, but that latinj's posts tended to be nothing but insults -- no discussion, no point at all, just insults.

You are totally wrong. Are you aware of how many posts Latinijral did? How many days he posted? Your statics are wrong. I am aware of how many posts he made. Many of his earlier posts were, in fact, substantive, even if I disagree with them. At some point he stopped trying and did his best at being a complete nuisance instead.

Which seems natural enough. In the face of unfriendly people familiar with his personality and arguments, what else could he do? Use this forum's ignore features, contribute to other threads, meet other people that don't disagree with him? Of course not, that wouldn't be fair. latinj shouldn't have to behave, that's what everyone except him is supposed to do. Normal standards should not apply to The Mighty Latinj, board-crushing crusader of good and true skepticism and exposer of hypocrisy far and wide.

Fair is fair. We must understand and forgive him, nay, LAUD him when he gets provoked and goes batshit for the same shit we're expected to politely sit and take from him. Nothing could be more honest and less hypocritical.Now try to recollect all the insults Latinijral had before his "escalation". Maybe you will need three days to do it. Irrelevant. Nobody but latinj undertook themselves to disrupt the board itself on a large scale, despite insults being allowed here. Nobody but latinj abandoned all pretense of discussion to pour streams of pure insults into threads that had nothing to do with them or their argument. Latinj did. Why are his insults excusable, and insults to him not?
Other people generally have the decency to not pop into random threads for the sole purpose of informing people they're faggots. latinj had no such decency.

Do you prefer when people pop into random threads for informing people they are "assholes"instead of "faggots"? Simply put, no. I see no redeeming virtue nor any point of discussion in either.Do you feel touched? Did he called you faggot? Are you gay? Is faggot a big insult? Absolutely. I used faggot a an example because I'm the biggest fat faggot in the world. He was absolutely correct about the many other people he called faggots too.

latinj's pointedly on-topic and germane announcements of our suppressed homosexuality inspire anger in us because we wish to conceal the truth. After all, "faggot" is not a term term extremely offensive to heterosexuals, homosexuals, and any other kind of sexual that thinks and breathes. Not once can I ever recall him using a word for it's provocative, insulting shock value. latinj's posts were the furthest thing from my mind when I picked that random example -- it wasn't random at all! I picked that word because I'm the biggest fat faggot in the world, and for some reason it bothers me.Where? The "victory" stuff? About getting banned because he proved the double standards of the board? Yes, precisely that. If somebody thinks Latinijral wants to come back , let me tell you that you will have to beg louder to him. He proved his point. Maybe he is laughing at you. It is not Latinijral style to come back. He is not Terminator.
Anyway, try.You know what Carlos? You're absolutely right. I advocated banning him because he was brilliant, a light of truth and a sharpness of wit too bright for my feeble eyes and mind to tolerate. It... frightened me.

His very presence, on ignore or not, terrified my hateful little brain so badly that the only thing to do was to have him cast out.

I never believed he was a nuisance and a severe detriment to this board. I abused my considerable administrational clout and lied about it to VM and liv... I explained that he cut up puppies, boiled them alive, and ATE them. For my crime, latinj was banned. And now that he's gone I must compound my shame by begging for him to come back! I'm sorry for all that I've done. 03-27-2005: First Post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51263#post51263). No insults directed at anybody, but an unpopular viewpoint, and frankly spam, cut-and-pasted from elsewhere.
Between this, heated argument, can't blame anyone for that.
4-14-2005: First all-insult post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56763&postcount=249)
05-12-2005: First all-insult derail of thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68371&postcount=39). Actual discussion on his part no longer occurs after this point.
05-16-2005: All-insult thread Derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2842)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69784&postcount=24)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69857&postcount=28)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69875&postcount=16)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69887&postcount=20)
05-17-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69891&postcount=4)
05-17-2005: Unmistakable Trolling (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70119&postcount=1)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70396&postcount=131)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70428&postcount=29)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70430&postcount=19)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70607&postcount=6)
05-18-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70612&postcount=20)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70910&postcount=451)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70915&postcount=21)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70923&postcount=5)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71031&postcount=24)
05-19-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71036&postcount=12)
05-20-2005: All-insult thread derail (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=71203&postcount=4)
Banned Starting on the 17th, he derailed 17 threads in 2 days posting nothing but off-topic insults, and didn't stop until he was banned. On a board this size, that doesn't leave much NOT derailed. If that's not a pattern, nothing is.

Derailed ? He was ever on topic.I'm one of those freaks who find pleasure in placing things in ABC and chronological order. Is there anyway that we could have better control over the order that we place the pics so that they can better be organized?

You are so vain.............and jealous :popcorn:

:wave: You're right! Telling someone they're vain and jealous in response to a query about forum features isn't off-topic at all. Also, what sort of texture and consistency does human meat have?

The same sort of texture and consistency your BIG FAT ASS has!

:wave: And neither is this! There is no way this post could have been considered offensive. He just felt the need to point out that moose's human flesh, the gluteus maximus in particular, probably tastes the same as everyone else's. And a remarkable insight it was -- not the sort of thing one's likely to realize without it being pointed out.He made good advices. He was funny. 1.)Be yourself! (only a little bit better)

2.)Relax and enjoy yourself - (but that doesn't mean taking off your socks and lying on the couch)

3.) Be attentive (but not like a stalker)
:yup:

Translation :

1.)Be yourself! (only a little bit better)--->"Be like Latinijral"

2.)Relax and enjoy yourself - (but that doesn't mean taking off your socks and lying on the couch)---->"Take off all the hats you wear".

3.) Be attentive (but not like a stalker)---> "introduce her first to Latinijral"

Another stupid asshole asking for advice of how to ....deal with ( whatever).... a woman.

:wave: You're right again! Look at that advice. It's only natural for him to advise people to behave like him. It's not the slightest bit of public insult and self-aggrandizement to advise people to act like him -- everyone loves him, and we all know it.

And there's nothing more productive he could have done than point out to someone they're an asshole. It was for the good of the community -- the shock of such statement, coming from him of all people, cracks our social shells and forces us to reveal our true selves. Thank you, Dr. Science.Yes , he insulted a lot , but insults are permited here. Nothing new. If you didn't liked his style you should it ignored him ( I mean, for real). Yessiree, you caught me good, I'm a hypocrite. There's no way I could have ignored him -- how could I have noticed any of his effects if I had? The ignore features were working perfectly, and besides, I'm the only one who ever had a problem with him. The admins were playing along just to make me happy, dontcha know.

Next time someone starts posting insults in every thread they can find, I'll follow the example latinj's displayed when he encountered unfriendlies -- he never said a word in anger, never responded in kind... he was always a rational man; when the going got too tough for him he just put his shrewish oppressors on ignore and carried on without them.

And by golly, he had every reason to! Ignoring someone solves everything. Threads can't be derailed, discussion can't be quashed, and the board cannot be made an ugly, hateful place when you ignore it because your ignore feature defines the world.If I were twisting your words to make you say things you didn't, I'd be misrepresenting you. Thus far my argument hasn't really dealt with you at all; you weren't there, afterall.You keep thinking I am defending Latinijral on this thread. This is a source of confusion for me as well. You say you're not defending him, and yet, you offer excuses for his behavior. Why offer excuses for behavior you don't think is wrong?17 threads derailed in 2 days with posts consisting purely of insults and NOTHING else -- 17 DIFFERENT threads, mind you, I didn't count them twice. On a board this small, he didn't leave many stones unturned! This is what I mean by "disruption".

Nearly half his total number of posts occurred in the 3 days leading up to his banning, though he'd been here several weeks. Unlike his previous posts, nearly all of these were insults, probably in an attempt to get banned. This is what I mean by "escalation". And where is the "escalation" rule to be banned? You know, that's a good point. The rules are completely immutable -- we can't change them to keep out spammers, for instance. They aren't there to help manage the board or anything practical like that - they're pure philosopy. Anyone with the ego to think they are incomplete or improvable is obviously missing the point.I understand , you are on your right to defend Liv and VM's decision to ban Latinijral, but on the records you will find he was banned because an "special cirscunstance" that was not at the rules he signed.

He didn't brake any rule. I know that quite well. It's something I've argued with the administration about, in fact; I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the rule was implemented.


What it comes down to for me, is that behavior dictates rules, not vice versa. If people didn't post personal information on others without permission, it wouldn't need to be outlawed. If spammers weren't abusing Liv and VM's hospitality trying to make this board their private advertising vehicle, they wouldn't have made a rule against it.

You think he's laughing at us for being hypocrites? Consider this. If latinj hadn't been doing enough damage to make a bad precendent look like a better option than letting him stay, he wouldn't have been banned; and if his opinions and manner were enough to warrant banning he would have been banned long before he started his flooding campaign. The hypocrisy he believes he's uncovered is really nothing but damage control.

That's all I've got to say about this. Thanks for your patience. I know you probably still don't see things my way, but I hope you at least understand a little better.

[koan]

A couple of thoughts here, Carlos

1)I told latin that I thought he was fucking hilarious. It's true. In a world full of ass kissers and frightened people willing to do just about anything to be liked, I think it is ridiculously funny to find people who go out of their way to be disliked and even hated. It makes me giggle. I found it much easier to ignore than those who go about trying to win some kind of popularity contest.

2)This thread makes me giggle because for all your insistence some "crime" has been perpetrated you missed the most effective and profound argument (which I thought of about fifteen minutes into thought on the subject) I'm not going to tell you what it is because you weren't smart enough to think of it yourself.

3)I think that you get intense satisfaction that vm continues to respond to you and, if latin's "point" was to get banned from a forum that says it doesn't ban, I guess your "point" is to continue to engage people who say they have perfected ignore. Your victory would be an illusion since vm and liv can not employ ignore as the forum administrators.

4)What was amusing is now a waste of time as all your questions have been answered. If you don't realize this you are choosing to remain ignorant. If you do realize it then you admit that this topic can now be ignored by admin. So which is it? Are you stupid or satisfied?

I suggest you refer to point 2 before continuing :deadhorse: Why don't you challenge yourself to come up with a real argument?

[Gurdur]

He didn't brake any rule. I know that quite well. It's something I've argued with the administration about, in fact; I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the rule was implemented.
Well now, Corona688, you could have also pointed out that while latin did not "brake" any rule, he did the opposite and certainly did speed one up.
:yup:

[Carlos]

A couple of thoughts here, Carlos

1)I told latin that I thought he was fucking hilarious. It's true. In a world full of ass kissers and frightened people willing to do just about anything to be liked, I think it is ridiculously funny to find people who go out of their way to be disliked and even hated. It makes me giggle. I found it much easier to ignore than those who go about trying to win some kind of popularity contest.


Of course he was fucking hilarious when he decided to be fucking hilarious. But we must respect people who didn't think so the same about him, no matter they didn't respect what we think.

2)This thread makes me giggle because for all your insistence some "crime" has been perpetrated you missed the most effective and profound argument (which I thought of about fifteen minutes into thought on the subject) I'm not going to tell you what it is because you weren't smart enough to think of it yourself.

Just fifteen minutes ago? You are smarter than that.
Please , don't tell it . What is the point to tell it? If you find it , why anyone here could not. You don't consider yourself special , right?

3)I think that you get intense satisfaction that vm continues to respond to you and, if latin's "point" was to get banned from a forum that says it doesn't ban, I guess your "point" is to continue to engage people who say they have perfected ignore. Your victory would be an illusion since vm and liv can not employ ignore as the forum administrators.

You are missing my point. Take another 15 minutes to think about it.

4)What was amusing is now a waste of time as all your questions have been answered. If you don't realize this you are choosing to remain ignorant. If you do realize it then you admit that this topic can now be ignored by admin. So which is it? Are you stupid or satisfied?

I am stupidly satisfied you came here with your smart thoughts.

I suggest you refer to point 2 before continuing :deadhorse: Why don't you challenge yourself to come up with a real argument?

I am satisfied you were smarter to find it out by yourself.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Gurdur]

I am satisfied you were smarter to find it out by yourself.
Because you, Carlos, were not smart enough yourself to actually think up a good argument ?
tsk tsk tsk