Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) Please be advised that I'm a substance abuser in every sense of the word. I'm an alcoholic, drug addict, sex fiend, DOPE FIEND, heterosexual (and a strong supporter of heterosexual rights), hedonist... ...you name it and I'M IT!! With that admission I have to state that things often go over my noodle. Since I've been warned of an impending suspension I feel that this board rule should be clarified: We rarely ever delete threads, but we do have the power to close them so that no new posts cannot be added. Am I to assume that we can continue with the discussion on a different thread thereby being within the parameters of the topic in question?? Pardon my impertinence, but I read the rules for the first time this morning, upon sleeping off last night's mind alterations. If these rules were to have been in effect to date, was my transgression actually worthy of a warning or was the assumption of its validity actually a false accusation under the rule as stated?? ADVISE. DEEP Edited December 2, 2003 by DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) Although I see your point, it seems to me that if a flame war is in full force, with personal insults flying back and forth and the moderator "locks" the thread to prevent cyber-bloodshed, that that is the end of the thread in question. It also seems to me that if one of the participants in the flame war continues, simply by starting another thread, it would be just a matter of time before, if thread after thread, continuing the blasting, that the moderator would have to make a decision on what the best course of action would be. I'm assuming that "flame war" would not define every spirited discussion during which feelings and the expression of those feelings may become heated. That is the nature of most interesting conversation and nobody dies. If things got out of hand, surely the participants could settle really nasty disputes off the board, but if that's not possible, then there has to be a dispassionate, responsible person, in this case, the board moderater, who has a perfect right to decide what's to be done. However, there seems to be a majority who simply participate in the war, by reading the posts, without posting their objection, in the context of the discussion in progress, on the thread itself. They sometimes prefer to complain to the moderater. In real life, if you are present when a fight breaks out, first you try to get the people fighting to see your point of view, thus, perhaps, calming the water. Perhaps that might be the first step, before trying to get a thread, which none of us are compelled to read, and may very well sink out of sight, if ignored, to sink into the abyss, deleted or "locked". It's up to those who are responsible for the site to decide what their parameters are. As far as I can see, they seem to be quite tolerant of spirited discussion, but the limits, whatever they are, are theirs to set. If I yell "Dwarf Alert"!!! at an American Association of Little People Of America convention, I would expect to get swarmed by an ugly mob. Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) Patricia, Might I suggest you get to the nearest optical barr or take a refresher course in English comprehension. With that said, please reread the rule. We rarely ever delete threads, but we do have the power to close them so that no new posts cannot be added. Do you see a double negative in there anywhere...DUH!!? Were Johnnie Cochran defending me I'd be a vindicated man and off probation...DUH!! WHEW!! DEEP Edited December 2, 2003 by DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonm Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Deep, That's the type of response that irritates people on these boards. You may not agree with what was said, but the smart ass response is not really necessary. If she mis-understood your statement or question, simply say "you didn't understand what I was asking".....just my opinion ! If you disagree, no big deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 You're right, Deep. There is a double negative in there that I never noticed. It's a typo. Keep in mind I usually post on here in the wee small hours of the morning after gigs and don't proof-read well. The rule should state: We rarely ever delete threads, but we do have the power to close them so that new posts cannot be added. The intended effect of this rule is to stop threads that have gone out of control. For instance, the New Software, New Warning System thread started as a pronouncement of the software updates and the warning feature being enabled, and somehow morphed into name calling and I could see it very quickly ending up being a flame war, so I closed it. If one were to start a new thread picking up where that one left off and thus continuing the name calling and flames then that would be worthy of a warning and that thread would probably be closed as well. If another thread was started that went back to the original subject matter (ie, the new software update) than there probably wouldn't be a problem unless the thread regressed into flames again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) Daniel, DUH, your ownself. OK. Glasses on and I am reading the quote: "We rarely ever delete threads but we do have the power to close them so that no new posts cannot be added." Yes, I see the double negative, but the wheels on your defense wagon would still be wobbley, since the intent of the sentence is quite clear, and the literacy of the average jury, should you opt for trial by jury, is woefully scant. Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 You're right, Deep. There is a double negative in there that I never noticed. It's a typo. Keep in mind I usually post on here in the wee small hours of the morning after gigs and don't proof-read well. OK, B, so with that admission should I assume that my 10% warning is recinded since I was acting under the rules as stated?? In short: DO I RECEIVE CREDIT OF 10%? I realize it's a technicality but my continuance on the Stapleton / Christiern question was within the guidlines as stated and even Marsha "Patricia" Clark will have to agree with THAT!! DEEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 The spirit, not the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I realize it's a technicality but my continuance on the Stapleton / Christiern question was within the guidlines as stated and even Marsha "Patricia" Clark will have to agree with THAT!! I'm afraid I don't see the argument. I think I'm the confused one at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) You're right, Deep. There is a double negative in there that I never noticed. It's a typo. Keep in mind I usually post on here in the wee small hours of the morning after gigs and don't proof-read well. OK, B, so with that admission should I assume that my 10% warning is recinded since I was acting under the rules as stated?? In short: DO I RECEIVE CREDIT OF 10%? I realize it's a technicality but my continuance on the Stapleton / Christiern question was within the guidlines as stated and even Marsha "Patricia" Clark will have to agree with THAT!! DEEP I can't argue with your logic, re the original quote, since a literal quote would seem to indicate that the sentence, because of the typo, was contradictory. However, if that's your entire case, I think that B-3's equally high-priced and doubtless, colourful attorney would prevail with his argument that the sandbox's owner can be totally illiterate and still decide who stays. Similarly, the owner of the sandbox can credit you the 10% you request...........or not, depending on what his mood is. In short, this website, as are all websites, is a benevolant dictatorship. :D Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) I refuse to go to side bar (e mail) or chambers (PM) on this issue. I feel that I've been wrongly accused of a breach of board rules. If Judge James ITO Alfredson refuses to agree with my defense then I believe we should take it to a higher court. The ORGANISSIMO COURT OF APPEALS ...Randall Randissimo, JSangry, Conniseuer 500, HaroldZ, Philmug, SGUD Missile, NY Nick, Deus62 & Brad. If the glove doesn't fit....YOU HAVE TO ACQUIT!! DEEP Edited December 2, 2003 by DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. Is this what you're arguing, Deep? I need an explanation before I can reply to the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. Is this what you're arguing, Deep? I need an explanation before I can reply to the appeal. Yes it is, YOUR HONOR! DEEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. That's right Brad. The burden is heavy on the shoulders of he/she who wields the power. Solomon had it easy, when all he had to do was threaten to cut a baby in half. Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. That's right Brad. The burden is heavy on the shoulders of he/she who wields the power. Solomon had it easy, when all he had to do was threaten to cut a baby in half. It's not an enviable job but one which he ought to be given very high marks for . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I believe he's saying that since the rule was incorrectly stated, anything that happened to him while it was in effect was invalid and any warning he received should be rescinded so that he's back at 0% again, starting now. Leave it and consider it pro-active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Deep, the intention of the rule was clear in spite of my poor grammar. Besides, your warning came after several PMs from me to cool down and stop the attacks on Christiern. For a few days you did just that and then came out of nowhere with a very inflammatory referrence (which I will not repeat here). The warning I gave you was mainly for that. You failed to quote the first part of the rule which states that "Flame wars will not be tolerated!" I found that your constant badgering of Chris and Bev would only lead to flames (a theory that was proved by PD's response) and thus the thread was closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DEEP (GET ME OUT OF MY SKULL) Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Deep, the intention of the rule was clear in spite of my poor grammar. Besides, your warning came after several PMs from me to cool down and stop the attacks on Christiern. For a few days you did just that and then came out of nowhere with a very inflammatory referrence (which I will not repeat here). The warning I gave you was mainly for that. You failed to quote the first part of the rule which states that "Flame wars will not be tolerated!" I found that your constant badgering of Chris and Bev would only lead to flames (a theory that was proved by PD's response) and thus the thread was closed. I must say that I'm disappointed with your evaluation / ruling of the situation but as you yourself stated, much of your posting and internet communication comes late at night, as does much of my reception screening. Therefore, I throw myself at the mercy of the court by stating that my warnings may have been received during an altered state. I strenuosly move to dismiss the charges against me in this matter whereupon I will continue on my road to salvation as a reformed man, totally rehabilitated, and no longer a threat to society. As always I remain, Your Ob't Serv't DEEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I strenuosly move to dismiss the charges against me in this matter whereupon I will continue on my road to salvation as a reformed man, totally rehabilitated, and no longer a threat to society. Why do I get the feeling I'm being mocked. Just consider this: The one warning was a bump on the road to "reformation", as you call it, not a road block. In all honesty, you probably should have about three or four of them. I think I've been very lenient in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) "rarely" NOT "rarely ever" At first I was going to draw that obvious redundancy to Daniel's attention, but he was more concerned with the can/cannot typo because rarely ever/rarely didn't support his case. Legal documents are notoriously wordy, to the point of being almost incomprehensable, so I let it go. Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Legal documents are notoriously wordy, to the point of being almost incomprehensable, so I let it go. :D How kind of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 (edited) Legal documents are notoriously wordy, to the point of being almost incomprehensable, so I let it go. :D How kind of you I thought so. Gentle sarcasm was the intent. This isn't WORLD PEACE and some say I am kind ...........and some don't. Edited December 2, 2003 by patricia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts