Banned usernames

[meazza]

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

You keep promising to leave, but here you still are.

 

 

I already addressed this you meathead.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Take You to Tasker has no current restrictions against him.

He posted a good-bye of his own volition and whether he means it or not is between him and his ears:

 

That was after he posted this.  I personally find this reprehensible and demonstrating a lack of personal responsibility and respect for another man's property to suggest "making it hurt for them" after they take an action it is fully within their rights to take with their own property, but he was neither banned nor restricted for this. 

 

Oh, and also entirely missing the distinction between viewpoints being unwelcome (seriously?) and behavior being unwelcome, but that's beside the point here.

 

TYTT was banned by me for a week back in August for repeatedly defaming another member (as in, could take @SDS and this board to court if he chose level defamation).  Not OK, not going to be excused on a hair-splitting grammarism - with all the world of insults available to ya, it can't be that hard to pick some that aren't actually defamatory!  If he came back and repeated the same behavior, he'd get a longer ban; third time, probably a perma-ban as it would be clear he couldn't or wouldn't listen and really, how much of one's time should the mods be expected to give to one guy?

 

Threats, defamation, and behavior considered extreme or over the top have never been OK, even in PPP; no rule change has occurred.  We don't have and can't provide a list of such behavior because frankly, folks come up with novel stuff we'd never thought of or considered, but honestly, given how few instances there have been, I think it's pretty clear that people have got to really work at it to get the perma-ban. 

 

Scott has a well-deserved reputation as a "measure twice cut once" patient man, which he has IMO earned, over and over again.

 

Hope this helps

I’ll return to address this, because you’re defaming me, which I was alerted to because you quoted my content.  That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said, and the actions you took.
 

Another poster, who claims to be a lawyer, was making a defense of a pedophile.  Lawyering for pedophiles.

 

The way lawyers are described in the English language are predicate.

 

Constitutional lawyer.  Corporate lawyer.  Family lawyer.  Divorce lawyer.  Immigration lawyer.  Personal injury lawyer.  Bankruptcy lawyer.  Estate planning lawyer.  Criminal lawyer.

 

Pedophile lawyer.

 

I made it quite clear in that thread that I was not naming him a pedophile, stating so directly, including directly to him, many times; even going so far as to defend him from people who actually called him a pedophile.

 

The English language and clear context of that thread are evidence of this.

The assertion that this somehow jeopardized SDS, and this site, legally is absurd.

 

You acted on bias, ignored context and language, didn’t give me the opportunity to address any of it, and then ham handedly threatened me with a perma-ban, saying I was on a short leash.

 

Let’s stick to facts, shall we?

As to me saying decisions like the ones being made should hurt?

 

They should.  This board is Scott’s property, but he’s choosing to alienate a large portion of the community he claims to want to foster.  Those people should remember this, and treat him accordingly.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by TakeYouToTasker

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I’ll return to address this, because you’re defaming me, which I was alerted to because you quoted my content.  That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said, and the actions you took.
 

Another poster, who claims to be a lawyer, was making a defense of a pedophile.  Lawyering for pedophiles.

 

The way lawyers are described in the English language are predicate.

 

Constitutional lawyer.  Corporate lawyer.  Family lawyer.  Divorce lawyer.  Immigration lawyer.  Personal injury lawyer.  Bankruptcy lawyer.  Estate planning lawyer.  Criminal lawyer.

 

Pedophile lawyer.

 

I made it quite clear in that thread that I was not naming him a pedophile, stating so directly, including directly to him, many times; even going so far as to defend him from people who actually called him a pedophile.

 

The English language and clear context of that thread are evidence of this.

The assertion that this somehow jeopardized SDS, and this site, legally is absurd.

 

You acted on bias, ignored context and language, didn’t give me the opportunity to address any of it, and then ham handedly threatened me with a perma-ban, saying I was on a short leash.

 

Let’s stick to facts, shall we?

As to me saying decisions like the ones being made should hurt?

 

They should.  This board is Scott’s property, but he’s choosing to alienate a large portion of the community he claims to want to foster.  Those people should remember this, and treat him accordingly.

 

 

 

Hoax.  You’re not being defamed.  You did the defaming.  And you mention “legally absurd” in your post. What a joke.  

[B-Man]

 

SectionC3

What a joke. 

 

 

They do go together.

 

 

[SectionC3]

19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I’ll return to address this, because you’re defaming me, which I was alerted to because you quoted my content.  That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said, and the actions you took.
 

Another poster, who claims to be a lawyer, was making a defense of a pedophile.  Lawyering for pedophiles.

 

The way lawyers are described in the English language are predicate.

 

Constitutional lawyer.  Corporate lawyer.  Family lawyer.  Divorce lawyer.  Immigration lawyer.  Personal injury lawyer.  Bankruptcy lawyer.  Estate planning lawyer.  Criminal lawyer.

 

Pedophile lawyer.

 

I made it quite clear in that thread that I was not naming him a pedophile, stating so directly, including directly to him, many times; even going so far as to defend him from people who actually called him a pedophile.

 

The English language and clear context of that thread are evidence of this.

The assertion that this somehow jeopardized SDS, and this site, legally is absurd.

 

You acted on bias, ignored context and language, didn’t give me the opportunity to address any of it, and then ham handedly threatened me with a perma-ban, saying I was on a short leash.

 

Let’s stick to facts, shall we?

As to me saying decisions like the ones being made should hurt?

 

They should.  This board is Scott’s property, but he’s choosing to alienate a large portion of the community he claims to want to foster.  Those people should remember this, and treat him accordingly.

 

 

 

And if you want to play the grammar game, and if you had no intent to cast me as a pedophile, perhaps you should have said “lawyer for pedophiles” (which, to be clear, is untrue).  But you didn’t.  “Vile” is overused on this board, but to casually cast someone as a pedophile is a vile, disgusting, and unacceptable thing.  You deserved what you got.  And, instead of whining about how you now allegedly have become the victim, perhaps you could apologize for the gross insinuation that you casually cast into the public domain.  

Edited October 6, 2020 by SectionC3

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Take You to Tasker has no current restrictions against him.

He posted a good-bye of his own volition and whether he means it or not is between him and his ears:

 

That was after he posted this.  I personally find this reprehensible and demonstrating a lack of personal responsibility and respect for another man's property to suggest "making it hurt for them" after they take an action it is fully within their rights to take with their own property, but he was neither banned nor restricted for this. 

 

Oh, and also entirely missing the distinction between viewpoints being unwelcome (seriously?) and behavior being unwelcome, but that's beside the point here.

 

TYTT was banned by me for a week back in August for repeatedly defaming another member (as in, could take @SDS and this board to court if he chose level defamation).  Not OK, not going to be excused on a hair-splitting grammarism - with all the world of insults available to ya, it can't be that hard to pick some that aren't actually defamatory!  If he came back and repeated the same behavior, he'd get a longer ban; third time, probably a perma-ban as it would be clear he couldn't or wouldn't listen and really, how much of one's time should the mods be expected to give to one guy?

 

Threats, defamation, and behavior considered extreme or over the top have never been OK, even in PPP; no rule change has occurred.  We don't have and can't provide a list of such behavior because frankly, folks come up with novel stuff we'd never thought of or considered, but honestly, given how few instances there have been, I think it's pretty clear that people have got to really work at it to get the perma-ban. 

 

Scott has a well-deserved reputation as a "measure twice cut once" patient man, which he has IMO earned, over and over again.

 

Hope this helps

 

Unfortunately, HBF, this probably isn't going to help, but good try.   The DR defenders refuse to accept that he was banned because of his own bad behavior, and they're unwilling to accept anything but a complete and abject surrender by SDS of his right to moderate PPP in any way.   You cannot reason with some people.

 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

And if you want to play the grammar game, and if you had no intent to cast me as a pedophile, perhaps you should have said “lawyer for pedophiles” (which, to be clear, is untrue).  But you didn’t.  “Vile” is overused on this board, but to casually cast someone as a pedophile is a vile, disgusting, and unacceptable thing.  You deserved what you got.  And, perhaps instead of whining about how you now allegedly have become the victim, perhaps you could apologize for the gross insinuation that you casually cast into the public domain.  

 

[Doc]

There shouldn't be moderation of PPP.  If you don't like something that is said, leave or put the user on ignore.  

[BullBuchanan]

On 10/5/2020 at 10:03 AM, Rob's House said:

 

and not banning TYTT who is a very talented writer/thinker

A real Sir Thomas More he is
 

 

[Rob's House]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

And if you want to play the grammar game, and if you had no intent to cast me as a pedophile, perhaps you should have said “lawyer for pedophiles” (which, to be clear, is untrue).  But you didn’t.  “Vile” is overused on this board, but to casually cast someone as a pedophile is a vile, disgusting, and unacceptable thing.  You deserved what you got.  And, instead of whining about how you now allegedly have become the victim, perhaps you could apologize for the gross insinuation that you casually cast into the public domain.  

 

That's a deviation from standard word usage. No one says lawyer for defendants, lawyer for plaintiffs, lawyer for divorces, lawyer for creepy porn, etc.

 

 

[Keukasmallies]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

There shouldn't be moderation of PPP.  If you don't like something that is said, leave or put the user on ignore.  

 

There most certainly should be moderation of posts on this website.  The owner is ultimately responsible for the site and deserves to set parameters within which he is comfortable.  If I didn't like his parameters I'd leave. rather than argue against them.

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's a deviation from standard word usage. No one says lawyer for defendants, lawyer for plaintiffs, lawyer for divorces, lawyer for creepy porn, etc.

 

 

 

Incorrect, particularly when a possessive is in the mix.  And, given the gravity of the allegation, caution should have been exercised and unambiguous parlance should have been used. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

45 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Unfortunately, HBF, this probably isn't going to help, but good try.   The DR defenders refuse to accept that he was banned because of his own bad behavior, and they're unwilling to accept anything but a complete and abject surrender by SDS of his right to moderate PPP in any way.   You cannot reason with some people.

 

I was trying to provide info about another member, but your point is probably correct

[BullBuchanan]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's a deviation from standard word usage. No one says lawyer for defendants, lawyer for plaintiffs, lawyer for divorces, lawyer for creepy porn, etc.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I’ll return to address this, because you’re defaming me, which I was alerted to because you quoted my content.  That’s a total mischaracterization of what I said, and the actions you took.
 

Another poster, who claims to be a lawyer, was making a defense of a pedophile.  Lawyering for pedophiles.

 

The way lawyers are described in the English language are predicate.

 

Constitutional lawyer.  Corporate lawyer.  Family lawyer.  Divorce lawyer.  Immigration lawyer.  Personal injury lawyer.  Bankruptcy lawyer.  Estate planning lawyer.  Criminal lawyer.

 

Pedophile lawyer.

 

I made it quite clear in that thread that I was not naming him a pedophile, stating so directly, including directly to him, many times; even going so far as to defend him from people who actually called him a pedophile.

 

The English language and clear context of that thread are evidence of this.

The assertion that this somehow jeopardized SDS, and this site, legally is absurd.

 

You acted on bias, ignored context and language, didn’t give me the opportunity to address any of it, and then ham handedly threatened me with a perma-ban, saying I was on a short leash.

 

Let’s stick to facts, shall we?

As to me saying decisions like the ones being made should hurt?

 

They should.  This board is Scott’s property, but he’s choosing to alienate a large portion of the community he claims to want to foster.  Those people should remember this, and treat him accordingly.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

That's a deviation from standard word usage. No one says lawyer for defendants, lawyer for plaintiffs, lawyer for divorces, lawyer for creepy porn, etc.

 

 

 

Classic backpedal trying to retroactively explain your behavior through symantics that don't exist.

Is "pedophile law" a specialty?

This is such a weak argument you're casting here. There is no such thing as a Burglar Lawyer, Rapist Lawyer, Murder Lawyer, Assault Lawyer.

It goes to show that neither of you, when proven 100% in the wrong, can ever concede the smallest of points.

You know you're completely wrong.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

There most certainly should be moderation of posts on this website.  The owner is ultimately responsible for the site and deserves to set parameters within which he is comfortable.  If I didn't like his parameters I'd leave. rather than argue against them.

 

Moderation of (potentially) criminal behavior, sure.  

[Westside]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I was trying to provide info about another member, but your point is probably correct

You come across as very biased. A moderator should be neutral. 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Some folks will never get it

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

Unfortunately, HBF, this probably isn't going to help, but good try.   The DR defenders refuse to accept that he was banned because of his own bad behavior, and they're unwilling to accept anything but a complete and abject surrender by SDS of his right to moderate PPP in any way.   You cannot reason with some people.

 

 

Based upon the 1st bolded sentence, your second bolded raises the question: project much?

[SectionC3]

31 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

 

 

Classic backpedal trying to retroactively explain your behavior through symantics that don't exist.

Is "pedophile law" a specialty?

This is such a weak argument you're casting here. There is no such thing as a Burglar Lawyer, Rapist Lawyer, Murder Lawyer, Assault Lawyer.

It goes to show that neither of you, when proven 100% in the wrong, can ever concede the smallest of points.

You know you're completely wrong.

 

Spot on.  And the person casting the gross accusation still has not apologized.  

Edited October 6, 2020 by SectionC3

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

Based upon the 1st bolded sentence, your second bolded raises the question: project much?

 

Read the WTF thread.  Read this thread.   Concentrate on the posts from SDS and the numerous denials that DR did anything remotely against the rules.  Check on TYTT's post in the WTF thread asking other posts to retaliate against SDS.   The DR defenders have created their very own conspiracy theory that SDS and the mods are banning members because they don't like their political views.   

 

PPP is part of a private MB site.  It has rules set by the owner.   If you (generic) don't follow the rules and get penalized for that, take your medicine like an adult and move on.  If your cyber BFF/soulmate/hero/god figure gets permanently banned because he refuses to obey the rules there's nothing you can do.  If you don't like it, then don't post in PPP or leave the entire site.