Post your off-topic grumbling here!

[Trajectory]

I wonder why the post I made here today was removed. I guess the only people allowed to express an opinion about it is the OP who the Mods seem to coddle.

[groverat]

I wonder why the post I made here today was removed. I guess the only people allowed to express an opinion about it is the OP who the Mods seem to coddle.

Bingo.


There were dozens of long-time participants run-off before and no one cared then because they were conservative. A careful study of threads will show that anyone who pops in and is conservative even now has to endure several posts worth of "which conservative is this that I know must have been here before but was run off or banned by Groverat and is now back under a different handle.

Make a list of all the conservative posters I banned. (The number of names in the list should be zero, by the way.)

Please explain how the ignore features stops working based on the number of participants. That is a curious feature I have never seen.

If there are 50 posters contributing to a forum and 1 of them is on ignore, then that user's posts will represent a far smaller percentage of the overall posts. Because that poster's overall contribution represents a smaller percentage it is less likely that ongoing conversations will require readers to see his posts to follow a thread.

If there are 6 posters contributing to a forum and 1 of them is on ignore then that user's posts will represent a much higher percentage of the overall posts. Because that poster's overall contribute represents a higher percentage it is more likely that ongoing conversations will require readers to see his posts to follow a thread.

[vinea]

Well it's not the names of posters here that we've been discussing.

By the way if you're wondering mine's been the same since 1999 before the first big AI blackout.

And I have no other personas.

Can you folks refrain from quoting him if you MUST respond? In any case, Lundy is wrong. You can't win a "debate" with someone who isn't debating you but simply taunting you.

So ignore him and he goes away eventually because then he loses. Geez. Half the time I think he's actuality Lundy doing some bizzaro psych experiment on you guys.

[trumptman]

I wonder why the post I made here today was removed. I guess the only people allowed to express an opinion about it is the OP who the Mods seem to coddle.

Perhaps people understand the nature of rhetorical questions.

Bingo.

Make a list of all the conservative posters I banned. (The number of names in the list should be zero, by the way.)

Ah well I would also include all the improperly assigned infraction points in that equation.

If there are 50 posters contributing to a forum and 1 of them is on ignore, then that user's posts will represent a far smaller percentage of the overall posts. Because that poster's overall contribution represents a smaller percentage it is less likely that ongoing conversations will require readers to see his posts to follow a thread.

If there are 6 posters contributing to a forum and 1 of them is on ignore then that user's posts will represent a much higher percentage of the overall posts. Because that poster's overall contribute represents a higher percentage it is more likely that ongoing conversations will require readers to see his posts to follow a thread.

Two points, by the reasoning you stated, the problem isn't a particular person, but the rules. Second the law of large numbers states that the average will remain the same even when increasing the trials and you noted this yourself. You said that if it weren't me, it would be somebody.(not that I agree it is me) If one out of 6 posters is problematic, then that ratio will remain for 50 and the numbers there will be 7. The number of trials or participants does not change the average.

So given that, smart moderation would keep the numbers small and ignore works better with smaller numbers because since it is a feature you must still manually control, you have to control it less often with smaller numbers.

And now back to the thread topic...

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/T/i/2/obama-my-stimulus-package.jpg

Cue funky porn bass...

[Mumbo Jumbo]

Can you folks refrain from quoting him if you MUST respond? In any case, Lundy is wrong. You can't win a "debate" with someone who isn't debating you but simply taunting you.

So ignore him and he goes away eventually because then he loses. Geez. Half the time I think he's actuality Lundy doing some bizzaro psych experiment on you guys.

lundy: What are the rules of a forum for? They're supposed to be for the good of the community. They're not supposed to protect a single poster's right to act in a way that drives people away. You can't pretend this is the first time these kind of complaints have been made.

Stop being 'even handed' and start moderating. :)

I've never, in all my born days, seen moderation on a forum apparently designed to encourage the kind of behavior that drives people away.

[groverat]

trumptman:

Ah well I would also include all the improperly assigned infraction points in that equation.

"Improperly" is a judgment call. Perhaps you should be a moderator.

Two points, by the reasoning you stated, the problem isn't a particular person, but the rules.

Yes. What does that have to do with my explanation of why the ignore feature won't achieve its intended purpose in a low-participant environment?

Second the law of large numbers states that the average will remain the same even when increasing the trials and you noted this yourself.

Only if the rules remain unchanged, which is my entire point.

So given that, smart moderation would keep the numbers small and ignore works better with smaller numbers because since it is a feature you must still manually control, you have to control it less often with smaller numbers.

Better rules will increase the number of participants, because better rules will push the forum towards being a discussion forum and not a place for trolls to treat like a blog.
But that might be irrecoverable at this point.

[vinea]

Or you guys can not run to Lundy and simply ignore him? Nah...requires self control not to click "view post".

Do you guys go to his blog to answer him there? No? Then why do it here? Do you think his readership is somehow larger here that it requires a rebuttal?

Either way, he largely ignores you except as a springboard for whatever he wants to do anyway. And to poke you with a stick to see how you react.

[groverat]

Run to lundy? What does that mean?

PO doesn't have a "do not complain about how terribly counter-productive the rules" are rule. If we don't personally attack anyone we can say whatever we like, right? Isn't that the whole logic behind this asinine set of 2 rules?

As far as ignoring trumptman, there's no point. It's not about him. It's about the type of threads that are encouraged by the rules. If a thread starts off as a partisan rant then that is all the discussion within that thread will be. If the rules allow partisan rants as thread-starters while simultaneously disallowing other users to attack the troll then what you'll get is a forum full of partisan rants with "thoughts?" at the end to pretend it's actually intended as some kind of discussion starter.

[Mumbo Jumbo]

So now we have a forum just for "off-topic grumbling" with a place for lundy to ignore all our criticism in one place.

Lundy. Listen. While you're busy being "tough but fair", or whatever it is you think you're doing, this forum's going to shit. You're defending a troll, by any definition, who's mocking you. The rules are absolutely arbitrary, they can be changed if we like, and at the moment they're not even being followed in spirit anyway.

The rules are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community. At the moment they're being exercised for the benefit of someone who's actively trying to prevent the community from re-establishing itself.

What's your position on this?

[groverat]

There's no point challenging lundy, because it's not about him, either. This isn't a battle of personalities. It's just about what types of posts are allowed and why those types of posts are allowed.

Why disallow personal attacks? Because it creates a hostile environment? Because it's not nice?

Once you figure out why you disallow personal attacks you have to ask yourself why other types of posts that have the same negative impacts are allowed.

[trumptman]

My understanding is that this thread is to get the issues out there again (off-topic) and thus can reference people. If that understanding is wrong, please feel free to delete it.

trumptman:
"Improperly" is a judgment call. Perhaps you should be a moderator.

Improperly describes why the infraction points were overturned by those who own the boards before lundy was even thought of as moderator, before heavy moderation was requested for and voted on, including a big yes vote from you, and finally it perfectly describes you telling conservative posters to "go get cancer and die" when not properly moderating. It is why you quit when pissed off about being overruled and why you continue pissing and moaning about it to this day. It is why through several threads in the last year you have complained repeatedly about why you can't call people names. For whatever reason the board only decided to humor you "hence the synner" title rather than ban you as they did those who act as you do.

You make this sound like some sort of unique or special circumstance. You go to MacNN, MacRumors, and AppleNova. They all deal with this in a similar fashion. They all have a section that allows off topic banter. Three of the four allow political discussions while one bans such discussion outright. The one that bans it outright in no longer really a rumor forum, has no ads and is in no form a business. The other three all are and handle it the same way. All three repeated make reference in their rules to avoiding personal attacks. MacNN humorously makes it their first three rules.

You are the one bitching that you can't go around personally attacking people. (Dozens of posts across multiple threads... why can't you call someone a liar, etc.) You in no form model any of the behavior you declare you want done. Additionally your word usages implies some strange reasoning where people are forced to participate and read. (captive audience) In the meantime, I pointed out at least two other forums where you participate and have 15,000+ posts in addition to the 10,000+ posts you have here. Clearly you must understand that you don't have to post, read or reply to anything here yet all you do is bitch and complain. You left for several months and then came back only to complain again.

Yes. What does that have to do with my explanation of why the ignore feature won't achieve its intended purpose in a low-participant environment?

You declare it is about the rules when you fail to follow them in any form or fashion.

Only if the rules remain unchanged, which is my entire point.

Not true because the real point is about numbers, not the rules.

Better rules will increase the number of participants, because better rules will push the forum towards being a discussion forum and not a place for trolls to treat like a blog.
But that might be irrecoverable at this point.

Better posting will increase the number of participants. I disappeared through the entire election. I regularly wander off for days and weeks at a time. My posting average is statistically no different than yours and this is what you fail to realize. Your little labels don't change reality. Calling people trolls, calling it their blog, your wonderfully colorful adjectives don't change the fact that some guy is declaring that another guy who has 450 more posts over the course of 8 years in "monopolizing" the board as his "personal blog." Everyone can look at those numbers and see the bullshit. If they were smart they would look at the 15k posts you have in other places and see the fact that you spam everywhere you go and are doing nothing more than complaining that someone stood up to you as the bully.

Why have you ever been here Grove? You've never owned a Mac that I know of and all you did here for years is own a PC and call people fanboys. I own three Macs. I own three iPods. I don't own an iPhone and go over to that forum regularly to discuss why with my fellow Apple-o-philes.

All three of the forums, I have found you on, you do the same thing, camp in the political section and call people stupid pieces of shit all day. Are you here again because this football board got rid of the politics (http://texas.rivals.com/rfFan.asp?User=1041612&Post=) or are you just pissed off because the Hornfans don't give a crap about your one sentence dismissals? (http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthreads/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=groverat&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts)

Or you guys can not run to Lundy and simply ignore him? Nah...requires self control not to click "view post".

Do you guys go to his blog to answer him there? No? Then why do it here? Do you think his readership is somehow larger here that it requires a rebuttal?

Either way, he largely ignores you except as a springboard for whatever he wants to do anyway. And to poke you with a stick to see how you react.

I've begged them to ignore whatever it is that bugs them. They muster all manner of claims to excuse their own actions. Everyone else is responsible for their actions and they of course are not responsible at all for them. It appears to fit in with their political philosophy.

Run to lundy? What does that mean?

PO doesn't have a "do not complain about how terribly counter-productive the rules" are rule. If we don't personally attack anyone we can say whatever we like, right? Isn't that the whole logic behind this asinine set of 2 rules?

As far as ignoring trumptman, there's no point. It's not about him. It's about the type of threads that are encouraged by the rules. If a thread starts off as a partisan rant then that is all the discussion within that thread will be. If the rules allow partisan rants as thread-starters while simultaneously disallowing other users to attack the troll then what you'll get is a forum full of partisan rants with "thoughts?" at the end to pretend it's actually intended as some kind of discussion starter.

Why not try modeling what you think are good behaviors? You call names, all the descriptors you use are profoundly inflammatory. All the threads you start are exactly what you decry and have been that way for years. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/search.php?searchid=289277)

You make it about the rules, the material posted, the numbers, try making it about yourself. That is something you can control. Try it for a change.

So now we have a forum just for "off-topic grumbling" with a place for lundy to ignore all our criticism in one place.

Lundy. Listen. While you're busy being "tough but fair", or whatever it is you think you're doing, this forum's going to shit. You're defending a troll, by any definition, who's mocking you. The rules are absolutely arbitrary, they can be changed if we like, and at the moment they're not even being followed in spirit anyway.

The rules are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community. At the moment they're being exercised for the benefit of someone who's actively trying to prevent the community from re-establishing itself.

What's your position on this?

Clearly you are someone who was banned from here before. You talk about all these wistful memories of your discussions here and you have a whole 75 posts. Eight of them are from a discussion in 2002 and the rest are all recent and all complaining about me. To anyone that has the power to look, that would suggest someone who registered with one name, didn't like it and registered with another, used it for years (likely until banned) and then switched back to their former handle. How else does someone with eight posts talk wistfully about how great their discussions in these forums and how it used to be for years. Your entire posting history since starting to post seven year later have been attacks on me. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/search.php?searchid=289280&pp=25)

The reality is that either you are a long time poster with a grudge or a new poster with no deep investment and yet have spent your entire brief time here bitching.

Here is the real "solution" to all the supposed issues in this thread. Rather than complaining that I don't post the topics you want or reply to them in the manner you prefer why don't you all... wait...wait... I know this is amazing... it is going to freak you out... why don't you... post the topics you want and read the replies you like within them while ignoring those you don't like.

Why don't you stop worrying about controlling people and try controlling yourself? Why do you expect to control me or anyone else while claiming you can't stop yourself from looking at intent, replying with names, etc.

Stop expecting of others what you don't even expect of yourself.

[jimmac]

Can you folks refrain from quoting him if you MUST respond? In any case, Lundy is wrong. You can't win a "debate" with someone who isn't debating you but simply taunting you.

So ignore him and he goes away eventually because then he loses. Geez. Half the time I think he's actuality Lundy doing some bizzaro psych experiment on you guys.

You're absolutely right!

[jimmac]

trumptman:



"Improperly" is a judgment call. Perhaps you should be a moderator.



Yes. What does that have to do with my explanation of why the ignore feature won't achieve its intended purpose in a low-participant environment?



Only if the rules remain unchanged, which is my entire point.



Better rules will increase the number of participants, because better rules will push the forum towards being a discussion forum and not a place for trolls to treat like a blog.
But that might be irrecoverable at this point.

This is also absolutely right. I used think it was unrecoverable but have changed my mind once I saw a small glimmer of light in the form of people ( even some old timers ) who still want to come here and discuss issues.

[Trajectory]

Oh, here's where one of my deleted posts ended up. "Off-topic grumbling?" The mod who created this was obviously cranky, and I don't blame them. One member is being allowed to stir up a lot of shit all the while getting other members banned or their posts deleted. Is it really worth it??

[groverat]

This is clearly a personal issue with you, trumptman, and I think your anger at me personally gets in the way of your thinking clearly on this.

And that is a destructive thing for a forum, when it’s main participant thinks everything is about him and his personality and how he personally fits into the forum.

You are the one bitching that you can't go around personally attacking people.
then…
I pointed out at least two other forums where you participate and have 15,000+ posts in addition to the 10,000+ posts you have here. Clearly you must understand that you don't have to post, read or reply to anything here yet all you do is bitch and complain. You left for several months and then came back only to complain again.

The reality of PO right now is that personal attacks are allowed and they are constant. What I just quoted from you is a textbook example of ad-hominem attack.

There is only one real rule and it isn’t even enforced. That’s a recipe for disaster.

You are making this a personal thing, which it isn’t.

You declare it is about the rules when you fail to follow them in any form or fashion.

What rules am I breaking?
Did you just accuse me of complaining too much?

Why have you ever been here Grove? You've never owned a Mac that I know of and all you did here for years is own a PC and call people fanboys. I own three Macs. I own three iPods. I don't own an iPhone and go over to that forum regularly to discuss why with my fellow Apple-o-philes.

I am typing this on my MacBook Pro. Before that I had a PowerBook G4. Before that I had a graphite iMac. Before that I had a Powermac 5500/225. Before that I had an AppleIIe. I have had PCs all along the way as well.

Not only are you obsessed with me in an angry way, you don’t even have your facts straight. You have built a caricature in your head that is only vaguely connected to reality.

All three of the forums, I have found you on, you do the same thing, camp in the political section and call people stupid pieces of shit all day. Are you here again because this football board got rid of the politics or are you just pissed off because the Hornfans don't give a crap about your one sentence dismissals?

What is it you think you’re accomplishing by showing that you can type “groverat” into a search engine?

I don’t know what your personal attack rantings are adding to this discussion. You have made ample use of PMs to berate me in the past, feel free to use that again, because it makes a lot more sense to be handled in that way (and besides, that’s one of MacNN’s guidelines).

[trumptman]

This is clearly a personal issue with you, trumptman, and I think your anger at me personally gets in the way of your thinking clearly on this.

Yes, I'm the synner. I'm the banned one. I'm the one who got my decisions overturned to the point where I quit moderating.

Isn't it amazing that all those folks who have the "clear thinking" don't have things go their way and all the people who are "deluded" in your book just conveniently have reality go their way?

And that is a destructive thing for a forum, when it’s main participant thinks everything is about him and his personality and how he personally fits into the forum.

Oh but it isn't about me. See I'm not the one claiming that people a thousand miles away from me force me to read posts, force me to reply to them and stop everyone else from posting topics and replies. You are the one making that claim and then scratching your head when even people who clearly don't agree with me keep telling you "dude, just use ignore."

See I'm not the one getting posts like THIS from people.

JESUS CHRIST! If you can't resist being "encouraged" to break the rules by something someone posts, that's YOUR OWN problem.

Why the hell don't you people just USE THE IGNORE FEATURE if you are so unable to control yourselves?

What don't you get about the fact that no one is stupid enough to buy the bullshit? You guys come on here with the weakest nonsense. Then you whine about it. "What do you mean you understand that my loaded question wasn't about getting an answer and then when I called him a fucker for not answering it, I got banned?" "What do you mean you know what a rhetorical question is and how it is asked to assert a point instead of as a real inquiry?" "Why can't I call someone a liar and not have that be considered an ad-hom?"

The reality of PO right now is that personal attacks are allowed and they are constant. What I just quoted from you is a textbook example of ad-hominem attack.

There is only one real rule and it isn’t even enforced. That’s a recipe for disaster.

You are making this a personal thing, which it isn’t.

What that is an example of is exactly what the topic of the post, as typed in by the moderator happens to be. The very first words I typed in declared I understood it as such and said if that understanding was flawed to please delete the post.

Please go somewhere and learn what an ad-hom argument happens to be.

Nothing about this is personal but if someone is going to come at me with personal attacks and complaints, and thus a thread is created for that purpose, I'm going to air my complaints.

What rules am I breaking?
Did you just accuse me of complaining too much?

You don't even understand the rules. This is why you spend all your time bitching and whining about how reality doesn't match your interpretation of them. You keep wanting "new rules" which means you basically want reality to conform to the delusion. You've been overturned on all levels, you've been told a multitude of ways from a variety of people and still you don't get it. Every time you post a complaint in this very forum you have broken the rules and you've done that one dozens of times alone. Everything you post is an angry rant and that is evident across multiple forums. The only thing bad about that is you read that intent into what others post and accuse them of nonsense for no good reason. Worse still you get even more pissed when third parties read it, don't see the anger or attacks and overturn your decisions when you make them or just brush you off when you complain.

I am typing this on my MacBook Pro. Before that I had a PowerBook G4. Before that I had a graphite iMac. Before that I had a Powermac 5500/225. Before that I had an AppleIIe. I have had PCs all along the way as well.

Not only are you obsessed with me in an angry way, you don’t even have your facts straight. You have built a caricature in your head that is only vaguely connected to reality.

See this is a perfect example of contradictory reasoning that you will fail to see.

What is it you think you’re accomplishing by showing that you can type “groverat” into a search engine?

See I'm so completely obsessed with you that I can type groverat into a search engine and pull up three seconds worth of results.

Worse still you can't even understand the difference. You call three seconds worth of effort an obsession and fail to see how that is an allegation, completely illogical, and yes part of trying to craft a caricature about me which you feed in your head.

You project everything you claim dude. When you go to whomever you complain about and declare you are being harassed because someone took three seconds to type your name into a search engine and they tell you that it isn't private information, isn't proof of an obsession and isn't grounds to let you call them "carcature building delusional dude" or whatever it is you want to call them, you still won't get it.

I don’t know what your personal attack rantings are adding to this discussion. You have made ample use of PMs to berate me in the past, feel free to use that again, because it makes a lot more sense to be handled in that way (and besides, that’s one of MacNN’s guidelines).

I'll be happy to and that is what I have done up until the creation of this thread which, yet again was started by you, Jimmac, Mumbo Jumbo, and, Trajectory all complaining and not complaining just about me, but complaining about how their post which do not meet the posting guidelines were altered because of that.

You break the rules. Complain about the rules, have your actions altered to fit the rules, complain about the alterations oh and yes, btw the reason for all of these problems is ME. Talk about delusional.:lol::lol::lol:

Here's a good analogy. You go to jail and it is the fault of the cop, the witnesses, the judge and the parole officer. They are all the ones with the "anger problems" and amazingly enough you complain that they monopolize your time too.

You celebrated the day you stepped down from being a mod. Well here's rule number one of being the common people, if you don't like the service, don't frequent the business. There is no "captive audience." There is no way to make ignore stop working when there is six versus fifty users. There is none of the other craziness you assert. The real issue is that the folks doing the complaining here post next to nothing of interest and you know reading them isn't interesting. You think if I stop posting, they will start but nothing ever stops them from posting now. That is yet another one of the delusional theories that you claim the rules don't happen to address. You know what I post is interesting. The complaint is basically that you cannot avoid reading what I post and thus must have the equivalent of a Trumptman Eye Stapling procedure to save you from yourself.

I'll give you a hint friend, the people complaining that they can't control themselves, can't follow the rules and can't even choose to stay away, they are the ones with the problem not the guy at whom they are pointing the finger. No one has to read anything I post. The board makes it possible to never see another word I type. Complaining that isn't enough means the issue is with you and that you have made it very personal and then project that. I've put plenty of people on here on ignore for periods of time. When they get tired of being ignored, they behave. If they don't then no loss because they weren't typing anything I wanted to read. I understand this. Lots of people understand this.

You really need to understand this and stop crying that other people won't do what you want.

[groverat]

*posts hundreds of words of screaming anger*

*tells other people to stop crying*

Yes, I'm the synner. I'm the banned one. I'm the one who got my decisions overturned to the point where I quit moderating.

As I noted, this is a highly personal thing to you. It really shouldn't be.

Isn't it amazing that all those folks who have the "clear thinking" don't have things go their way and all the people who are "deluded" in your book just conveniently have reality go their way?

Not amazing, no.
AI's administration has been happy to let PO rot itself away. I don't know what that has to do with either you or me as individuals.

As for my having left moderating... you don't know the circumstances. I know you want to imagine yourself a grand role in taking down a "bully", but it's a silly fantasy.

What don't you get about the fact that no one is stupid enough to buy the bullshit?

This is demonstrably untrue.
I'm not saying that my arguments are valid because people agree with me, I am merely pointing out that people have posted their agreements with me in this thread (and others).

"Why can't I call someone a liar and not have that be considered an ad-hom?"

If I call someone a liar then that is an ad-hominem attack.

My contention is simple:
- Ad-hominem attacks are not always a bad thing for conversation. You know this, because you use them yourself ("You are cute" is one you like nowadays).

What is harmful to discussion is soapboxing. Soapboxing is the opposite of discussion.

See this is a perfect example of contradictory reasoning that you will fail to see.

It is contradictory reasoning for me to point out that you are factually wrong in yet another one of your attacks?

When you go to whomever you complain about and declare you are being harassed because someone took three seconds to type your name into a search engine and they tell you that it isn't private information, isn't proof of an obsession and isn't grounds to let you call them "carcature building delusional dude" or whatever it is you want to call them, you still won't get it.

Not only are you making up fantasy complaints, you are making up fantasy responses to fantasy complaints. It's weird.

Search "groverat" all over the Internet, it's fine. Have a great time.

[trumptman]

*posts hundreds of words of screaming anger*

*tells other people to stop crying*

Enjoy taking your emotional state and projecting it yet again onto my words.

As I noted, this is a highly personal thing to you. It really shouldn't be.

It isn't and this is why my responses to you are no different than to anyone else. I'm not the one who keep fixating on one person as the answer to all that bothers me. That would be you.

Not amazing, no.
AI's administration has been happy to let PO rot itself away. I don't know what that has to do with either you or me as individuals.

As for my having left moderating... you don't know the circumstances. I know you want to imagine yourself a grand role in taking down a "bully", but it's a silly fantasy.

Yes my silly fantasy matches the facts and the silly reality you claim doesn't.

Isn't it awesome how that works out?

This is demonstrably untrue.
I'm not saying that my arguments are valid because people agree with me, I am merely pointing out that people have posted their agreements with me in this thread (and others).

Yes and and people have also posted that you should shut up and use ignore, that it isn't right for you to single out one person to blame for you issues and other assorted points.

If I call someone a liar then that is an ad-hominem attack.

My contention is simple:
- Ad-hominem attacks are not always a bad thing for conversation. You know this, because you use them yourself ("You are cute" is one you like nowadays).

What is harmful to discussion is soapboxing. Soapboxing is the opposite of discussion.

Yes after all your complaints, everyone gets that you don't like the rules and everyone who has been here under your moderation understood that you wonderful rationalizations like above completely colored your administration in ways you still fail to realize. The times ad-homs were not always bad was when liberals were using them on conservatives and the times they were bad was when conservatives returned fire and thus earned infractions.

People also understand that anyone who posts as much as you do but is in disagreement with you will earn handy little labels to rationalize why they should be stopped while you should be allowed to continue. It is "their blog", it is "soapboxing" it is all nice phrases for bad when someone posts as much as you do, but happens to disagree with you.

The reality is different of course. The number three all-time poster complaining that the number two all-time poster really posts too much is just laughable. It would be like the third richest guy in the world declaring that the second richest guy is some greedy asshole.

It is contradictory reasoning for me to point out that you are factually wrong in yet another one of your attacks?

It is contradictory reasoning to declare a three second google search an obsession. It is even more contradictory to complain that when you hit the reply button, someone needs to blame me.

Not only are you making up fantasy complaints, you are making up fantasy responses to fantasy complaints. It's weird.

Search "groverat" all over the Internet, it's fine. Have a great time.

Oh please, I mean I only have time to post here. Again you are the master. You complain I spam a subforum while you spam three (that we know of.) You are amazing! I tremble at your posting prowess. That isn't a fantasy, that is reality. It shows that for every post I make, you manage about three.

Again, be an example. You can choose to take any future replies to PM's. You can do the same with future complaints. Do us all a favor and try to follow the rules rather than rationalizing about why you think they should change and why you think you are above them. The board has a feedback section, try using it. If you've been trying to get the board to listen, quit to prove a point about how terrible the operators of it happen to be, continue to to addresse via feedback and PM and still get no response then realize you are not a captive audience, are not bound to the forum in any fashion and can go find someplace where conditional ad-homs are tolerated and where rhetorical and loaded questions are deep reasoning.

In the meantime, I'm happy with the moderation, the rules and anyone I'm not happy with I can put on ignore. If something changes about that, I can just go somewhere else. What I don't need to do is blame someone else claiming them as the cause of some supposed unhappiness.

[groverat]

I'm not the one who keep fixating on one person as the answer to all that bothers me. That would be you.

This is, yet again, demonstrably false.

You have hundreds and hundreds of words here dedicated specifically to me and all my real or imagined crimes and links to various forums on the Internet where I pop up.

I have, at least 6 times now in this thread and others, said that it is not about you.

”As far as ignoring trumptman, there's no point. It's not about him. It's about the type of threads that are encouraged by the rules.”

Yes my silly fantasy matches the facts and the silly reality you claim doesn't.

What facts, specifically, do I have wrong?

Yes and and people have also posted that you should shut up and use ignore, that it isn't right for you to single out one person to blame for you issues and other assorted points.

Am I singling out one person to blame for the problems here?

”There's no point challenging lundy, because it's not about him, either. This isn't a battle of personalities.”

What I don't need to do is blame someone else claiming them as the cause of some supposed unhappiness.

This is just not true. You’ve dedicated so much time to complaining about me (the “bully”), personally, on the forum and in private messages I really don’t know how you can bring yourself to say something this demonstrably false.

[Taskiss]

It takes 2 to tango.

If you don't play the game, you win. If you do, you lose because that's the way it appears to be what the rules are...there are some folks who are so insecure they have to "win" and will behave in totally outrageous manners to save face, no matter how much it hurts their reputation. Not really winning, I know, but you're not dealing with someone behaving rationally, now, are you?

So, just discuss issues intelligently with folks who you feel will reciprocate and ignore those that won't. Hold yourself to a high standard and expect the same from others. Or not, your choice, but I've made my choice.

[Trajectory]

It takes 2 to tango.

If you don't play the game, you win. If you do, you lose because that's the way it appears to be what the rules are...there are some folks who are so insecure they have to "win" and will behave in totally outrageous manners to save face, no matter how much it hurts their reputation. Not really winning, I know, but you're not dealing with someone behaving rationally, now, are you?

So, just discuss issues intelligently with folks who you feel will reciprocate and ignore those that won't. Hold yourself to a high standard and expect the same from others. Or not, your choice, but I've made my choice.

Excellent advice that I will be using myself.

Have fun groverat! I don't know where you find the time or patience to soldier on, so, hopefully you find it somewhat amusing to debate with a brick wall, otherwise, it's really not worth all the effort. I'm going to put that Ignore feature to good use for the first time.

[Trajectory]

FYI, contrary to what this thread says, I did not start it. It was started by a mod who removed two of my posts from another thread. I had nothing to do with starting or naming this thread.

[lundy]

lundy: What are the rules of a forum for? They're supposed to be for the good of the community. They're not supposed to protect a single poster's right to act in a way that drives people away. You can't pretend this is the first time these kind of complaints have been made.

That's laughable. Everybody has a right to post whatever political argument they want. If people are being "driven away", it's because they really want to have a fight rather than a debate, and I won't allow that.

Act in what way? All I see are political arguments. Debate them or ignore them - your choice.

Stop being 'even handed' and start moderating. :)

I've never, in all my born days, seen moderation on a forum apparently designed to encourage the kind of behavior that drives people away.

If this were a Mac-centric forum, then you'd have a point - if people came in here trolling with anti-Mac or Pro-Windows garbage, or thinly-veiled versions thereof, I'd send them to Coventry. I sent 4 to Coventry in the last 2 weeks. It's like a KKK member attending a Freedom March and starting shit.

But this forum has no agenda - it leans neither way. That's why there cannot be vague and ambiguous "rules" about content. Feel free to lambast any politician with the vilest stream of epithets you can conjure up. Others can release a vicious rebuttal. Call as many names as you want - Palin's a diseased twat; Biden is a small-dicked chickenshit. Anything you like.

But as soon as the derogatory remarks are directed at one of the members here, that's an infraction.

I don't care how mad you get. Presumably people here are of legal age and know proper behavior. If not, there are plenty of unmoderated USENET groups where topics degenerate into literally thousands of posts consisting only of two morons calling each other names. Or you can set up your own forum and ban people.

[vinea]

That's laughable. Everybody has a right to post whatever political argument they want. If people are being "driven away", it's because they really want to have a fight rather than a debate, and I won't allow that.

Act in what way? All I see are political arguments. Debate them or ignore them - your choice.


:lol::lol::lol:

There's no debate here. There's someone trolling for infractions. That he succeeds doesn't mean is isn't doing it or that it is "political arguments".

But whatever, you're the mod. I choose to ignore him. I hope others will as well since there's nothing else to be done.

[jimmac]

:lol::lol::lol:

There's no debate here. There's someone trolling for infractions. That he succeeds doesn't mean is isn't doing it or that it is "political arguments".

But whatever, you're the mod. I choose to ignore him. I hope others will as well since there's nothing else to be done.

Good choice. I think under the current set of circumstances it's the only rational one.


Lundy

Palin's a diseased twat; Biden is a small-dicked chickenshit. Anything you like.


I don't know why but this got a good laugh out of me.:lol:

[trumptman]

:lol::lol::lol:

There's no debate here. There's someone trolling for infractions. That he succeeds doesn't mean is isn't doing it or that it is "political arguments".

But whatever, you're the mod. I choose to ignore him. I hope others will as well since there's nothing else to be done.

If you have to call names because you lack control and reasoning ability, it is best to use the ignore feature. However as Lundy has noted, too many folks like yourself just cannot separate disagreement from personal attacks. Let's look at this.

How ironic your sig is with your attempt to redefine what it means to be religious. Newspeak at its best.

It's pretty obvious that being religious is associated with...OMG how amazing...religion.

The attempt to conflate science with religion is...um...what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, transparent.

By your definition, this is nothing but pure trolling.

We have like five Sarah Palin sucks thread. We have a thread that has associates a Texas governor with a feminine hygiene product. We have an ode to Ayn. We have a thread calling conservative media racists and hateful and several other threads declaring that all shooters are actually controlled by talk radio, etc.

I can read all those, choose to participate in them and not call anyone a name. I can read people posting labels like Faux News, McInsane and see the pondering of Palin doing porn without calling someone a piece of shit.

Many others can't take what they give or even replies of any sort. They are bullies who resort to names after their initial attempts don't scare someone away. I don't feel bad for them at all.

It is just hilarious how you characterize and excuse the same actions given whatever party is engaging in them. I'm sure you'll declare that your post above isn't trolling yet if I posted it and someone replied "I'm not engaging in newspeak you piece of crap" you hold me responsible for their actions.

To use a word from you, the biases within the reasoning are rather transparent as are the motives.

Look how smart Jazzguru is not biting.

Opinion noted.

Next?

Hilariously when Grove was moderating, that reply would have earned me an infraction as an ad-hom.

[Trajectory]

I choose to ignore him. I hope others will as well since there's nothing else to be done.

+1

Only I wish the forum would really ignore the member's presence, as it is, you can see that they have posted, just not the content. I'd rather not see anything at all. This is more "invisible" than "ignore."

But, even invisible is preferable to reading drivel.

[jimmac]

+1

Only I wish the forum would really ignore the member's presence, as it is, you can see that they have posted, just not the content. I'd rather not see anything at all. This is more "invisible" than "ignore."

But, even invisible is preferable to reading drivel.

Just remember to log in first thing when you come here unless you've got it on " Remember me".

Only I wish the forum would really ignore the member's presence

This is what I was getting at in the " Obama caption " thread. It pretty much needs to be a group effort. However this is getting to be closer than I've ever seen it before.

[Trajectory]

Just remember to log in first thing when you come here unless you've got it on " Remember me".

Even when logged in, you still see "This message is hidden because [username] is on your ignore list." I'd rather see nothing at all.

This is what I was getting at in the " Obama caption " thread. It pretty much needs to be a group effort. However this is getting to be closer than I've ever seen it before.

Yes, because misery loves company! When the company leaves, misery is miserable.

I think I will attempt to just stay out of political discussions altogether, it's just too maddening and frustrating trying to debate with people who only get their news from FOX and Rush Limbaugh. It's like trying to reason with a bag of bricks.

[jazzguru]

I think I will attempt to just stay out of political discussions altogether, it's just too maddening and frustrating trying to debate with people who only get their news from FOX and Rush Limbaugh. It's like trying to reason with a bag of bricks.

Making assumptions like that going into the discussion is probably the cause of much of the frustration.

[Mumbo Jumbo]

That's laughable. Everybody has a right to post whatever political argument they want. If people are being "driven away", it's because they really want to have a fight rather than a debate, and I won't allow that.

Act in what way? All I see are political arguments. Debate them or ignore them - your choice.


If this were a Mac-centric forum, then you'd have a point - if people came in here trolling with anti-Mac or Pro-Windows garbage, or thinly-veiled versions thereof, I'd send them to Coventry. I sent 4 to Coventry in the last 2 weeks. It's like a KKK member attending a Freedom March and starting shit.

But this forum has no agenda - it leans neither way. That's why there cannot be vague and ambiguous "rules" about content. Feel free to lambast any politician with the vilest stream of epithets you can conjure up. Others can release a vicious rebuttal. Call as many names as you want - Palin's a diseased twat; Biden is a small-dicked chickenshit. Anything you like.

But as soon as the derogatory remarks are directed at one of the members here, that's an infraction.

I don't care how mad you get. Presumably people here are of legal age and know proper behavior. If not, there are plenty of unmoderated USENET groups where topics degenerate into literally thousands of posts consisting only of two morons calling each other names. Or you can set up your own forum and ban people.

We can all play by trumptman’s rules. You’re absolutely right. But that takes effort and bad taste and then this place really will be absolutely intolerable. THIS IS WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO STOP. For heaven’s sake, man.

You believe that following some arbitrary rules made up to deal with a situation that doesn’t apply anymore are more important than re-establishing this dank, stagnant shit hole as a viable forum. I don’t. No one comes here anymore and people prepared to game the guidelines are king. It's not really a consolation to be able to call Sarah Palin a stupid cunt (although it's true.)

[groverat]

Hilariously when Grove was moderating, that reply would have earned me an infraction as an ad-hom.

What I don't need to do is blame someone else claiming them as the cause of some supposed unhappiness.

[Trajectory]

Making assumptions like that going into the discussion is probably the cause of much of the frustration.

It's not an assumption, it's a keen observation.

[jazzguru]

It's not an assumption, it's a keen observation.

You said:

It's just too maddening and frustrating trying to debate with people who only get their news from FOX and Rush Limbaugh.

That is an assumption, unless you specifically ask each person who frustrates you "where do you get your news from?" and they truthfully respond only with "FOX and Rush Limbaugh".

[Trajectory]

That is an assumption, unless you specifically ask each person who frustrates you "where do you get your news from?" and they truthfully respond only with "FOX and Rush Limbaugh".

"Truthfully respond"? Do Republicans actually know how to do that??

All one has to do is look at the same group of people here all spouting the same dittohead talking points. The insults, phrasing and terminology are identical, therefore, the source is easily identified.

The End.

[jazzguru]

"Truthfully respond"? Do Republicans actually know how to do that??

All one has to do is look at the same group of people here all spouting the same dittohead talking points. The insults, phrasing and terminology are identical, therefore, the source is easily identified.

The End.

Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly?

[Outsider]

"Truthfully respond"? Do Republicans actually know how to do that??

All one has to do is look at the same group of people here all spouting the same dittohead talking points. The insults, phrasing and terminology are identical, therefore, the source is easily identified.

The End.

I see what you mean, but have you considered that maybe they all get the same talking points emailed to them from Evil Headquarters Inc. and that's why it all sounds the same?? Hmm? ;)

[jazzguru]

I see what you mean, but have you considered that maybe they all get the same talking points emailed to them from Evil Headquarters Inc. and that's why it all sounds the same?? Hmm? ;)

Shhhhh...we don't want information about the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy® to get into the wrong hands.

[Outsider]

Too late! It's already in the wrong hands!

[jazzguru]

Too late! It's already in the wrong hands!

:wow:

Noooooooooooo!