|
|
Post by silver on May 31, 2013 12:27:02 GMT -5
Thus Peter Spoke: if he can find 7 senior members who support lifting Q's ban then that's a good enough representation for me to bow to public opinion in this case. seems like a simple enough directive perhaps not though ;-) Peter was right about the finding or not - of consensusesses around here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2013 12:33:34 GMT -5
seems like a simple enough directive perhaps not though ;-) Peter was right about the finding or not - of consensusesses around here. I see two for, two against, and three ambivalents instead of giving Peter alternatives, maybe round up five more votes, and go from there ;-) I had been a yea, but Top is a seniority nazi .. hehe |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on May 31, 2013 13:53:58 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, The story of Q in a nutshell: He who speaketh as the untethered neutral one, he who thinketh too much, he is the one that will get run over by the one who maketh up his mind. For the mighty momentum of LOA showeth no mercy with the undecided open-minded ones. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I don't know if the above is aimed at all 'neutrals' or, more likely, Peter, but since I dropped my hat in the Neutral/Don't Care ring, I'll address it. I don't really care if Q is posting or not cause I don't interact with him. As far as the pseudo-porn, like popee/farmer I'm more interested in my own reaction than I am about focusing on Q. It was isolated in one thread anyway and could have been avoided if anyone wanted to. Plus I don't have little kids hanging out near me. The qualia/philosophical conversations... all I hear is yakyakyak - I don't even bother to skim them anymore. Talk about hyper-minding. But some people seem interested, so if he's here and they want to chat with him, so be it. So my mind is makethed up - decidedly closed to what Q has had to say (so far) and mildly curious about his desire to be inciteful (as opposed to insightful). Whatever Peter decides, I will not feel run over. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on May 31, 2013 15:11:34 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, The story of Q in a nutshell: He who speaketh as the untethered neutral one, he who thinketh too much, he is the one that will get run over by the one who maketh up his mind. For the mighty momentum of LOA showeth no mercy with the undecided open-minded ones. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I don't know if the above is aimed at all 'neutrals' or, more likely, Peter, but since I dropped my hat in the Neutral/Don't Care ring, I'll address it. I don't really care if Q is posting or not cause I don't interact with him. As far as the pseudo-porn, like popee/farmer I'm more interested in my own reaction than I am about focusing on Q. It was isolated in one thread anyway and could have been avoided if anyone wanted to. Plus I don't have little kids hanging out near me. The qualia/philosophical conversations... all I hear is yakyakyak - I don't even bother to skim them anymore. Talk about hyper-minding. But some people seem interested, so if he's here and they want to chat with him, so be it. So my mind is makethed up - decidedly closed to what Q has had to say (so far) and mildly curious about his desire to be inciteful (as opposed to insightful). Whatever Peter decides, I will not feel run over. What she said. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2013 7:00:39 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, The story of Q in a nutshell: He who speaketh as the untethered neutral one, he who thinketh too much, he is the one that will get run over by the one who maketh up his mind. For the mighty momentum of LOA showeth no mercy with the undecided open-minded ones. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I don't know if the above is aimed at all 'neutrals' or, more likely, Peter, but since I dropped my hat in the Neutral/Don't Care ring, I'll address it. I don't really care if Q is posting or not cause I don't interact with him. As far as the pseudo-porn, like popee/farmer I'm more interested in my own reaction than I am about focusing on Q. It was isolated in one thread anyway and could have been avoided if anyone wanted to. Plus I don't have little kids hanging out near me. The qualia/philosophical conversations... all I hear is yakyakyak - I don't even bother to skim them anymore. Talk about hyper-minding. But some people seem interested, so if he's here and they want to chat with him, so be it. So my mind is makethed up - decidedly closed to what Q has had to say (so far) and mildly curious about his desire to be inciteful (as opposed to insightful). Whatever Peter decides, I will not feel run over. Dear Dude/Dudette, No worries, you're safe.  Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2013 7:01:11 GMT -5
I don't know if the above is aimed at all 'neutrals' or, more likely, Peter, but since I dropped my hat in the Neutral/Don't Care ring, I'll address it. I don't really care if Q is posting or not cause I don't interact with him. As far as the pseudo-porn, like popee/farmer I'm more interested in my own reaction than I am about focusing on Q. It was isolated in one thread anyway and could have been avoided if anyone wanted to. Plus I don't have little kids hanging out near me. The qualia/philosophical conversations... all I hear is yakyakyak - I don't even bother to skim them anymore. Talk about hyper-minding. But some people seem interested, so if he's here and they want to chat with him, so be it. So my mind is makethed up - decidedly closed to what Q has had to say (so far) and mildly curious about his desire to be inciteful (as opposed to insightful). Whatever Peter decides, I will not feel run over. What she said. Dear Dude/Dudette, You you don't have kids? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 1, 2013 8:42:01 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, You you don't have kids? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Nope. And, my plants couldn't care less. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 9:59:24 GMT -5
Question's fourth big toe is perfect -- no ban.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 1, 2013 11:42:22 GMT -5
Question's fourth big toe is perfect -- no ban. By my count that's 4 no-bans and 3 I don't give a sh!ts. (Counting Farmer/Popee, if we can trust that he is who he says he is)  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2013 11:55:36 GMT -5
Question's fourth big toe is perfect -- no ban. By my count that's 4 no-bans and 3 I don't give a sh!ts. ( Counting Farmer/Popee, if we can trust that he is who he says he is) Dear Dude/Dudette, If he's really the guy behind the former popee accounts then he really is a senior. When does one become a senior here anyway? 100 posts? The old farmer account had about that much, wasn't it? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2013 11:56:39 GMT -5
Question's fourth big toe is perfect -- no ban. Dear Dude/Dudette, Are you campaigning? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 12:48:29 GMT -5
Question's fourth big toe is perfect -- no ban. Dear Dude/Dudette, Are you campaigning? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I suppose so -- though I sloganeered wrong. It should've been Question's 4th Toes are Perfect! I assume he has only 2 big ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2013 20:23:13 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Are you campaigning? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I suppose so -- though I sloganeered wrong. It should've been Question's 4th Toes are Perfect! I assume he has only 2 big ones. Dear Dude/Dudette, Be sure to keep your message positive and make it seen in EVERY thread. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2013 4:02:41 GMT -5
Being new here I feel a bit out-of-place in this vote, but here goes: I like devils advocacy as it is challenging. But if it denegrates into ad hominem attacks, then the subject in question should strap on a big pair and get ready. Working in showbiz with insane musicians and comedians for 20 years, handling attention-vampirism is no ting mon. I say keep him aboard, but if he gets crazy then allow other members to go skin for skin....all egoic and stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 4, 2013 6:32:18 GMT -5
I received the following from Question which I include here in it's entirety: Peter, Bob has made it clear to me that he is not interested in making a decision one way or another. I decided to involve him because your PM seemed hostile to me and I had no interest to argue on that level. Even though I don't like that there are discussions about me where people who I've never even heard of are allowed to say the most bizarre things about me without a chance for me to defend myself I remained silent for the past weeks in respect of Bob's decision making. Now that the situation has changed it's time for me to get involved again and send you this PM. I am convinced that my ban is completely unjustified, that's why I reject this newest "democratic" vote for it would imply that I am guilty of something and this forum votes on whether to forgive me or not. In a democracy the accused is allowed to defend himself, so if you are serious about it then I believe I should enjoy the same opportunity. If you choose to give me this oportunity then I must know what exactly I am accused of. Please note that even to this day I still am not aware of the exact accusations. As far as I can tell they have evolved from posting the image of a former pornographic actress, to her mouthing the f-word, to me playing games, then to all kinds of negative subjective impressions "adding up", and now to that of provocation. However, you yourself and others participants have already made clear that none of these accusations are valid, in other words if these are the accusations that we're talking about then I think we both know that proving my innocence would be merely a matter of time, but also one of embarrassing theatre. I fear no such embarrassment (because I have a sound explanation for all my recent posts), but I believe that you precisely in your capacity as moderator should. Especially now that Bob is no longer moderating I have no interest in damaging your authority. Please forgive me this speculation, but it seems to me that you already realize that you've made the wrong decision and now you're either trying to get used to this fact so that you can allow yourself to revoke the decision or you're trying to find a reason so that you can allow yourself to revoke it. Let's play through the available options: - You ignore this PM, the vote is negative, I remain banned. This is the easiest of all options. - You ignore this PM, the vote is positive. I will insist that my ban was not justified and if the discussion turns that way then I will with my arguments make the other members acknowledge my innocence. - You allow me to defend myself. In an embarrassing theatre I will prove my innocence. - You simply admit that you've made the wrong decision. I of course don't mention this PM if you don't. This is the toughtest choice but I believe it will gain you the most respect - certainly from most other members, but also from me fwiw. -- In the case that I am unbanned (by whatever process) I can guarantee that some of my posts will remain challenging and provocative (though certainly not of the RETARD-kind), for such is my nature and it is not negotiable. However, I can guarantee you that none of them will be without good reason. If you don't allow me the opportunity to defend myself and if the vote turns against me then I request that the threads about me be closed. You have my permission to post this PM on the forum and to remove uncomfortable passages. Sincerely, Question I'm short of time right now - right in the middle of doing my tax return - so I'll post this here as a placeholder and respond to it when possible. P |
|
