Why was my topic deleted?.

[J-Studham]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

[MCT]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

Because you smell like mustard.

[Christos AG]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

Go read the rules and you'll find the answer to your question.

Something you should have done before you started posting.

[Kujo]

Shouldn't this be in the Dead Horse section?

[Krispy Kreme]

Why was my topic about gnfr deleted?

JamesnfrStedham.

It happens all the time. Sadly, there  are  no rules  and everything is arbitrary. Mods  can do what  they want whenever they want. You are  at the mercy of people being reasonable, and often  that does not  happen. It  is a fact.

Your  choices: exit or deal with  it. I speak from experience. I  now  have  exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes  I am wrong. Welcome  to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

[Kujo]

The post was deleted because it was one of 5 that popped up discussing that website. It is clearly stated in Jarmos rules that we aren't to discuss that site. Its not like he said something and Christos or whoever disagreed.

It might not be a bad idea however to post a sticky in the GnR section so the new posters can have a constant reminder of the policy regarding gnfnr.com

[Christos AG]

The post was deleted because it was one of 5 that popped up discussing that website. It is clearly stated in Jarmos rules that we aren't to discuss that site. Its not like he said something and Christos or whoever disagreed.

It might not be a bad idea however to post a sticky in the GnR section so the new posters can have a constant reminder of the policy regarding gnfnr.com

There is a sticky about the rules, and gnfr.com is included, but most of the newbies don't seem to care...

[Pandora]

I  now  have  exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes  I am wrong.

That's not self-censorship, that's what you're supposed to be doing all the time. If everyone thought before posting, mods wouldn't have so much work. I don't think it's too much to ask for people to think if the topic has already been discussed or not, if it's allowed or not, if it's in the right section or not, etc...Everyone can help keep an orderly board.

[jarmo]

I? now? have? exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes? I am wrong. Welcome? to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

It's 2006, I think it's reasonable to assume people who can login, click on links and use the computer to actually know how to use the search, how to read (for example the posting guidelines) and so on.

Maybe you think it's censorship when you have to think before posting. For your own sake I hope you occasionally think before you speak in your day to day life....




/jarmo

[Krispy Kreme]

I? now? have? exercised "self-censorshp" just like in Putin's Russia--I choose to start threads ONLY after thinking if they will be deleted or not, and even then sometimes? I am wrong. Welcome? to 1933. And welcome to HTGTH.

It's 2006, I think it's reasonable to assume people who can login, click on links and use the computer to actually know how to use the search, how to read (for example the posting guidelines) and so on.

Maybe you think it's censorship when you have to think before posting. For your own sake I hope you occasionally think before you speak in your day to day life....


/jarmo

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed  different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some  thought into it.

[pilferk]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed? different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some? thought into it.

There is a pretty big fundamental difference between "moderation" and "censorship".

Since you're an acedemic, apparently, how would you feel if one of your students sat in your classroom and constantly derailed the topics of conversation?? Or revisted unrelated topics that were discussed previously?? Or started talking about Calculus during your Comp and Lit Lecture?? ?Not only would it be frustrating to YOU, as the teacher, trying to get your point across, but it would be frustrating to the other students who were trying to get something out of your lecture.

Structure is not censorship.? Moderation is not censorship.? If you disagree with the "bent" and direction that moderation takes in this forum (and I think they are both pretty lenient and pretty clear what the rules are), perhaps it's best not to complain about it (since you know that's not going to be effective), and either do something about it or go to a forum that more closely meets YOUR ideals of what moderation should be.? It seems a simple concept that any acedemic should have no issue comprehending.   In fact, you even mention is in your post.  So why continue to complain when you know it has no effect?  Or do you think it might sway posters into leaving as well? 


To the OP:? gnfr is a subject, given it's controversial nature, that jarmo thinks best left off the board.? If you want to discuss it, I know chinesedemocracy.com has/had a huge thread on it going.

[Will]

What is beyond me is that people actually still believe whatever is going on at gnfr.com...I mean, hasn't anyone realized that this guy...whoever he is - hmm whatever...always puts his "insider's info" or whatever you call it after it happens?? I mean come on, give me a break. Some lame guy puts up a fake "complete CD leak" on mininova...after a few hours it's become very clear that it's fake. And then, oddly enough gnfr.com is updated and the guy posts something like "Don't be fooled by fake leaks" or whatever (sorry I just looked at it real quick). Oh yeah, that must be his insider's info.
I guess in a way, it's good that it gets people's minds occupied while waiting for the CD, trying to solve "riddles" which do not have a point really. Wasn't he supposed to give out some real info after a countdown about 4 years ago? Hmmm...

[pilferk]

Will.....

You're discussing what we're not supposed to discuss.



Though I will say a few things, since you brought it up:

1) At this point, it being "real" seems pretty remote.

2) To the sites credit, it did relaunch just hours before the new PR that Axl and the band released about Rio and Storming NYC.

3) Most of those following it are doing so for the "right" reasons.? Because it's interesting and a neat mental excersize.? I've posted, a few times, over at cd.com warning people that management has said it's not legit, and informing them of what happened back in '02...so not to expect too much.

4) And yes...the countdown thing was pretty much when gnfr.com jumped the shark.? Man, that pissed us all off.

[Will]

You're discussing what we're not supposed to discuss.

I had to get this off my chest because this gnfr.com thing really gets on my nerves. lol

4) And yes...the countdown thing was pretty much when gnfr.com jumped the shark.  Man, that pissed us all off.

And yet, people still believe in it.

[Krispy Kreme]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly take it into consideration.
1. censorship is indeed? different from thinking. If you read my post carefully, the nuance is clear.
2. when I start to write my 12th academic book in the autumn, I will take your advice and try to put some? thought into it.

There is a pretty big fundamental difference between "moderation" and "censorship".

Since you're an acedemic, apparently, how would you feel if one of your students sat in your classroom and constantly derailed the topics of conversation?? Or revisted unrelated topics that were discussed previously?? Or started talking about Calculus during your Comp and Lit Lecture?? ?Not only would it be frustrating to YOU, as the teacher, trying to get your point across, but it would be frustrating to the other students who were trying to get something out of your lecture.

Structure is not censorship.? Moderation is not censorship.? If you disagree with the "bent" and direction that moderation takes in this forum (and I think they are both pretty lenient and pretty clear what the rules are), perhaps it's best not to complain about it (since you know that's not going to be effective), and either do something about it or go to a forum that more closely meets YOUR ideals of what moderation should be.? It seems a simple concept that any acedemic should have no issue comprehending.? ?In fact, you even mention is in your post.? So why continue to complain when you know it has no effect?? Or do you think it might sway posters into leaving as well??


To the OP:? gnfr is a subject, given it's controversial nature, that jarmo thinks best left off the board.? If you want to discuss it, I know chinesedemocracy.com has/had a huge thread on it going.

I agree with you 100%--there is a huge difference between moderation and censorship, and indeed, between moderation and self-censorship. One need not be an academic to understand this basic difference. My point, which spoke directly to the thread, was that one has to exercise self-censorship (which entails thinking) when starting a thread. Why? Because some threads are deleted for no good reason at all. Arbitrarily, at the whim of  whoever is the moderator at the time. No reason, no basis, no consistency, just 'I do it because I can.' It has happened to me time and time again, especially in The Jungle, which should be the most lenient of all. Thus, one has to try to predict what will be an 'acceptable' thread to the mods and hope that one has guessed correctly.

Thus, I am not talking about staying on topic (I agree with that policy), and I am not talking about insults or other infractions, with which  I also agree. I am talking about the arbitrary use of 'power' by some mods to delete threads with no reason other than they can. That is a real problem I have encountered in The Jungle. And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

[jarmo]

And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Because in many cases the thread was merged with a similar one. It appears like it was deleted because it might not have the same subject anymore.



/jarmo

[pilferk]

I agree with you 100%--there is a huge difference between moderation and censorship, and indeed, between moderation and self-censorship. One need not be an academic to understand this basic difference. My point, which spoke directly to the thread, was that one has to exercise self-censorship (which entails thinking) when starting a thread. Why? Because some threads are deleted for no good reason at all. Arbitrarily, at the whim of? whoever is the moderator at the time. No reason, no basis, no consistency, just 'I do it because I can.' It has happened to me time and time again, especially in The Jungle, which should be the most lenient of all. Thus, one has to try to predict what will be an 'acceptable' thread to the mods and hope that one has guessed correctly.

Thus, I am not talking about staying on topic (I agree with that policy), and I am not talking about insults or other infractions, with which? I also agree. I am talking about the arbitrary use of 'power' by some mods to delete threads with no reason other than they can. That is a real problem I have encountered in The Jungle. And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Honestly, I've not seen a thread deleted, in any section, that didn't violate the rules.

The one mentioned by the OP, for example, was discussing gnfr. ?The rules clearly state that topic is a no no. ?No self-moderation there, other than to be able to understand the rules, which you agreed to when you created your account and took on the priviledge of being able to post here, and abide by them.

In the Jungle, for the longest time, political threads were (and may still be) considered a no no. ?And it said so in a post at the top of the page. ?Again, no self moderation other than understanding the rules and abiding by them.

That, of course, is not to say it hasn't happened. ?But the fact of the matter is that when the person POSTING a thread complains about it's deletion, and asserts it didn't violate any rules...you must admit the source is not exactly the most unbiased on the matter. ?Not knowing the content of the posts, it's tough for me to give you an objective view, too.

But it still leads us back to the fact that, if you disagree with the mods use of their power, why stay and complain when you know it will have absolutely zero effect? ?Unless you percieve that you are going to alert the rest of the membership to this percieved injustice?

[pilferk]

And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Because in many cases the thread was merged with a similar one. It appears like it was deleted because it might not have the same subject anymore.



/jarmo

And couldn't he just check his last posts to see where it had appeared?

I'm not being snarky, I'm just not exactly sure how that feature works...if it moves, does the link in your last posts change or does it point to the "broken" message?

[jarmo]

Yes, the posts should show up in the latest posts list.



/jarmo

[makane]

Are you planning on doing something for the weekend? ie. you could remove the ability to create new threads if you have under 20 posts or something?
The board will be bloated. It would be nice to actually find the real info from the garbage can after the shows.

[Krispy Kreme]

I agree with you 100%--there is a huge difference between moderation and censorship, and indeed, between moderation and self-censorship. One need not be an academic to understand this basic difference. My point, which spoke directly to the thread, was that one has to exercise self-censorship (which entails thinking) when starting a thread. Why? Because some threads are deleted for no good reason at all. Arbitrarily, at the whim of? whoever is the moderator at the time. No reason, no basis, no consistency, just 'I do it because I can.' It has happened to me time and time again, especially in The Jungle, which should be the most lenient of all. Thus, one has to try to predict what will be an 'acceptable' thread to the mods and hope that one has guessed correctly.

Thus, I am not talking about staying on topic (I agree with that policy), and I am not talking about insults or other infractions, with which? I also agree. I am talking about the arbitrary use of 'power' by some mods to delete threads with no reason other than they can. That is a real problem I have encountered in The Jungle. And that is why there are frequent threads in the Admin section asking 'why was my thread deleted.'

Honestly, I've not seen a thread deleted, in any section, that didn't violate the rules.

The one mentioned by the OP, for example, was discussing gnfr. ?The rules clearly state that topic is a no no. ?No self-moderation there, other than to be able to understand the rules, which you agreed to when you created your account and took on the priviledge of being able to post here, and abide by them.

In the Jungle, for the longest time, political threads were (and may still be) considered a no no. ?And it said so in a post at the top of the page. ?Again, no self moderation other than understanding the rules and abiding by them.

That, of course, is not to say it hasn't happened. ?But the fact of the matter is that when the person POSTING a thread complains about it's deletion, and asserts it didn't violate any rules...you must admit the source is not exactly the most unbiased on the matter. ?Not knowing the content of the posts, it's tough for me to give you an objective view, too.

But it still leads us back to the fact that, if you disagree with the mods use of their power, why stay and complain when you know it will have absolutely zero effect? ?Unless you percieve that you are going to alert the rest of the membership to this percieved injustice?

So yours is the old 'shut up and take your medicine' option. Numerous people have asked  why Jews  who knew they were going to be gassed did nothing. I am NOT drawing a parallel here. What I am saying is that speaking out has  a function. Different people will define that function differently, but the fact is it  has a function. You seem to advocate the passive do-nothing approach. That may work for some people, but not for  me. Furthermore, I don't know where  you are  from, but the 'shut up' approach is not American political culture.

And  as for threads being deleted, I can tell you that almost every thread  I start in The Jungle gets  deleted and none has violated any kind of rule. It is just baseless arbitrary action. That is  just fact. Apparently, you are skeptical  as  to my arguments, and that is your right, and if you are lucky enough to be on the good side of the mods, and they let you be, good for  you. But mostly I am bewidlered by your implication that free  speech in the face of "injustice" is bad. But that  is your right, just as it is my right to speak out.

[Jim]

I can tell you that almost every thread  I start in The Jungle gets deleted and none has violated any kind of rule. It is just baseless arbitrary action. That is just fact.

If you were given a penny for every use of the word 'arbitrary' in this section in the past few days, you'd have... Well, more money than me. But I have no money right now.

Anyway... A list, if you would. It need not be exhaustive, since you have clearly experienced your threads being deleted on several occasions, but the majority of what you can remember would suffice.

Where I have deleted any of these theads that you've started, I'll give you the reason... as I am sure will any other moderator.

Oh and, for the record, no threads are ever deleted.

As for the Jews... Subtle. Good one. You would think that the only oppression in history was early twentieth century; hey, it's certainly your field.

[pilferk]

So yours is the old 'shut up and take your medicine' option. Numerous people have asked? why Jews? who knew they were going to be gassed did nothing. I am NOT drawing a parallel here. What I am saying is that speaking out has? a function. Different people will define that function differently, but the fact is it? has a function. You seem to advocate the passive do-nothing approach. That may work for some people, but not for? me. Furthermore, I don't know where? you are? from, but the 'shut up' approach is not American political culture.

And? as for threads being deleted, I can tell you that almost every thread? I start in The Jungle gets? deleted and none has violated any kind of rule. It is just baseless arbitrary action. That is? just fact. Apparently, you are skeptical? as? to my arguments, and that is your right, and if you are lucky enough to be on the good side of the mods, and they let you be, good for? you. But mostly I am bewidlered by your implication that free? speech in the face of "injustice" is bad. But that? is your right, just as it is my right to speak out.

In your acedemic pursuits have you ever, in fact, led the drama deparment?? Because your entire statement, above, is certainly a good piece of empassioned theater, that's for sure.

Yes, speaking out against a governement, or a company, or a public institution that you percieve MIGHT be acting in an immoral fashion, or has caused you some hardship, has merit.?It may, in some cases, even be considered your civic duty. It may even bring about change.? Doing so here does not, is not, and will not.? That's been made abundantly clear, has it not?? Because it is a privately owned and operated institution, it's content is solely at the discretion of the owner (jarmo) and those he appoints to monitor it (the mods).?He's doing nothing illegal. He's excersizing HIS right to run HIS "business" in any manner he sees fit, so long as it does not violate the laws in the place it is operated in.

 You are a guest in someone's "home", so to speak.? It's just common decency, manners, and common sense to respect their rules or, if you don't like them (or their actions), to disassociate yourself from them and leave.? It's not "take your medicine and shut up".? It's "why go to someone's house you dislike and piss on their carpet"?

In addition to that, if you DO have a disagreement over a matter of principle with an institution, or some other entity in which you can CHOOSE to associate, I find it curious that you would continue on with that association.? To me, that smacks of a lack of conviction.? If you are so offended by the mods "injustices", why would you continue to post here?? ?There are certainly an abundance of options out there. You've yet to actually address that question.? I wonder why that is so?

Again, the only reason I can see is you envision yourself some sort of crusader.? You can be quite sure that the posters here do not need you to point out the polices of the mods, or for you to "defend" them against those percieved injustices.? If, at some ponit, enough people feel as you do (which, in all honestly, doesn't seem to be the case...notice most of the "complaints" are from a very vocal, but very small, group of the same posters), that they have been "victims" of poor moderation, and they leave.....the forum will die.? So, in essence, LEAVING is actually a more effective way to fight your battle than your words are.? Even our colonial brethren knew when it was time to stop with the empassioned rhetoric and start fighting with actions.? Perhaps you've heard they do speak louder than words, at any rate?

If you think you are, on some level, "rallying the troops", so to speak......I'd invite you to look around. It's not working. 

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.? You have made accusations, to be sure.? But, given the situation, and your obvious "issues" with the mods here, it's tough to swallow you as a credible source of information.? Rather, you look like someone with an agenda to push....

And finally, as an academic, you should be aware that free speech has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a privately owned, privately operated, privately moderated forum on the internet.? Nothing. Your priveledge to post here, and every word you type, is at the discretion of the owner (even the ones you type which call into question the character of that owner and the mods he's chosen). Period. So bringing up such a point, in a discussion such as this, is not only irrelevant, it's a red herring.

[MCT]

In your acedemic pursuits have you ever, in fact, led the drama deparment?? Because your entire statement, above, is certainly a good piece of empassioned theater, that's for sure.

 

Red herring! I love it.

You just made my day. Thanks.

I don't think you're very good at pulling off colloquial writing though. Too many commas. And they become an annoyance as they just don't gel with your "voice".

Simply put, you're trying to exert too much control over the reader by throwing too much punctuation into the mix. Which I think is the direct result of you aiming for authenticity of speech.

My advice would be to concentrate on a more formal style, regardless of how pretentious that may feel. After all, that's clearly your strength.

Oh, and condense, condense, condense. Those internal asides are killing you. Which is another explanation for some of your unnecessary punctuation. And it's certainly a more tangible one.

In constructive spirit,

Me.

[pilferk]

 

Red herring! I love it.

You just made my day. Thanks.

I don't think you're very good at pulling off colloquial writing though. Too many commas. And they become an annoyance as they just don't gel with your "voice".

Simply put, you're trying to exert too much control over the reader by throwing too much punctuation into the mix. Which I think is the direct result of you aiming for authenticity of speech.

My advice would be to concentrate on a more formal style, regardless of how pretentious that may feel. After all, that's clearly your strength.

Oh, and condense, condense, condense. Those internal asides are killing you. Which is another explanation for some of your unnecessary punctuation. And it's certainly a more tangible one.

In constructive spirit,

Me.

Thanks for your critique of my writing style.

I'll file it right next to the empty coffee cup.

 

I left school long ago, and I write, in this forum (meaning HTGTH) especially, the way I feel comfortable writing.? "Constructive" critisism or not, I'm about as likely to change that style as jarmo is to change the way he moderates the board.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[MCT]

I stepped on a rake this morning at work, flipped out and got sent home. I'm just trying to entertain myself.

I'm going to have a nice clean debate with you soon though. For my own sake.

Take it easy...

EDIT - You know I was just out having a smoke, dissecting my motives and all that, when I realized exactly why I posted. So scrap the above. I retract it anyway.

See, I can't stand you. You annoy me to no end. But you put just enough of an effort into your writing that I find you interesting. And that's it. No reply needed.

[pilferk]

EDIT - You know I was just out having a smoke, dissecting my motives and all that, when I realized exactly why I posted. So scrap the above. I retract it anyway.

See, I can't stand you. You annoy me to no end. But you put just enough of an effort into your writing that I find you interesting. And that's it. No reply needed.

Great, glad to hear it.? The fixation is sort of flattering, I guess....

 

I, for one, don't find you very interesting at all.? In fact, I don't find you much of anything.....(which, I'm sure matters to you about as much as your opinion of me matters to me), until you start up with your fixation every so often.? Then I just find you odd.? And not odd in an interesting way.? Odd in a sort of boring way.? You attempt to play these "games".? And they're boring, unoriginal, and terribly pointless games.? Which is why I tend to just leave you to play solitaire (which, as one of the asides you seem to dislike, might be why you keep fixating ever so often...hmmmmm).

But I doubt the rest of the forum cares how you feel about me or vice versa....

So you have fun with that....hope you enjoy being annoyed and all that. Whatever gets ya through the night, ya know?

Oh, and since WE'RE not the topic of discussion on this thread...how about you take it to PM's?

And now I'll leave you to your game of solitaire.? Hope you get the aces!

[Mysteron]

GNFR is not an official site

Management know who runs it, but it causes no great harm

It is up to all individual forums how they want to treat it

[Hammy]

Hey dude welcome....

Your posts were not deleted just moved...

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=29725.msg567654#msg567654

That link is to your fave GN'R track thread, and your post was moved there since it was fairly similar, old and knew, it's still about your fave GN'R tracks, that's what the Dead Horse section is for, questions that have been asked tons of times, ya know the obvious ones, fave tracks, albums, members etc.

Edit: A good way to check where your posts have gone is to click on your profile and scroll down to 'Show the last posts of this person'

[MCT]

Great, glad to hear it.? The fixation is sort of flattering, I guess....

 

I, for one, don't find you very interesting at all.? In fact, I don't find you much of anything.....(which, I'm sure matters to you about as much as your opinion of me matters to me), until you start up with your fixation every so often.? Then I just find you odd.? And not odd in an interesting way.? Odd in a sort of boring way.? You attempt to play these "games".? And they're boring, unoriginal, and terribly pointless games.? Which is why I tend to just leave you to play solitaire (which, as one of the asides you seem to dislike, might be why you keep fixating ever so often...hmmmmm).

But I doubt the rest of the forum cares how you feel about me or vice versa....

So you have fun with that....hope you enjoy being annoyed and all that. Whatever gets ya through the night, ya know?

Oh, and since WE'RE not the topic of discussion on this thread...how about you take it to PM's?

And now I'll leave you to your game of solitaire.? Hope you get the aces!

And I thought I was defensive...

Anyway, you're obviously more mature than me seeing as how you've got the good sense to ignore me and only to show that grudge of yours when little more than mere happenstance brings us together.

I see now that I had absolutely no right to give you those pointers. And how I could have stooped so low I can't even begin to fathom.

So I would like to take this opportunity to send out my sincerest regrets to you and your family. I'm a monster. A vicious, belligerent, meaningless monster. And I'm sorry for that. I don't deserve to eat.

My apologies as well to Jarmo, the mods and indeed, the entire community, for smearing my hate filled feces, my vile graffiti, all over the forum. I should have to wipe my ass with plywood I'm such a heinous creature.

And now I'll break this intolerable tension, a tension that I created in a moment of malevolence, by stating forthright that I shall never antagonize you again, and that I'll do my best every single day to live up to your fine example in my quest to become a better human being.

Take care,

The Horrible Me.

[Krispy Kreme]

I can tell you that almost every thread? I start in The Jungle gets deleted and none has violated any kind of rule. It is just baseless arbitrary action. That is just fact.

If you were given a penny for every use of the word 'arbitrary' in this section in the past few days, you'd have... Well, more money than me. But I have no money right now.

Anyway... A list, if you would. It need not be exhaustive, since you have clearly experienced your threads being deleted on several occasions, but the majority of what you can remember would suffice.

Where I have deleted any of these theads that you've started, I'll give you the reason... as I am sure will any other moderator.

Oh and, for the record, no threads are ever deleted.

As for the Jews... Subtle. Good one. You would think that the only oppression in history was early twentieth century; hey, it's certainly your field.

The list is  rather long, but two most recent that come to mind:
The Jungle:
1. biggest (monetary) raise you ever received
2. I  hate when I get drunk and....

It is not the "majority" by far, but I am too busy to keep a list, so this is just a small representative sample.

[Krispy Kreme]

So yours is the old 'shut up and take your medicine' option. Numerous people have asked? why Jews? who knew they were going to be gassed did nothing. I am NOT drawing a parallel here. What I am saying is that speaking out has? a function. Different people will define that function differently, but the fact is it? has a function. You seem to advocate the passive do-nothing approach. That may work for some people, but not for? me. Furthermore, I don't know where? you are? from, but the 'shut up' approach is not American political culture.

And? as for threads being deleted, I can tell you that almost every thread? I start in The Jungle gets? deleted and none has violated any kind of rule. It is just baseless arbitrary action. That is? just fact. Apparently, you are skeptical? as? to my arguments, and that is your right, and if you are lucky enough to be on the good side of the mods, and they let you be, good for? you. But mostly I am bewidlered by your implication that free? speech in the face of "injustice" is bad. But that? is your right, just as it is my right to speak out.

In your acedemic pursuits have you ever, in fact, led the drama deparment?? Because your entire statement, above, is certainly a good piece of empassioned theater, that's for sure.

Yes, speaking out against a governement, or a company, or a public institution that you percieve MIGHT be acting in an immoral fashion, or has caused you some hardship, has merit.?It may, in some cases, even be considered your civic duty. It may even bring about change.? Doing so here does not, is not, and will not.? That's been made abundantly clear, has it not?? Because it is a privately owned and operated institution, it's content is solely at the discretion of the owner (jarmo) and those he appoints to monitor it (the mods).?He's doing nothing illegal. He's excersizing HIS right to run HIS "business" in any manner he sees fit, so long as it does not violate the laws in the place it is operated in.

 You are a guest in someone's "home", so to speak.? It's just common decency, manners, and common sense to respect their rules or, if you don't like them (or their actions), to disassociate yourself from them and leave.? It's not "take your medicine and shut up".? It's "why go to someone's house you dislike and piss on their carpet"?

In addition to that, if you DO have a disagreement over a matter of principle with an institution, or some other entity in which you can CHOOSE to associate, I find it curious that you would continue on with that association.? To me, that smacks of a lack of conviction.? If you are so offended by the mods "injustices", why would you continue to post here?? ?There are certainly an abundance of options out there. You've yet to actually address that question.? I wonder why that is so?

Again, the only reason I can see is you envision yourself some sort of crusader.? You can be quite sure that the posters here do not need you to point out the polices of the mods, or for you to "defend" them against those percieved injustices.? If, at some ponit, enough people feel as you do (which, in all honestly, doesn't seem to be the case...notice most of the "complaints" are from a very vocal, but very small, group of the same posters), that they have been "victims" of poor moderation, and they leave.....the forum will die.? So, in essence, LEAVING is actually a more effective way to fight your battle than your words are.? Even our colonial brethren knew when it was time to stop with the empassioned rhetoric and start fighting with actions.? Perhaps you've heard they do speak louder than words, at any rate?

If you think you are, on some level, "rallying the troops", so to speak......I'd invite you to look around. It's not working.?

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.? You have made accusations, to be sure.? But, given the situation, and your obvious "issues" with the mods here, it's tough to swallow you as a credible source of information.? Rather, you look like someone with an agenda to push....

And finally, as an academic, you should be aware that free speech has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a privately owned, privately operated, privately moderated forum on the internet.? Nothing. Your priveledge to post here, and every word you type, is at the discretion of the owner (even the ones you type which call into question the character of that owner and the mods he's chosen). Period. So bringing up such a point, in a discussion such as this, is not only irrelevant, it's a red herring.

You keep seeing conspiracy where there  is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical  literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant  insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

[Jim]

The list is  rather long, but two most recent that come to mind:
The Jungle:
1. biggest (monetary) raise you ever received
2. I  hate when I get drunk and....

It is not the "majority" by far, but I am too busy to keep a list, so this is just a small representative sample.

Well, it certainly doesn't look like a long list........

(A tip: In future, pick better representative samples)

1. That would be this one... http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=28516.0

2. And I guess that would be make this one here. http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=27064.msg493000#msg493000

Deleted? Oh, no no my friend... The first one is still open. The second one was  ............................(to the max)

... I created a thread for stupid ass drunk man comments. 

Now. Anything else, brother?

As an academic would know, it is critical that any reasonable argument, that wants to be taken seriously at least, must include tangible examples. So far, your own number...

Well. That big goose egg.

Also, this is only a public forum because jarmo lets it be a public forum. Go chew on that for a while. I'll read some Mancur Olsen....................

[Krispy Kreme]

The list is? rather long, but two most recent that come to mind:
The Jungle:
1. biggest (monetary) raise you ever received
2. I? hate when I get drunk and....

It is not the "majority" by far, but I am too busy to keep a list, so this is just a small representative sample.

Well, it certainly doesn't look like a long list........

Jim,



(A tip: In future, pick better representative samples)

1. That would be this one... http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=28516.0

2. And I guess that would be make this one here. http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=27064.msg493000#msg493000

Deleted? Oh, no no my friend... The first one is still open. The second one was? ............................(to the max)

... I created a thread for stupid ass drunk man comments.?

Now. Anything else, brother?

As an academic would know, it is critical that any reasonable argument, that wants to be taken seriously at least, must include tangible examples. So far, your own number...

Well. That big goose egg.

Also, this is only a public forum because jarmo lets it be a public forum. Go chew on that for a while. I'll read some Mancur Olsen....................

Jim,

No hostility intended. You are a cool moderator, certainly one  of the  more  reasonable  ones, as evidenced by your reference to "this is not censorship" in a different thread. So at least you are open to constructive criticism. So maybe my words made a "small dent." I have no argument with you. And thanks for the links. It appears one was locked, without reason, and one is still open. As  I said, it was off the top of my head. The list would be longer if I had time or energy to put into it, but things on the professional front are starting to heat up, so I have to take a pass. Feel free to lock if need  be, I  won't complain.

[Skeba]

The second thread was locked by me.

Without a reason? I gave you one right here:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=27372.msg504394#msg504394

You know. The thread you started on why your thread was locked. You even replied to it after I gave you my reason. If you thought that I read the whole situation all wrong. Well you said in the next post in the original thread that you're too drunk to find your profile. Now how the fuck am I supposed to know what the thread was about.

You wanna talk about things you hate??:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=10458.msg404062#msg404062

[Lara]

Was the topic about the portuguese review+nice Axl pic. deleted, or is it just my posts?
I cant seem to find it.

[jarmo]

It's gone. It went way off topic and the pic can probably be found in the pic thread anyway.




/jarmo

[pilferk]

You keep seeing conspiracy where there? is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical? literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant? insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

On the contrary, I don't see conspiracy.  I just can't think of a logical reason why you'd continue to post if you feel so "injured" by the mods.  That's why I asked (buy you've yet to answer).  I presented the only logical reason I could see of continuing to do so.  If you'd like to provide another explanation, I'm all ears.

And, once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this forum is.  It is not "an open forum".  It is a selective, private, moderated forum.  Want an open forum?  Go to unmoderated usenet forms.  It's as close as you'll get.  Have fun getting past the spam.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Why was this deleted- its newsworthy, judge for yourself:

Guns N? Roses will headline KROQ?s Inland Invasion 2006 on September 23
Friday 19 May 2006.


Guns N? Roses will headline KROQ?s Inland Invasion 2006 on September 23 at the Hyundai Pavilion at Glen Helen in Devore, California. GN?R frontman Axl Rose revealed the news Friday (May 19) during an on-air segment with KROQ hosts Kevin and Bean. It will be the band?s first Los Angeles gig in more than 15 years, Rose said. And who would have imagined even a few days ago that the long-dormant yet suddenly ubiquitous GN?R would be back playing an acoustic set for actress Rosario Dawson on her birthday? The band did just that Thursday night at the Plumm in New York, showing up to play 11 cuts, including "Used to Love Her," "Mr. Brownstone" and "Sweet Child O? Mine.".
Source: MTV News
source: http://www.gunsnroses.us

[Pandora]

People really need to check their own profile before saying a thread is deleted.  Yours has simply been merged with this one, which is essentially about the same thing :
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=30544.0

[jameslofton29]

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.?

Sounds like a certain someone with a certain contact. Definitely an example of a pot calling a kettle black.

[pilferk]

On the subject of credibility, I have to, again, point out the obvious.? You've done nothing, whatesoever, in this thread or any other, to show you're credible.? You've provided no examples.? You've given no proof.?

Sounds like a certain someone with a certain contact. Definitely an example of a pot calling a kettle black.

Au contraire, mon frere.

I was not making an assertion that would need anyone to consider me credible.? Therefore your "pot calling a kettle black" accusation is innaccurate.

In addition, I have no "contacts".? I have? friend who works in PR and Marketing for a regional retail record chain, owned by a huge retail record chain.? I've even gone so far as to identify that chain for someone, via PM, in the past so they could verify a piece of information.

? And as for her credibility...well, in the past she called the GH press release about 2 weeks before we actually got it (though she didn't say/know it would be about GH), she "called" the original listing of GH prior to that, and has both confirmed, and "called" other things that have happened in regards to the retail side of things.? Yes, the most recent PR information never did pan out (thank Geffen for that bit, FYI).? But notice she was also not, by a long shot, the ONLY source of that information....

So....maybe you should revisit history before leveling false accusations, eh?

Oh, and WAY to resurrect a 3 week old discusion.   

[jameslofton29]

I wasn't necessarily trying to "resurrect a three week old conversation". You were insulting a fellow forum member, and your insult was basically you describing yourself. I strongly doubt you are interested in taking a Pilferk contact trip down memory lane. So dont start acting like a picture of integrity. There is a mile long list of bullshit where you were wrong.

[pilferk]

I wasn't necessarily trying to "resurrect a three week old conversation". You were insulting a fellow forum member, and your insult was basically you describing yourself. I strongly doubt you are interested in taking a Pilferk contact trip down memory lane. So dont start acting like a picture of integrity. There is a mile long list of bullshit where you were wrong.

No, please, by all means...lets take that trip.  I'll await your "mile long list of bullshit"....which, FYI, I don't think you'll find.

And I wasn't insulting a forum member.  I was saying I didn't necessarily believe his claims that "all his threads have been deleted".  And that he'd done nothing in this thread to bolster his claim being credible. 

Not to mention....I was hardly describing myself.  But if you can prove otherwise....have at it.  I'd be interested to see it.

I think james, it's time for YOU to revisit some history.  You seem to have painted a completely fabricated picture of me, and my post history, in your mind.  Not sure WHY that is, exactly....must be that pessimistic streak effecting your recall.

[MCT]

Please Jimmy, take us on a trip!

Impartial and obligatory second line. Similar in nature to the first.

[jameslofton29]

Wish granted. It will take at least a few days to compile. I haven't been online as much the past few days, but when I get home from work each day for the next week or so, this list is priority number one. Dont start deleting old posts from the various forums you post at. I will notice it. For quite awhile I have considered creating a thread where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke. I wanted to kick things off with someone else, but since you are so enthused about this, I guess it will start with you.


To Jarmo or a Mod: Like I said, I have considered doing this for quite some time. But what section should it go in? In my opinion, since these jokers always post in GNR sections at various forums and have fooled quite a few people, it should go in the GNR section where all those people post. But since it isn't actually concerning Axl or another member of GNR, it doesn't really belong there. Maybe The Jungle?

[pilferk]

Wish granted. It will take at least a few days to compile. I haven't been online as much the past few days, but when I get home from work each day for the next week or so, this list is priority number one. Dont start deleting old posts from the various forums you post at. I will notice it. For quite awhile I have considered creating a thread where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke. I wanted to kick things off with someone else, but since you are so enthused about this, I guess it will start with you.

Awesome.  You have fun.  138 pages of posts to go through here, and not much else anywhere else, and I won't delete a one (and you can get jarmo or whatever mod on whatever board to confirm it).

But when you don't find much of anything...I'm going to expect a big, huge, butt kissing apology.

So be prepared to issue one.

[Jim]

... where I expose various "insiders" and people with "contacts" as nothing more than a joke.

Pitch it. You're guaranteed at least a couple of series! I'm sure Fox will pick it up. You'll have to make a decision on your costume pretty sharpish though. Also, is this going to be in conjunction with any crime fighting, or will exposure be the priority? Oh, and you'll need an arch villain.

I do think though that in singling out Pilferk, you're barking up the wrong insider..............

[Krispy Kreme]

People really need to check their own profile before saying a thread is deleted.? Yours has simply been merged with this one, which is essentially about the same thing :
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=30544.0

the link leads  to nowhere. But thanks for thinking of me. 

[Krispy Kreme]

You keep seeing conspiracy where there? is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical? literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant? insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

On the contrary, I don't see conspiracy.? I just can't think of a logical reason why you'd continue to post if you feel so "injured" by the mods.? That's why I asked (buy you've yet to answer).? I presented the only logical reason I could see of continuing to do so.? If you'd like to provide another explanation, I'm all ears.

And, once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this forum is.? It is not "an open forum".? It is a selective, private, moderated forum.? Want an open forum?? Go to unmoderated usenet forms.? It's as close as you'll get.? Have fun getting past the spam.

"The only logical reason"? It  must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

[Krispy Kreme]

The second thread was locked by me.

Without a reason? I gave you one right here:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=27372.msg504394#msg504394

You know. The thread you started on why your thread was locked. You even replied to it after I gave you my reason. If you thought that I read the whole situation all wrong. Well you said in the next post in the original thread that you're too drunk to find your profile. Now how the fuck am I supposed to know what the thread was about.

You wanna talk about things you hate??:


http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=10458.msg404062#msg404062

Not really sure what  you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

[Krispy Kreme]

You keep seeing conspiracy where there? is none. I am not so presumptous as to believe anything I say here has any effect on anyone. And, as as both a private and public forum, nor should it (although your premise has been systematically debunked in the theoretical? literature, see Mancur Olsen). So I am not trying to rally anyone about anything. I 'got no need for the light.' I am just speaking my mind. So 'don't damn me.' Because you are, at least in your mind, so much more erudite than I, I will meekly bow before your brillant? insight into the human psyche and discontinue what I thought was an open forum.

On the contrary, I don't see conspiracy.? I just can't think of a logical reason why you'd continue to post if you feel so "injured" by the mods.? That's why I asked (buy you've yet to answer).? I presented the only logical reason I could see of continuing to do so.? If you'd like to provide another explanation, I'm all ears.

And, once again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this forum is.? It is not "an open forum".? It is a selective, private, moderated forum.? Want an open forum?? Go to unmoderated usenet forms.? It's as close as you'll get.? Have fun getting past the spam.

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership  requirements. No tests  to take, no income requirements, no selectivity  whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people  would  know the difference.

[Skeba]

Not really sure what  you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

Okay then...

You're not sure what I was trying to say? I was trying to say that the exact point of the topic itself wasn't a very decriptive one, and neither was the post... Or the the one you posted after that.. It gave no clarification on what the thread was all about. It could've basically been about anything from "these are the things that I hate" to "comment on Krispy's inability to find his threads when he's drunk". That is what I'm trying to say here.

Am I getting through to you at all? Then I continued my reply to you with a link where you can tell people what are the things that you hate. And yes, you could've posted your "things that happen when I'm drunk that I hate" post there as well, although, I must admit the point of the thread, as you said was _very_ original. Also unique and amazing are words that I myself assosiate with it.. Not really, no. I was just being sarcastic.

You say that there's a difference with how I saw the thread and how you meant it to be. Now go find the original thread and tell me how I was supposed to decrypt what your drunk ass mind was thinking when you originally posted. On second thought, don't tell me. I don't care really.

You complain about 2 threads being locked with no reason. One of those, as displayed by Jim's links, is still open. When I give you the link to a thread where the locking of the original thread is discussed you say you don't understand what I was trying to say. This bitching btw, about 2 months later that I replied to your question on why it was locked.

You seem to just go around looking for fights based on these 'injustices' that you've suffered. Just shut up about it, get over it, and find something real to concern yourself with.

In the original complaint thread "We need rules and transparency for moderators of the Jungle", you said "Grow up and be tolerant". Grow up and be tolerant to threads like "things that happen when I am drunk that I hate"?

I say fuck that.

[pilferk]

"The only logical reason"? It? must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

Might be nice to actually quote what I said:

"The only logical reason I could see"

because it sure changes the meaning of the quote,eh?

But as an acedemic, you'd know that, wouldn't you?

I don't claim to be infailable.? Never have.? So if there IS another reason, go ahead and present it.? You've avoided the question in each and every post so far.....One might wonder why that is.

[pilferk]

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership? requirements. No tests? to take, no income requirements, no selectivity? whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people? would? know the difference.

A PUBLIC forum is one run by, and for, the PUBLIC.

A PRIVATE forum is one owned and operated by a PRIVATE ENTITY.

And one would think an acedemic would know the difference.

It's private because jarmo controls the "membership requirements", the contents, and the membership itself.? He could ban everyone and change the membership requirements fromm being lenient to being more constrained at a whim.  The software itself is very easily configured to require moderator approval.

The only true PUBLIC forum, really, is usenet.

[Krispy Kreme]

"The only logical reason"? It? must be nice to have a monoply on reason.

Might be nice to actually quote what I said:

"The only logical reason I could see"

because it sure changes the meaning of the quote,eh?

But as an acedemic, you'd know that, wouldn't you?

I don't claim to be infailable.? Never have.? So if there IS another reason, go ahead and present it.? You've avoided the question in each and every post so far.....One might wonder why that is.

Wrong again. I have addressed every one of your "credible" issues. I am bored with you. Please go away, and leave me alone. I don't know what your problem is, but really, you are annoying.

[Krispy Kreme]

Not really sure what? you are saying, but the point of the thread, which was original, was not HATE per se, but rather, things that happen when I am drunk that I hate. There is a difference. Hence, the lock was unwarranted.

Okay then...

You're not sure what I was trying to say? I was trying to say that the exact point of the topic itself wasn't a very decriptive one, and neither was the post... Or the the one you posted after that.. It gave no clarification on what the thread was all about. It could've basically been about anything from "these are the things that I hate" to "comment on Krispy's inability to find his threads when he's drunk". That is what I'm trying to say here.

Am I getting through to you at all? Then I continued my reply to you with a link where you can tell people what are the things that you hate. And yes, you could've posted your "things that happen when I'm drunk that I hate" post there as well, although, I must admit the point of the thread, as you said was _very_ original. Also unique and amazing are words that I myself assosiate with it.. Not really, no. I was just being sarcastic.

You say that there's a difference with how I saw the thread and how you meant it to be. Now go find the original thread and tell me how I was supposed to decrypt what your drunk ass mind was thinking when you originally posted. On second thought, don't tell me. I don't care really.

You complain about 2 threads being locked with no reason. One of those, as displayed by Jim's links, is still open. When I give you the link to a thread where the locking of the original thread is discussed you say you don't understand what I was trying to say. This bitching btw, about 2 months later that I replied to your question on why it was locked.

You seem to just go around looking for fights based on these 'injustices' that you've suffered. Just shut up about it, get over it, and find something real to concern yourself with.

In the original complaint thread "We need rules and transparency for moderators of the Jungle", you said "Grow up and be tolerant". Grow up and be tolerant to threads like "things that happen when I am drunk that I hate"?

I say fuck that.

Ok. whatever. I will endeavor to reach your level of maturity. With God's help, maybe I will, if not, then you'll just have to deal with me the way I am. 

[Krispy Kreme]

You are dead wrong. It is on the internet. Anyone can join. No entry obstacles other than having an email address and knowing how to use a computer. No fees, no dues, no membership? requirements. No tests? to take, no income requirements, no selectivity? whatsoever. That makes it a public forum, not private. That is a pretty elementary fact and most people? would? know the difference.

A PUBLIC forum is one run by, and for, the PUBLIC.

A PRIVATE forum is one owned and operated by a PRIVATE ENTITY.

And one would think an acedemic would know the difference.

It's private because jarmo controls the "membership requirements", the contents, and the membership itself.? He could ban everyone and change the membership requirements fromm being lenient to being more constrained at a whim.? The software itself is very easily configured to require moderator approval.

The only true PUBLIC forum, really, is usenet.

You are wrong, but obviously nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion. And clearly, to take on an "acedemic" [sic] feeds your ego. So I am done with you. When you publish your  first  book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

[Jim]

... When you publish your  first  book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

Nobody that would ever write a book that would ever hold any interest of mine would ever come out with something like that. 

(I guess that was rather definitive......... Maybe you can substitute "I doubt that anybody..." for "Nobody," at the beggining of the sentance.)

Simply saying "No, no, you're wrong... I give up," sounds more like a submission than anything else, to me at least. 

I would be interested to know how you differentiate, in the terms of an "open" forum, between public and private; the only reason that "anybody" can join is because Jarmo lets anybody join. On signing up you agreed to a number of rules (You read the rules, yeah..........) and, as is the case with anything involving human operation, you would surely have accepted that any moderation would be carried out at the discression of the moderator. Jarmo could charge you to join, Jarmo could make this board elitist, he could ban you because of your opinion. He could stop allowing people to sign up, to preseve our humble community... This board could become invitation only and people such as yourself could just as easily be outlawed......

But it isn't, it won't be and you're not.

So when does a "public" board become "private?" If you are going to argue that it's nature is subjective then, well, surely you should have had the sense to bail on this pointless endeavor some time ago. Reading your argument as it now stands, I fail to see how a private forum could even exist on the internet. But hey!, maybe it can't.

[pilferk]

You are wrong, but obviously nothing I can say will dissuade you from your opinion. And clearly, to take on an "acedemic" [sic] feeds your ego. So I am done with you. When you publish your? first? book with Harvard Univeristy Press or have your book win an award for the best book in the field, feel free to talk to me, otherwise, well, you know the rest.

No, I'm right.? And have provided demonstrable proof as such.? But, given you have no reasonable response......

And now you fall back onto "well, my resume is....".? That's like comparing dick sizes...not very meaningful to the conversation at hand.

Oh, and I work with acedemics (yes, SIC...I never, ever claimed to be a Spelling Bee champ..but I get my point across) every day.? Real ones.? At, ya know, an Ivy League institution.? Strangely, they're no where near as pompous or arrogant in throwing around their credentials...they tend to let their actual thoughts, opinons, and insight support their points, rather than spouting a resume every time they enter into a discussion.

[pilferk]

Wrong again. I have addressed every one of your "credible" issues. I am bored with you. Please go away, and leave me alone. I don't know what your problem is, but really, you are annoying.

Then, by all means, point to where you did so...

But, of course, you can't.? You've never answered the question as to why you would continue to post in a place you feel so "injured" by the mods.? Mostly, I'm assuming, because any answer you give isn't going to make much sense.

As for "leaving you alone"...note that YOU revived the 2 week old discussion by responding to MY post.

But, an acedemic would be able to figure that out.