CarneVaca is banned permanently

[shackin'up]

Please get the facts out in the open. I know the guy himself wouldn't mind if the board reveals what he's done wrong. It's nothing to be proud of, but please let us see things in perspective....

gerald

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

I would like to know what got him a final strike and why he is permanantely banned. I must admit I'm sorry to hear he won't be coming back

Pip

[Mari]

****.

Yes come on, out in the open!! Why all the secrecy?!




edit... oh, so there's a filter now? aargh. Kutzooi.

[face of glass]

edit... oh, so there's a filter now? aargh. Kutzooi.
Kut indeed. And perkele even. You can not sweep this under the carpet that easily.

[tommer]

yeah, i want answers too.
unless a reasonably convincing explenation is provided, i'll have to see this banning as an undemocratic act, and a very coward one i might add.
i respect everyone who maintains and deals with these boards, so please, don't shatter my faith like that, make it a highly-convincing one.
thanks.

[xdreamsunwindx]

What the hell did he say wrong? That's what I wanna know.

I didn't always agree with him and I found some of his posts rude, but come on. Banning him is ridiculous.

-Kate

[HomerMcvie]

I didn't always agree with him and I found some of his posts rude, but come on. Banning him is ridiculous.
While I do think there needs to be limits placed on how far we're allowed to go here, and, some of his posts were over the top anger wise, aren't we all some form of internet family here? Look at the outpouring of support for him here.
Like it or not, moderaters, he's one of us. I think you mods might be losing your credibility by this heartless decision.
Please show some heart, and rescind his banning. :xoxo:

[seteca]

Can someone please explain what warranted The Ledge losing one of its most interesting members??:mad:

I'm not going to do this (because I don't know anything regarding the circumstances under which he has been banned), but if I started a poll saying "Should CarneVaca be allowed back on The Ledge" I am sure that the high majority of Ledgies would say YES.

[GypsySorcerer]

:( Add me to the list of those who want Carne back. I disagreed with him a lot, but he is part of what makes the Ledge the Ledge.
Bring back CarneVaca!

[shackin'up]

Can someone please explain what warranted The Ledge losing one of its most interesting members??:mad:


I COULD, BUT I THINK IT'S UP TO THE MODERATORS and Marty to explain their verdict.

The guy has pushed it too far, and did some things that don't deserve the beautyprize, but I think it's ridiculous to ban someone who uses the edges of the virtual reality. We're part of it. But someone who is so interesting in the debate and in his love for the music we are talking about deserves a lot of credit. I wrote a PM to Marty and all Moderators about ten days ago asking for "seeing things in perspective" and the answer was that they took it in consideration. My question is: In what sense was my pleed taken in consideration?

I've been a very good mannered boy in this case and have bitten my tongue off for almost two weeks now. But I'm on the edge of letting loose what I know before the board can give answers.

[tommer]

But I'm on the edge of letting loose what I know before the board can give answers.
i see no "official" statement coming this way gerald, i say go ahead. :shrug:

[Serrart]

I haven't been browsing much through other threads but a couple of Survivor games in the last ten days (too busy working) so I've just read about the Carne situation. I don't know what he has done or said but I hope in moderators' noble-mindedness :angel:

Romy

[Cristian]

Permanently?

You cannot be serious.

Bring back that Carne Vaca!!!

[dissention]

I have to say I'm completely puzzled by all of this.
What exactly did he do?

It's not my place to say, but I think he was banned for pretty ridiculous reasons, IMO.

He needs to be allowed to come back to the board, it is not the same without him and, as you all can see, no one wants him to leave the board other than the moderators who decided to ban him. Bring Carne back!

[blinker12]

It's not my place to say, but I think he was banned for pretty ridiculous reasons, IMO.

What were those reasons? I can't understand why everyone is being so coy. :shrug:

[shackin'up]

Marty asked me to hold my breath for a little while.
I will.

But I am VERY VERY dissapointed. :( :(

[tynan88]

Well then I really think it is important for us to despite our differences support the owner and moderators who despite personal beliefs I am sure have taken a just action because I resepect them enough to believe they wouldn't do something unjust.

Tynan

[shackin'up]

Well then I really think it is important for us to despite our differences support the owner and moderators who despite personal beliefs I am sure have taken a just action because I resepect them enough to believe they wouldn't do something unjust.

Tynan

True! But something CAN be "not unjust" and still be totally unreasonable given the situation.

[Mari]

and the thread was moved because..?
wouldn't be the first off topic thread on another ledge, so what's the big deal. Smells like a cover-up to me. Ah yes, let's put it on the bottom board that no one reads. :mad:

[chiliD]

The guy has pushed it too far...

Who HASN'T at times? :shrug:

[ThePenguin]

This thread was not moved as part of a "cover-up." It was deemed that since CarneVaca is not a member of the Rumours lineup of Fleetwood Mac, and since the thread pertains instead to a situation that has arisen on the Ledge boards, it would be moved to the appropriate place.

This has been done on many occasions in the past, and is nothing unusual.

Historically, it has not been the policy of the Ledge moderators to publicly discuss the reasons behind strikes and bans (so as to avoid embarrassing a poster if they don't want that information revealed), but due to the unusual number of requests we feel it is necessary to clear up any misinterpretations surrounding CarneVaca's ban. So this statement is being made as a courtesy.

Despite doubts to the contrary, our decision to ban CarneVaca had absolutely nothing to do with his criticism of the way the Ledge is run, or any criticisms directed at the moderators.

It was found that CarneVaca was using two additional usernames, Dulcimer and NoThatFunny, to deceptively engage in the harassment and debasement of other users (not to mention casting multiple votes in the Survivor games), going back and forth between his usernames to post taunts and insults, so as to perpetuate the arguments even after he had claimed to have bowed out as CarneVaca.

Such actions were deemed as willful, calculated, serious breaches of the FAQ, and certainly against the overall friendly environment we hope to maintain on The Ledges.

Based on our FAQs, harassment, taunting, and excessive insults are clearly against the rules.

There is not an explicit rule in the guidelines forbidding the possession of multiple usernames, as it has always been believed that rationality would dictate that the use of multiple usernames to deliberately and clandestinely engage in strike-worthy behavior would not be tolerated. In the real world, the adoption of an alias does not exonerate someone of any wrong-doing they may have engaged in under another name, and the same holds true here.

CarneVaca has not been banned for having multiple usernames, but for the way in which he used them. However, in the future such similar actions will automatically earn three strikes and a ban. Additionally, all strikes will now be accompanied by a minimum 48-hour temporary ban.

We were not at all happy about having to ban CarneVaca, and in fact a great deal of consideration and discussion went into our decision. It pained us, but we also couldn’t stand by and allow the rules against harassment/taunting/insulting behavior in the FAQ to be continually and willfully violated.

We also knew others would not be happy about our decision, and we took this into consideration at all times, but CarneVaca’s behavior ultimately created a hostile environment and is strike-worthy. Taking into account that he already possessed two strikes (which he’s publicly stated in the past), he was therefore awarded his third strike and banned.

The ban has been issued and is final, it is not up for debate. People are free to comment on the decision, but should watch that their responses are measured and do not violate the FAQ. Polls to bring back CarneVaca will be promptly closed.

Although some may disagree with the decision even after knowing what happened, the moderators still feel that the decision is in the best interest of all Ledgies, and had to be made in order to uphold the FAQ.

- The Ledge Moderators

[amber]

True! But something CAN be "not unjust" and still be totally unreasonable given the situation.
Yeah, but I assume they have to stick to their rules, even sometimes when they may not want to. Cause otherwise, why have strikes and rules and such?
AMber

[amber]

That reminds me - I notice that i can't change my user name. Do I have to use Amber forever? I'm not trying to trick anyone, I just like to try out different names, like we can change our signatures. Is this, like it seems to be, impossible? Will I be forever Amber?
AMber

[Barbara]

Will I be forever Amber?
AMber

:] :] :] :] :] :]

[dissention]

Will I be forever Amber?

You could always be AMber. :xoxo:

[dissention]

I really can't believe that Carne has been banned for good. I know that he won't be allowed back and that this decision is final, but it still strikes me as petty.

I talked to Carne earlier this weekend and, I must ask, why did it take so long to catch on that he was using multiple usernames? I thought it was obvious that one of them was Dulcimer, which has been a username on this board for two years! Honestly, I see no difference in the things he posted to goad and antagonize others than what other users post to antagonize others. We're almost all guilty of it, Carne was just more eloquent about it.

The two threads that I believe he got in hot water over, "What the hell...?" and the "Tusk Survivor," confound me. It was clearly stated in the "What the hell" thread that he would not be banned for criticism over how the board is run. So, why has he been banned for using multiple usernames to criticize the moderators? :laugh:

I know the case is closed, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :sorry:

[amber]

I really can't believe that Carne has been banned for good. I know that he won't be allowed back and that this decision is final, but it still strikes me as petty.

I talked to Carne earlier this weekend and, I must ask, why did it take so long to catch on that he was using multiple usernames? I thought it was obvious that one of them was Dulcimer, which has been a username on this board for two years! Honestly, I see no difference in the things he posted to goad and antagonize others than what other users post to antagonize others. We're almost all guilty of it, Carne was just more eloquent about it.

The two threads that I believe he got in hot water over, "What the hell...?" and the "Tusk Survivor," confound me. It was clearly stated in the "What the hell" thread that he would not be banned for criticism over how the board is run. So, why has he been banned for using multiple usernames to criticize the moderators? :laugh:

I know the case is closed, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :sorry:
But penguins post says explicitly he was not banned for multiple user names, but for what he said under those user names. Not that i agree, or Dissagree :laugh: but that's just what the post said...
I can't even change my username to AMber...But actually I wanted to do "Catinthedark" and was suprised no one had that yet....
AMber

[dissention]

But penguins post says explicitly he was not banned for multiple user names, but for what he said under those user names. Not that i agree, or Dissagree :laugh: but that's just what the post said...
I can't even change my username to AMber...But actually I wanted to do "Catinthedark" and was suprised no one had that yet....
AMber

Yes, but I simply don't see his comments under those usernames as being ban-worthy. :sorry:

[amber]

Yes, but I simply don't see his comments under those usernames as being ban-worthy. :sorry:
oh, yeah, I can't, and wasn't, speaking as to that...I might've found them so, had I been a mod., with rules, and two previous strikes...but i'm not a mod, and can say that i will miss Carne - he usually didn't piss me off, cause he was always like that so i expected it...also cause i like drama. And also, I'm just not, by nature, a "banner", I would've just told him he was an arse, but apparently the mods did, at least 2 times (the strikes) and probably more. Maybe they were thinking, "How many times do we have to tell you, etc." or something. I dunno. I kinda wish i could email him, though, or something...I'm kinda feeling sad... :(
AMber

[Johnny Stew]

The two threads that I believe he got in hot water over, "What the hell...?" and the "Tusk Survivor," confound me. It was clearly stated in the "What the hell" thread that he would not be banned for criticism over how the board is run. So, why has he been banned for using multiple usernames to criticize the moderators? :laugh:

I don't think it would make sense to keep explaining things, but I'd just like to make clear that he wasn't banned for using multiple usernames to post criticisms about the Ledge.
In fact, he posted those criticisms exclusively under the CarneVaca name, and those criticisms were never even an issue to begin with. Marty and I are both big boys, and could handle it. :)

It's just like we said... he was banned for his actions regarding the treatment of others, which violated our guidelines.

The respectful tone of your post, dissention, is appreciated. :nod: :)

[The Tower]

Yes, but I simply don't see his comments under those usernames as being ban-worthy. :sorry:

I went back and read a lot of the exchanges. I wouldn't necessarily consider them "ban-worthy", but those posts between the three of him are really on the narcissistic-creepy side.... One of the response posts to Dulcimer says something along the lines of "I don't think Carne needs your help to support his point". :eek: Creeeeeeepy!! I guess he did need Dulcimer's (his own) help after all... (I feel a weird Sybil moment coming on any moment now).

While I think that maybe Carne thought that he was having fun, I don't think he may have realized just to what extent his "gamesmanship" was having on other posters. Jacob was getting pretty upset from the demeanor of his response posts, and looking in hindsight, it appears that Carne was getting quite a lot of glee out of his tag-team plays. Surely, he was smart enough to know he would get caught. Several posters correctly guessed in the threads that NoThatFunny was, indeed, Carne in disguise. I guess he just didn't think anyone would make that big a deal about it.

[xdreamsunwindx]

I don't know, but I think that Carne was banned for some pretty lame reasons. :sorry:

Everyone's done something to piss off a moderator or fellow Ledgie. Each and every one of us have, admit it. What's gonna happen the next time someone hits a nerve with a moderator? Are they going to be banned? I'm not saying that people should be able to get away with everything, but what Carne did was just immature, if you want to call it that. It wasn't anything horrible and nothing that could *truly* be rendered offensive. Now, I don't know the whole story behind this, keep in mind. But from what I could tell, he didn't say anything really offensive. I didn't bother with the original Tusk Survivor thread in the end, since it got pretty lame with all of the bickering and whatnot. That didn't offend me or anything, though. I just thought it was childish. There have been plenty of immature posts and a few real offensive posts here and there, but do you see any of the people posting them getting banned/reprimanded/whatever? No, you don't. It's just not fair that you're banning Carne when the absolute worst thing he did was cheat in a silly little game by using a different screen name. And I agree with Dissention in that what he said was not worthy of a ban. Maybe a warning or a temporary suspension, but a ban? Sheesh.

[throws two cents onto table]

-Kate

[amber]

I don't know, but I think that Carne was banned for some pretty lame reasons. :sorry:

Everyone's done something to piss off a moderator or fellow Ledgie. Each and every one of us have, admit it. What's gonna happen the next time someone hits a nerve with a moderator? Are they going to be banned? I'm not saying that people should be able to get away with everything, but what Carne did was just immature, if you want to call it that. It wasn't anything horrible and nothing that could *truly* be rendered offensive. Now, I don't know the whole story behind this, keep in mind. But from what I could tell, he didn't say anything really offensive. I didn't bother with the original Tusk Survivor thread in the end, since it got pretty lame with all of the bickering and whatnot. That didn't offend me or anything, though. I just thought it was childish. There have been plenty of immature posts and a few real offensive posts here and there, but do you see any of the people posting them getting banned/reprimanded/whatever? No, you don't. It's just not fair that you're banning Carne when the absolute worst thing he did was cheat in a silly little game by using a different screen name. And I agree with Dissention in that what he said was not worthy of a ban. Maybe a warning or a temporary suspension, but a ban? Sheesh.

[throws two cents onto table]

-Kate
That's what i could be tempted to think, but then on the other side, remember, he already had 2 STRIKES. Which means he had been sufficiently warned as to the rules, and why people get banned and striked. He coulda modified, with that much warning and all. Not saying it's right, but just pointing out a possible other side....
AMber

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I don't know, but I think that Carne was banned for some pretty lame reasons. :sorry:

Everyone's done something to piss off a moderator or fellow Ledgie. Each and every one of us have, admit it. What's gonna happen the next time someone hits a nerve with a moderator?
-Kate

idont think everyone has, i dont think i have

chris

[dissention]

idont think everyone has, i dont think i have

chris

You did back in your Bush-lovin' days. :laugh: j/k

[ShangriLaTroubl]

You did back in your Bush-lovin' days. :laugh: j/k


I was never a BUSH lover.....I like to refer to those days to simply being mis informed.. If I had known what he really stands for I would have never supported him, but I was supporting him based on only what he was saying..not what was REALLY happening.

Chris

[dissention]

I was never a BUSH lover.....I like to refer to those days to simply being mis informed.. If I had known what he really stands for I would have never supported him, but I was supporting him based on only what he was saying..not what was REALLY happening.

Chris

I know, I'm only joshing ya. :p

[Barbara]

Everyone's done something to piss off a moderator or fellow Ledgie. Each and every one of us have, admit it. What's gonna happen the next time someone hits a nerve with a moderator?

Hi Kate:

Apparently you didn't read the following part of the statement from the Moderators:

Despite doubts to the contrary, our decision to ban CarneVaca had absolutely nothing to do with his criticism of the way the Ledge is run, or any criticisms directed at the moderators.

We have never awarded strikes or bans based on treatment of the moderators, in fact, we are extremely careful never to let our personal feelings influence our deliberations.

Barbara

[xdreamsunwindx]

idont think everyone has, i dont think i have

chris

Well, not nesicarily "piss off", but pretty much EVERYONE has disagreed with someone. And lots of people take that to heart. That's what I meant to say.

-Kate

[Hawkeye]

Despite doubts to the contrary, our decision to ban CarneVaca had absolutely nothing to do with his criticism of the way the Ledge is run, or any criticisms directed at the moderators.

Then What DID cause the ban. Danm you people don't like giving clear answers. If it wasn't the critisism and it wasn't the fake names (which is actually a shock to me, i never would've guessed, but it does proove all those times SMAP stayed in Survivor was invalid) then WTF caused the strikes. I think it's personal, and don't try to say it isn't. I believe we've all stepped to CV's level. And some have done worse. Why doesn't HomerMcVie have a strike for his recind the goat sig. That's been bothering me forever (ignore this HMCvie just making a point) I find him far more offensive then CV. And I'd even call Dissention more offensive then CV (again just making a point Dissention I still like you) I think during that Survivor game "I" even got pretty down and dirty and I was definitely doing as much harrassing as you like to say as CV did. And whats with that harassing. What would you consider harassing. I didn't see any. The only thing he did wrong was try to fix the Survivor game and all you had to do was ban his 2 alliases.


And since you said in that quote above that it doesn't matter what we say to the moderators then YOU MODERATORS SUCK!!!!!.
.
And why are some people moderators who don't contribute one danmed thing to the boards. JS is an active member and of course Marty's VERY important who aside from some very very bad judgement does an amazing job with this place. And Janet's good. But other then that, WTF is witht his Barbara person who pops up now to make a decision but never does Sh*t overwise.

[saradorna]

It was found that CarneVaca was using two additional usernames, Dulcimer and NoThatFunny, to deceptively engage in the harassment and debasement of other users (not to mention casting multiple votes in the Survivor games), going back and forth between his usernames to post taunts and insults, so as to perpetuate the arguments even after he had claimed to have bowed out as CarneVaca.

Such actions were deemed as willful, calculated, serious breaches of the FAQ, and certainly against the overall friendly environment we hope to maintain on The Ledges.

Based on our FAQs, harassment, taunting, and excessive insults are clearly against the rules.

I believe this is the reason for the ban.

What surprises me is that Carnevaca seems to be a smart man, RUDE but smart and he knew he had two strikes and was warn about this. Still he did it again. I guess he felt the moderator wouldn't banned him. :shrug:


There is not an explicit rule in the guidelines forbidding the possession of multiple usernames, as it has always been believed that rationality would dictate that the use of multiple usernames to deliberately and clandestinely engage in strike-worthy behavior would not be tolerated...

However, in the future such similar actions will automatically earn three strikes and a ban. Additionally, all strikes will now be accompanied by a minimum 48-hour temporary ban.

- The Ledge Moderators

I guess we can call it "The Carnevaca Rule". :eek:

Isabel

[Johnny Stew]

Then What DID cause the ban. Danm you people don't like giving clear answers. If it wasn't the critisism and it wasn't the fake names (which is actually a shock to me, i never would've guessed, but it does proove all those times SMAP stayed in Survivor was invalid) then WTF caused the strikes. I think it's personal, and don't try to say it isn't.

Hawkeye, I think we (the moderators) all feel that the answer to that question was obvious in the statement Marty posted for us, so I'm not sure why you feel we're not giving a clear answer.

There are rules against "harrassing, insulting, taunting, nasty remarks or name-calling." Which also includes "taunting (as) defined as 'aggravation by deriding, mocking, criticizing or carping'."

The comments directed towards Jacob, especially, were way out of line in the "taunting, deriding, insulting" vein. In fact, we received quite a number of complaints about those particular posts.

And then when it became clear that additional usernames were being used to "gang up" on him further, the situation was exacerbated.
Same with the comments towards ThinLine and others in the 'What The Hell' thread.

I don't think I can stress enough that this wasn't a decision we were HAPPY about making... not in the least.
But after reviewing all of the facts, and taking previous strikes into consideration, this was the decision we came to.





And why are some people moderators who don't contribute one danmed thing to the boards. JS is an active member and of course Marty's VERY important who aside from some very very bad judgement does an amazing job with this place. And Janet's good. But other then that, WTF is witht his Barbara person who pops up now to make a decision but never does Sh*t overwise.

Other moderators aren't always as visible as I am on the boards, but that certainly doesn't mean they "don't do s**t."

I happen to have only a part-time job and no children or significant other, so the amount of time I have available to post here, is greater than that of others. Though I'm sure they'd all love to have far more free time than they do, so they can indulge in more recreational activities such as posting here!

At any rate, our position on this has been explained, and I think any more would just be redundant.

I (in fact, we all do) respect that not everyone will agree with our decision, but we stand by it.

[Nixxxed]

I guess we can call it "The Carnevaca Rule". :eek:

Isabel


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Funniest

banning

ever!

[HomerMcvie]

Why doesn't HomerMcVie have a strike for his recind the goat sig. That's been bothering me forever
I'm sorry. And, I really meant NO offense by it. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular(seriously). If you asked my friends, they would absolutely tell you that I make goat and sheep jokes ALL the time. Yes, I'm a dorky, wanna-be comedian. And they would confirm that, too. Maybe you're a tad sensitive?

(ignore this HMCvie just making a point) I find him far more offensive then CV.
Wow! Far more offensive? That hurts. I have been making a conscience effort lately to lighten up my posts, because I feel a select few are thinking I'm an asshole. If you knew me, you would know that I am a kind person. However, I DO suffer fools lightly, especially those who blindly praise non-worthy actions/performances, and am not afraid to let them know how I feel.
A STRIKE for "Rescind the Goat"??? Geez Louise. You have got to be kidding me? Pardon me for having a sense of humor which you obviously don't appreciate. I'll try to PC/mamby pamby up my future posts for you, since you are clearly offended by RESCIND THE GOAT!
(yes, I started this post in an apologetic fashion, and the further I went, well........)
RESCIND THE GOAT!!!

[DownOnRodeo]

I believe this is the reason for the ban.

What surprises me is that Carnevaca seems to be a smart man, RUDE but smart and he knew he had two strikes and was warn about this. Still he did it again.

I agree. So my theory is that he got what he asked for. It seemed to me that he was begging to be banned! I don't know if he regrets it now... that's something to ask the man himself!

[shackin'up]

I asked. You are not right. But you all know he IS a man of principles and refuses to sail another direction when thinks he's done nothing wrong essentially. I read more rudeness over here besides Carne's. I'm cool with that. We all have the possibility to respond or neglect.

Yesterday i tried to post Carne's reply on the verdict. I thought it was only fair. But my post got deleted and I was shortly banned to post and use PM. It would have been a lot cooler and gentleman-esque if they gave the guy the possibily to have the last word on this. I think he deserved that, and it would have been an goodbye in Carne-style.

[DownOnRodeo]

Hah I know! I laughed out loud at that one. Sadly it sounded more like a strangled chortle which probably alarmed the lady who works in the lobby.

I was tempted to put it into my sig but, well, couldn't be bothered!

[tommer]

to be honest, unless the info provided by marty was faulse, or unless CV (or someone else on his behalf for that matter) can come up with some brilliant excuse for such behaviour, i changed my mind, and now i find the banning fair and legit. sorry.

[dissention]

(which is actually a shock to me, i never would've guessed, but it does proove all those times SMAP stayed in Survivor was invalid)

Hey, hey, hey! I worked my ass off to keep SMAP in the new Survivor game as long as possible and I ended up saving it just as long as it was in the other thread! Give me props, dude. ;)

And I'd even call Dissention more offensive then CV (again just making a point Dissention I still like you)

None taken. I've stepped over the line a few times and will readily admit it(especially with that horrible crack I made about Dick Cheney and beastiality, but it could have been worse and I could have included Rick Santroum), but the only times I'm ever really mean-spirited and nasty is when I'm talking about Bush and the neocons. :laugh:

Fact is, there are things that every poster ont his board says and posts that can be construed as offensive. I take offense to Le Stew calling WISYA a masterpiece, but for cripes sake, I don't flog him for it...often.

The only thing he did wrong was try to fix the Survivor game and all you had to do was ban his 2 alliases.

Agreed.

[dissention]

I'm sorry. And, I really meant NO offense by it. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular(seriously). If you asked my friends, they would absolutely tell you that I make goat and sheep jokes ALL the time. Yes, I'm a dorky, wanna-be comedian. And they would confirm that, too. Maybe you're a tad sensitive?

Wise ass. :cool: You know and I know that it's a crack at The Queen of Velvet Foutnains and Fairy Farts. And a funny one at that. :laugh:

because I feel a select few are thinking I'm an asshole.

Like that ever stopped me.

[dissention]

Yesterday i tried to post Carne's reply on the verdict. I thought it was only fair. But my post got deleted and I was shortly banned to post and use PM. It would have been a lot cooler and gentleman-esque if they gave the guy the possibily to have the last word on this. I think he deserved that, and it would have been an goodbye in Carne-style.

Were you told that you were being temporarily banned or did they just spring it on you? If so, that's not cool.

Sorry, but Marty and the Mods. have had their say in this thread, I think it's only fair that someone be allowed to post Carne's one and only final response. I've read it and it's not offensive, so I don't know what the worry is. :shrug:

[cliffdweller]

I went back and read a lot of the exchanges. I wouldn't necessarily consider them "ban-worthy", but those posts between the three of him are really on the narcissistic-creepy side.... One of the response posts to Dulcimer says something along the lines of "I don't think Carne needs your help to support his point". :eek: Creeeeeeepy!! I guess he did need Dulcimer's (his own) help after all... (I feel a weird Sybil moment coming on any moment now).

Agreed. This is truly nutty behavior, and might I add that the tone of his posts oftentimes came from an angry, manipulative place--critically attacking other ledgies with rude, hateful responses. Judging from that, I can't just say, "no harm done" with regard to his "alter-egos." That just makes his antics even more disturbing.

[Mari]

Were you told that you were being temporarily banned or did they just spring it on you? If so, that's not cool.

Sorry, but Marty and the Mods. have had their say in this thread, I think it's only fair that someone be allowed to post Carne's one and only final response. I've read it and it's not offensive, so I don't know what the worry is. :shrug:


Have read it too, and I agree. I also feel offended by the fact they insinuated that anyone who has stepped up for him was just 'instructed' to do so by him. Hello, I have my own opinion, thank you very much.

[shackin'up]

Were you told that you were being temporarily banned or did they just spring it on you? If so, that's not cool.

Sorry, but Marty and the Mods. have had their say in this thread, I think it's only fair that someone be allowed to post Carne's one and only final response. I've read it and it's not offensive, so I don't know what the worry is. :shrug:

No Marty deleted the post and i could not post in the Tuskthread anymore so I went back to this "hidden" board, and saw the post was gone. after a short time I got an email on my private addy with a very correct note from marty where he explained the action. Nothing wrong with that. He did not think it was very cool though :rolleyes: . I replied with the remark that he could have been smarter in this case and should have followed Carne's request: Post the verdict and my reply. They did not so I tried. The community could have had a goodbye in style. It would have been chique AND clever.

Sometimes I don't understand Americans. Didn't you invent the "win-win"-strategy? I thought this could have been a classic one.

[dissention]

Have read it too, and I agree. I also feel offended by the fact they insinuated that anyone who has stepped up for him was just 'instructed' to do so by him. Hello, I have my own opinion, thank you very much.

I know, I couldn't believe that. It was quite the slap in the face.

[dissention]

No Marty deleted the post and i could not post in the Tuskthread anymore so I went back to this "hidden" board, and saw the post was gone. after a short time I got an email on my private addy with a very correct note from marty where he explained the action. Nothing wrong with that. He did not think it was very cool though :rolleyes: . I replied with the remark that he could have been smarter in this case and should have followed Carne's request: Post the verdict and my reply. They did not so I tried. The community could have had a goodbye in style. It would have been chique AND clever.

Sometimes I don't understand Americans. Didn't you invent the "win-win"-strategy? I thought this could have been a classic one.

I agree. I know he's not coming back to the board and I'm fine with that because it is their board, not mine. But I think it would add some class to the whole mess by at least giving him the opportunity to respond. :o

[Johnny Stew]

The first bullet under the section regarding 'What's Not Cool' to post on the Ledge (ie: what's considered offensive behaviour)....

Contents of emails, posts from other message boards, newsgroups or mailing lists authored by anyone other than yourself.

That rule has been on the books for four years now.

[Nixxxed]

I agree that there should be one more post from CV -- an APOLOGY ... a heartfelt, sincere acknowledgement that he crossed the line and is sorry for all the crapola HE caused.

Until then -- RESCIND THE ACCOUNT!

[The Tower]

This is an interesting summary posted by Hippocampus of the whole mess (posted on 08/29/04), in response to NoThatFunny claiming he was not Carne. The whole episode really does make interesting reading.

Oh please Carne... Anyone with two computers can easily do this. The funny thing is that you're now trying to cover your tracks in not very subtle ways. Giving two different votes in the Wild Heart survivor thread just now really is amusing. As if you'd care about a Stevie survivor game hosted by someone you just flamed to death.

And since I'm all into conspiracy theories and being a general pain, I must say that I had quite a lot of fun reading Dulcimer's posting history. Pretty incredible how he's systematically intervening in your favor to always add that extra voice and support when you're in the heat of things. Such dedication is truly remarkable! No one probably cares but check it out if you want a good laugh, it's hilarious. :D

I suppose Lindsey really needed two extra votes per round to boost his... what was it... oh yes "approval rating" :thumbsup:

All in good fun of course :)

[chiliD]

If anyone has CV's email address, please PM me. Thanks.

[shackin'up]

The first bullet under the section regarding 'What's Not Cool' to post on the Ledge (ie: what's considered offensive behaviour)....
That rule has been on the books for four years now.

I know Mr. Stew.
BUT you can sum up every rule in the book. I'm talking about acting IN REASON, and CONSIDERING CONTEXTS. Not only by the book, thank you very much. In all honesty NOW you are p*ssing me off. In my pleed for Carne that I PM-ed to you, I asked for seeing things in perspective. And in his request at YOU, to post his verdict AND Reply, was a possibility for you to do this whole thing in style and with some control over people who support Carne. I think it is typical that you reply on my last post with a godd*mn RULE. Haven't you read the post? So now I'm telling the same friggin' story again. You have not banned a member who signed in to harrass people, and willingly offends people. You are talking about someone who made a lot of virtual friends, too, was very active, and positive in the majority of his posts. He posted around 4000 times here.

Now, I'm saying here that I respect the reasons of the banning. He broke the rules. I say a little you say severe. Accepted. I'm not saying it was a simple decision for you. I know that people (moderators and the Adelsons) have a heart. I Just say that I think we, as a community, have build up virtual relationships and I don't think it's fair nor smart to communicate this decision with The Rulebook in hands. I tried to support you by Pm-ing and endlessly wait with posting the reasons. And still I do not SEE that you have seen things in perspective nor giving the guy the possibilty of response.

That's dumb, in my book.

You could have thought about this, too: Why would a fairly sane Dutchman risk his place in his favorite forum by breaking rule 1? Why would he post a private email that was in your own hands?

Yes you did the things Just in this case. Perfectly by the rule. But without concern with the effects on the community or at least a part of it.

Dumb again.

So now I broke rule 1. (offensive behaviour)

Did I insult you with this post by using the word dumb twice?

3 strikes out?

[HomerMcvie]

Wise ass. You know and I know that it's a crack at The Queen of Velvet Foutnains and Fairy Farts. And a funny one at that.
But some don't have the sense of humor that you and I share. Dammit.
And, I really wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I made that my sig.
I was just mocking Carne's, with a twist, and looks like I accidentally struck a gold vein. :xoxo:

[face of glass]

Contents of emails, posts from other message boards, newsgroups or mailing lists authored by anyone other than yourself.

Quite honestly Johnny, my opinion on this is that it is a matter between the writer and the one who chooses to quote him/her publicly. I do not think the moderators should be involved in something like that, unless the quotation takes place without the permission of the writer. You've taken action when the latter has been the case, and I understand that.

Look at Greg and Kate (TheDeadliestPoison and XdreamsunwindX). I've seen them quote their chats in the survivor threads (and Kate even had one chat in her signature at one point) and those have included messages that a person other than the poster has written. Have they been given any strikes because of that? Is chatroom talk any different from those things that the FAQ mentions? Clearly Greg and Kate are friends and have each other's permission to quote each other how they like (or as Chrissie Hynde would have put it: "sample my very ass"). And clearly Gerald had Carne's permission to post that final goodbye. Yet that was taken away. And yes, I agree with Gerald, it was not a very compassionate thing to do.

[Johnny Stew]

I know Mr. Stew.
BUT you can sum up every rule in the book. I'm talking about acting IN REASON, and CONSIDERING CONTEXTS. Not only by the book, thank you very much. In all honesty NOW you are p*ssing me off. In my pleed for Carne that I PM-ed to you, I asked for seeing things in perspective. And in his request at YOU, to post his verdict AND Reply, was a possibility for you to do this whole thing in style and with some control over people who support Carne. I think it is typical that you reply on my last post with a godd*mn RULE. Haven't you read the post? So now I'm telling the same friggin' story again. You have not banned a member who signed in to harrass people, and willingly offends people. You are talking about someone who made a lot of virtual friends, too, was very active, and positive in the majority of his posts. He posted around 4000 times here.

Now, I'm saying here that I respect the reasons of the banning. He broke the rules. I say a little you say severe. Accepted. I'm not saying it was a simple decision for you. I know that people (moderators and the Adelsons) have a heart. I Just say that I think we, as a community, have build up virtual relationships and I don't think it's fair nor smart to communicate this decision with The Rulebook in hands. I tried to support you by Pm-ing and endlessly wait with posting the reasons. And still I do not SEE that you have seen things in perspective nor giving the guy the possibilty of response.

That's dumb, in my book.

You could have thought about this, too: Why would a fairly sane Dutchman risk his place in his favorite forum by breaking rule 1? Why would he post a private email that was in your own hands?

Yes you did the things Just in this case. Perfectly by the rule. But without concern with the effects on the community or at least a part of it.

Dumb again.

So now I broke rule 1. (offensive behaviour)

Did I insult you with this post by using the word dumb twice?

3 strikes out?

Gerald... CV told us that we could/should post his response to the letter informing him of his banning. But as you said yourself in the post of yours that was deleted, he did not tell YOU that you could.
You said clearly that you were acting on your own.

You expressed the fact that you felt it was unfair your post was then deleted, so I pointed out the rule regarding the posting of emails authored by someone else.
CV's request to us is one thing... you taking it upon yourself to post two private emails, was something different.

All of this, is the whole reason we have rules around here. I don't think they're terribly unfair rules, and I don't think we're terribly unfair in enforcing them. In fact, we're probably more lenient than other message boards would be, because we DO take into consideration that this is a community of like-minded fans and friends.

You asked us to see things in perspective. We said we would, and we did.
As it has been said, this wasn't a decision we made happily. But, in the end, if we had allowed this behaviour to continue without a strike, then we might as well allow anyone else who's ever received a strike or been banned for this EXACT reason, to come right back.

CV is not being made an example of. He's not the first person who has received a strike and/or been banned for this behaviour.
Should we have gone back on our own rules, to make a special exception in his case? Some of the other people had friends and allies too... does that mean they, too, should have been allowed to harass, insult and humiliate other users without reproach, or with just a tiny slap on the wrist?

I understand you're upset, and I understand he's your friend (guess what... despite, or perhaps because of, the constant debating between he and I, I quite liked him too. So I understand your disappointment)... and I assure you, we took all of the good things he has contributed to this board into account. But, in the end, we made the decision that we felt was the most fair for EVERYONE.

[Mari]

Okay, so since Carnevaca did in fact tell me it was okay to post his mail, I have a go ahead then?

Jesus Johnny, this is the most miereneukerigste thing I've heard from you in a long time.


Edit: ah, there is an english translation that will appear without ***'s. Hair Splitting.

[Johnny Stew]

And clearly Gerald had Carne's permission to post that final goodbye.

No, Gaius... in his now-deleted post, Gerald stated that CV had no idea he was posting those emails.

[face of glass]

No, Gaius... in his now-deleted post, Gerald stated that CV had no idea he was posting those emails.
Yes Johnny, obviously I must have missed that one.

I do feel that this one thing in FAQ could be expanded upon a bit though, unless we believe that everyone will interpret it like we interpret it.

Mari, bring it on.

[Johnny Stew]

Okay, so since Carnevaca did in fact tell me it was okay to post his mail, I have a go ahead then?

Since the email was meant for Marty's eyes, shouldn't his approval also be required?

To expand upon Gaius' comparisons of Greg and Kate posting each other's PM messages in their signatures. The difference is that Greg and Kate are the only two parties involved, and obviously have each other's approval to share those PM messages.

So it's one thing if CV wishes to share the email with others, such as yourself, privately, but (and this is just my opinion), it oversteps boundaries for a separate third party to make public a private letter between two other parties.

I'm not going to continue debating this.

[Mari]

Allright then.
I, Mari, having asked both Carnevace, the writer of this e-mail, and Johnny Stew, one moderator of this board, for permission to post.. blahblah legal stuff. But it's the truth and by your rules.

Here goes.
I've a feeling this might cost me a third strike, so just in case, goodbye everyone, see you somewhere else in cyberspace. A blacker ledge, perhaps.

Marty:

Thanks for letting me know after the two-week wait the reasons for banning me from the Ledge.

Over the years, the Ledge has provided me with a fair amount of amusement, and its entertainment value has been most welcome for the most part. It is fitting that your sendoff is equally amusing. Your implicit threat of embarrassing me publicly should "my supporters" make it appear as if I was treated unfairly was indeed amusing. I can't think of how else to characterize the comically warped sense of justice that would motivate you to punish me for the acts of others. For, you must know that I cannot control what people say in your board, especially after I've been banned and cannot even speak for myself. Hell, I didn't even see the two threads about me for several days since I haven't even been on the web most of the past week while dealing with a family emergency. I logged back on today to see these threads that had taken a life of their own unbeknownst to me.

I think it's cute that you believe you can embarrass me by publicizing that I was using other accounts. I am so concerned about the prospect of embarrassement that I will issue a challenge here and now: Take the e-mail you sent me about the decision to ban me and post it unedited. And take my response here and post it unedited. I would love to see the reactions when people learn that you are banning me for using accounts that you yourself approved. Perhaps you are ultimately punishing me because you are angry at yourself for letting me dupe you. That's a very human reaction.

I would also love to see the reactions to the other justifications you are using for banning me. You told me publicly and by e-mail that you would not ban me for the "What the hell thread!?" thread, but there it is as a reason for the banishment. And your Johnny Stew also said publicly that you do not ban people for criticizing how the Ledge is run. I would love to see the reaction to this hypocrisy unmasked.

I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how I didn't really break your sacrosanct FAQ. You even admit that using different accounts is not a violation of the FAQ, yet you are using that as a reason for banning me. Your other justifications about insults are as thin as mountain air. I skated very close to the edge, but I never violated the FAQ. How could I when people are constantly posting expletives remarks with sexual content, such as references to blowjobs, which are a clear violation, but they are somehow still allowed to post? But it doesn't matter. The motivation for banning me ultimately is petty and mean-spirited. So, by all means, publicize the e-mail you sent me and publicize this one. I will continue to be amused.

Thanks for the laughs. Oh, and by the way, are you sure you've nailed all the accounts I've used? ;)

Pedro

[Johnny Stew]

Allright then.
I, Mari, having asked both Carnevace, the writer of this e-mail, and Johnny Stew, one moderator of this board, for permission to post.. blahblah legal stuff. But it's the truth and by your rules.

I did not give permission for the letter to be posted.
Nowhere, in anything I said, did I give permission.

The letter was meant for Marty, and HIS permission is what you'd need to post it.

[Mari]

you ignored my question, but in first instance, you did indeed give permission by the rule you stated.

[shackin'up]

Gerald... CV told us that we could/should post his response to the letter informing him of his banning. But as you said yourself in the post of yours that was deleted, he did not tell YOU that you could.
You said clearly that you were acting on your own.

You expressed the fact that you felt it was unfair your post was then deleted, so I pointed out the rule regarding the posting of emails authored by someone else.
CV's request to us is one thing... you taking it upon yourself to post two private emails, was something different.

All of this, is the whole reason we have rules around here. I don't think they're terribly unfair rules, and I don't think we're terribly unfair in enforcing them. In fact, we're probably more lenient than other message boards would be, because we DO take into consideration that this is a community of like-minded fans and friends.

You asked us to see things in perspective. We said we would, and we did.
As it has been said, this wasn't a decision we made happily. But, in the end, if we had allowed this behaviour to continue without a strike, then we might as well allow anyone else who's ever received a strike or been banned for this EXACT reason, to come right back.

CV is not being made an example of. He's not the first person who has received a strike and/or been banned for this behaviour.
Should we have gone back on our own rules, to make a special exception in his case? Some of the other people had friends and allies too... does that mean they, too, should have been allowed to harass, insult and humiliate other users without reproach, or with just a tiny slap on the wrist?

I understand you're upset, and I understand he's your friend (guess what... despite, or perhaps because of, the constant debating between he and I, I quite liked him too. So I understand your disappointment)... and I assure you, we took all of the good things he has contributed to this board into account. But, in the end, we made the decision that we felt was the most fair for EVERYONE.

Now for the third time, Johnny, I UNDERSTAND that you gave him the strike and played it by the Rules. I disagree, but hey that's clear and NOT my point. I am not asking to put him back, I asked for seeing things perspective. You say you did that and I believe you. Now I'm not a religious man. Still believe you. In the way you are communicating about this issue I don't see ANY consideration.
He did the request to post his reply in a private email to the Penguin. True. You did nothing with it. Now I read his request directed at you in a private email sent to me. It's not that I stole the information for B*ckingh*m sake!

You still don't say that you agree with me that YOU should have gone by his request, so i would not have been placed in the position to be drawn to be the naughty boy. (bad sentence, but english is friggin' hard when you're
p%ssed off). This can be repaired: you Still can post his reply. That's all I'm fighting for and you KNEW it. You knew I was informed from almost the beginning. Give the man credit for 3500 posts without things on the edge.
That would be hats off to Carne and a clever thing to do.

Please don't force me to repeat myself again and answer the CORE of the posts.

[Johnny Stew]

you ignored my question, but in first instance, you did indeed give permission by the rule you stated.

Here I am debating this, when I saw I wouldn't.
How on Earth did I give you permission?? I don't see those words anywhere... "I give you permission to post the letter."

In explaining why Gerald's email was deleted, I pointed out that Gerald was not the author and didn't have permission to post it. That did NOT mean I was giving anyone else permission to post it.

It's not my place to give you, or anyone else, permission, because the letter was not sent to me. Which I made perfectly clear.

In our statement that Marty posted, we also clearly stated that anyone responding to this thread should be mindful of the rules, and that they don't act out of line.
That was your warning.

[dissention]

Since the email was meant for Marty's eyes, shouldn't his approval also be required?

Not unless Marty wrote it.

[shackin'up]

Johnny, you were right that I did Not have the approval of the authors to post. But Carnevaca sent them to me. I know I was at least out of line with marty's email.

PLEASE answer: WHY DO YOU NOT POST HIS REPLY?
Please ADMIT: It would have been a lot more clever and considerate if you had posted his reply, and gerald would have never been in the position to feel the attraction for being naughty.
(holy cow what a h*rny sentence. Nothing personal, Stew :p )
Please thank me publicly: for biting my tongue off for two weeks.

Then I would fully admit I was out of line too.

gerald

[dissention]

Johnny, you were right that I did Not have the approval of the authors to post. But Carnevaca sent them to me. I know I was at least out of line with marty's email.

PLEASE answer: WHY DO YOU NOT POST HIS REPLY?
Please ADMIT: It would have been a lot more clever and considerate if you had posted his reply, and gerald would have never been in the position to feel the attraction for being naughty.
(holy cow what a h*rny sentence. Nothing personal, Stew :p )
Please thank me publicly: for biting my tongue off for two weeks.

Then I would fully admit I was out of line too.

gerald

What I would like to see posted is the email sent to Carne letting him know that he was banned. That sucker was brutal. :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

I'm not sure why I become the de facto whipping boy for the venting of all frustrations and complaints.
I try to be nice and respond to people's questions and concerns, but then when I do, all I get is a battle over semantics every time.

I have to wonder if you guys have any sense of propriety whatsoever?

Marty runs this board, Marty PAYS for this board (with a valued assist from those who are supporting members... a list of whom, I've never noticed including anyone making the loudest outcries here), and I think it's HIS place to decide if an email that was sent to him gets posted or not.

Like it or not, CarneVaca has been banned. We all know the reasons why, so they don't need to be reiterated.
But the fact of the matter is, he doesn't have a say here now. He had... after his first two strikes... two years to speak his mind and plead his case.
That window of opportunity is closed now. Brought about by his own actions.

If it was Marty's decision not to post the PRIVATE email sent to him, I don't understand why that can't be respected.
Again, I see no sense of propriety or respect. I see a lot of vehement calls for US to show respect or a sense of perspective, but I see very little-to-none of the same consideration.

Yes, it was appreciated, Gerald, that you didn't speak out during the time we were deliberating the situation, and waiting for the other moderators to have the opportunity to weigh in. But we made our decision, and we can't help it that it's not the decision you had hoped for.

[dissention]

Marty runs this board, Marty PAYS for this board (with a valued assist from those who are supporting members... a list of whom, I've never noticed including anyone making the loudest outcries here), and I think it's HIS place to decide if an email that was sent to him gets posted or not.


Yes, because our opinions will count more if we send our money. :rolleyes:

I tried not to be offensive in this thread, I bit my tongue, I did not set out to be rude, but that comment I quoted above was simply classless.

[amber]

I know Mr. Stew.
BUT you can sum up every rule in the book. I'm talking about acting IN REASON, and CONSIDERING CONTEXTS. Not only by the book, thank you very much. In all honesty NOW you are p*ssing me off. In my pleed for Carne that I PM-ed to you, I asked for seeing things in perspective. And in his request at YOU, to post his verdict AND Reply, was a possibility for you to do this whole thing in style and with some control over people who support Carne. I think it is typical that you reply on my last post with a godd*mn RULE. Haven't you read the post? So now I'm telling the same friggin' story again. You have not banned a member who signed in to harrass people, and willingly offends people. You are talking about someone who made a lot of virtual friends, too, was very active, and positive in the majority of his posts. He posted around 4000 times here. ?
My names not johnny stew, but - if he was positive in the majority of his posts, why did he have 2 other strikes? And if he was super smart, and really wanted to stay on Ledge, wouldn't he have modified his behavior after the first or second strike? I mean, they gave him at least 2.5 other chances, but he didn't care...if he didn't care about the mods rules/respect/etc. or other people's feelings (or whatever) how far should they go to care about him? Just asking.

[QUOTE=shackin'up giving the guy the possibilty of response.[/QUOTE]

I too, would like to hear his response, but they're not gonna let him post it, so, since everyone and their mother except me has seen it, why doesn't someone mass PM it? Or, at least, PM it to me... :laugh: :nod: :wavey:
AMber

[The Tower]

Yes, because our opinions will count more if we send our money. :rolleyes:

I tried not to be offensive in this thread, I bit my tongue, I did not set out to be rude, but that comment I quoted above was simply classless.

I must agree, that was quite a low blow. :(

[cliffdweller]

- if he was positive in the majority of his posts, why did he have 2 other strikes? And if he was super smart, and really wanted to stay on Ledge, wouldn't he have modified his behavior after the first or second strike? I mean, they gave him at least 2.5 other chances, but he didn't care...if he didn't care about the mods rules/respect/etc. or other people's feelings (or whatever) how far should they go to care about him? Just asking.

Good point Amber.

I wonder what he did to get the other 2 strikes...

[Johnny Stew]

Yes, because our opinions will count more if we send our money. :rolleyes:

I tried not to be offensive in this thread, I bit my tongue, I did not set out to be rude, but that comment I quoted above was simply classless.

As usual, the twisting of words.

Did I say opinions counted more if you send in money? No, I most certainly did not.
I think we've proven time and time again, that ALL opinions are considered/respected, regardless of whether or not someone is a Supporting Ledgie.

My point was that it takes a great deal of money to run a site this large... a huge amount of that money comes out of Marty's pocket, augmented by the valued contributions of our supporting members.
So I don't understand why Marty's wishes and decisions can't be respected, and I also can't see why anyone feels their demands are any more important than anyone else's.

If my comment sounded "classless," then so be it. I think I've exhibited far more class in various situations, time and time again, then post people would ever care to.

[amber]

I must agree, that was quite a low blow. :(
Really? I thought it was apropos. Someone thoughtfully pays for the Ledge, and we get to post here, for free if we want, with donation if we want. But someone DOES have to pay for it, therefore it belongs to them. ie, Marty owns it. It is his. so i think it's fine that it's up to his discretion to share an email with us or not. Just because we're here, doesn't mean we're owed anything.... :shrug:
AMber

[Bella Figura]

I've been a longtime poster even before Carne so I have been around during the previous strike situations which I can barely remember. and as much as I love Carne, even he knew his banning day would come. He has had two previous strikes for a very long time but he never compromised his posts in fear of a third strike.

and with Mari's post we all see his goodbye which is pure Carne style in both substance and tone. ...so even the evil multiple useraccounts has gotta make you laugh...I never suspected a thing!! :)

Carne, we miss you but good luck with your new family :blob1:

[face of glass]

Amber, I didn't mean to add that jumping smiley to that PM of mine, it was an accident. I can't laugh at any of this and have no real sentiments of humour in this situation.

(And this is only here because your PM box is full.)

[dissention]

As usual, the twisting of words.

Did I say opinions counted more if you send in money? No, I most certainly did not.
I think we've proven time and time again, that ALL opinions are considered/respected, regardless of whether or not someone is a Supporting Ledgie.

My point was that it takes a great deal of money to run a site this large... a huge amount of that money comes out of Marty's pocket, augmented by the valued contributions of our supporting members.
So I don't understand why Marty's wishes and decisions can't be respected, and I also can't see why anyone feels their demands are any more important than anyone else's.

If my comment sounded "classless," then so be it. I think I've exhibited far more class in various situations, time and time again, then post people would ever care to.

With all due respect, that sounds like Bush double-speak. What the heck are people supposed to take away from this comment:

Marty runs this board, Marty PAYS for this board (with a valued assist from those who are supporting members... a list of whom, I've never noticed including anyone making the loudest outcries here)

It was a deliberate slap in the face and you know it. But seeing as how a) I'm not a moderator and b) I don't send money using the scam that is PayPal, it really doesn't matter what I think. You can look back in hindsight and say "That's not what I meant," but it was. Otherwise, why make such a biting comment about who does and who doesn't send their money to the board?

Marty's decision to ban Carne, which I'm sure you were delighted with, has been respected. Marty himself said we were perfectly welcome to post our thoughts on it and whether or not we agreed or disagreed, with the one clause that no matter what, the ruling stands. I see no one participating in this thread that does not understand that.

The comment was classless, plain and simple. But, since you've demonstrated such class before, I guess I shouldn't comment on what I see as being classless now. Good lord, no one every does it to me. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Really? I thought it was apropos. Someone thoughtfully pays for the Ledge, and we get to post here, for free if we want, with donation if we want. But someone DOES have to pay for it, therefore it belongs to them. ie, Marty owns it. It is his. so i think it's fine that it's up to his discretion to share an email with us or not. Just because we're here, doesn't mean we're owed anything.... :shrug:
AMber

It also doesn't mean that moderators can be rude to other posters because they haven't necessarily donated money.

[amber]

Marty's decision to ban Carne, which I'm sure you were delighted with,
Ah, yes, ascribing emotions to other people which you don't even know exist....speaking of classy....
AMber

[amber]

It also doesn't mean that moderators can be rude to other posters because they haven't necessarily donated money.
I haven't really seen that happen. I've seen people be rude to moderators, though...and, moderators are posters, too, so if you say something rude to one, you may shouldn't be suprised to get it back...Again, i've not seen a moderator be rude to someone because they haven't donated money.
AMber

[dissention]

Ah, yes, ascribing emotions to other people which you don't even know exist....speaking of classy....
AMber

Ah, well, I'll just combat that little dig with the argument that I've exhibited a bit of class in other various situations. See, that renders my current demonstration of classlessness invalid. :p

[dissention]

I haven't really seen that happen. I've seen people be rude to moderators, though...and, moderators are posters, too, so if you say something rude to one, you may shouldn't be suprised to get it back...Again, i've not seen a moderator be rude to someone because they haven't donated money.
AMber

Then you obviously haven't read Johnny Stew's post on the previous page. It was purposeful dig. But it doesn't matter what I think because I haven't donated any money.

[amber]

Ah, well, I'll just combat that little dig with the argument that I've exhibited a bit of class in other various situations. See, that renders my current demonstration of classlessness invalid. :p
:laugh: I see you're playing by the Calvinball rules.... :)
AMber

[amber]

Then you obviously haven't read Johnny Stew's post on the previous page. It was purposeful dig. But it doesn't matter what I think because I haven't donated any money.
NO, I saw...you call that a dig? Your standards of dig, then, must have slipped considerably since your last post :D To me, it was more of a point, and kind of spoke to the fact that Marty has a perfect right to keep a private email private if he wants, and also spoke to the point of what Ledgies think they're entitled to...I dunno, it just didn't seem that offensive to me, especially comparatively... :wavey:
good chattin' with ya.... :)
AMber

[Johnny Stew]

It was a deliberate slap in the face and you know it. But seeing as how a) I'm not a moderator and b) I don't send money using the scam that is PayPal, it really doesn't matter what I think. You can look back in hindsight and say "That's not what I meant," but it was. Otherwise, why make such a biting comment about who does and who doesn't send their money to the board?

The comment was classless, plain and simple. But, since you've demonstrated such class before, I guess I shouldn't comment on what I see as being classless now. Good lord, no one every does it to me. :rolleyes:

I was trying to put things into perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

But you'll see it however you wish to see it, and nothing I could say would make any difference.



Marty's decision to ban Carne, which I'm sure you were delighted with....


For the record, and in case you haven't noticed, I was not at all "delighted" by CarneVaca being banned. I've said time and time again, that I don't have to agree with someone 100% of the time, in order to like them and respect them. JWD and sodascouts can attest to that.

CV and I actually had some really nice PM exchanges, regarding my expression of the desire to be a father. And, in recent times, I thought he and I were getting along quite well, and had established a solid give-and-take type rapport, based on mutual respect.

But, again, nothing I can say will change your mind, once you've made it up. So I guess none of that matters.

[dissention]

NO, I saw...you call that a dig? Your standards of dig, then, must have slipped considerably since your last post :D To me, it was more of a point, and kind of spoke to the fact that Marty has a perfect right to keep a private email private if he wants, and also spoke to the point of what Ledgies think they're entitled to...I dunno, it just didn't seem that offensive to me, especially comparatively... :wavey:
good chattin' with ya.... :)
AMber

Yeah, I call that a dig. I know when Stew is being cheeky and that was a good example. I think the comment spoke more towards what he feels is entitlement for the folks who send this place their money. Since those of us in this thread don't send money for the most part, we are not entitled to express our opinions about how it's run. He really should copyright that particular brand of logic.

[dissention]

I was trying to put things into perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

But you'll see it however you wish to see it, and nothing I could say would make any difference.

If that's the kind of perspective you want me to put things into, forget it. Last I checked, no one around here was better than anyone else because they sent a few bucks to maintain the board. But things have changed in the past few days, maybe that's one of them.

For the record, and in case you haven't noticed, I was not at all "delighted" by CarneVaca being banned. I've said time and time again, that I don't have to agree with someone 100% of the time, in order to like them and respect them. JWD and sodascouts can attest to that.

CV and I actually had some really nice PM exchanges, regarding my expression of the desire to be a father. And, in recent times, I thought he and I were getting along quite well, and had established a solid give-and-take type rapport, based on mutual respect.

But, again, nothing I can say will change your mind, once you've made it up. So I guess none of that matters.

But Carne didn't send any money. :laugh:

I hope you weren't happy to see him go. I think anyone who was happy to see him go probably don't realize that a great contributor has been banned for what I believe are silly reasons.

[amber]

Yeah, I call that a dig. I know when Stew is being cheeky and that was a good example. I think the comment spoke more towards what he feels is entitlement for the folks who send this place their money. Since those of us in this thread don't send money for the most part, we are not entitled to express our opinions about how it's run. He really should copyright that particular brand of logic.
Um, i think you're inferring too much meaning from what he actually said, which was like, blah blah, people who help contribute to the ledge, blah, notice some of the loudest complainers don't give to the ledge.
obviously, that's a paraphrase, but I don't think he ever actually said that people who don't contribute aren't as entitled to speak their minds, or respect, or whatever, he merely cheekily said that some of the loudest gripers are the non-supporters. He pointed that out, he didn't actually say that in order to be heard or have their opinion count, people need to send money...
again, to much meaning from those words, I think.
AMber

[amber]

If that's the kind of perspective you want me to put things into, forget it. Last I checked, no one around here was better than anyone else because they sent a few bucks to maintain the board. But things have changed in the past few days, maybe that's one of them..

Um, johnny never said that anyone was better because they sent a few bucks. You can't just take some words and change their meaning and add new meanings to WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID AND MEANT. I mean, you're just making stuff up :shrug: stuff to just be mad about, even though you've changed the intention and the meaning of the words? :confused:
"you got me mystifiiiiiiiieeed"
AMber

[dissention]

Um, i think you're inferring too much meaning from what he actually said, which was like, blah blah, people who help contribute to the ledge, blah, notice some of the loudest complainers don't give to the ledge.
obviously, that's a paraphrase, but I don't think he ever actually said that people who don't contribute aren't as entitled to speak their minds, or respect, or whatever, he merely cheekily said that some of the loudest gripers are the non-supporters. He pointed that out, he didn't actually say that in order to be heard or have their opinion count, people need to send money...
again, to much meaning from those words, I think.
AMber

I think you're inferring too little.

[dissention]

Um, johnny never said that anyone was better because they sent a few bucks. You can't just take some words and change their meaning and add new meanings to WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID AND MEANT. I mean, you're just making stuff up :shrug: stuff to just be mad about, even though you've changed the intention and the meaning of the words? :confused:
"you got me mystifiiiiiiiieeed"
AMber

I'm not making anything up, I'm responding to the classless remark he made.

[amber]

I think you're inferring too little.
I'm not inferring anything, I'm looking at what the actual words said, which i assume hold the meaning johnny intended, no more, no less. What he said was A, so I assume he meant ASee how that works? some people call it good listening, although in this case it would probably be good reading....
AMber

[Bella Figura]

Um, johnny never said that anyone was better because they sent a few bucks. You can't just take some words and change their meaning and add new meanings to WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID AND MEANT. I mean, you're just making stuff up :shrug: stuff to just be mad about, even though you've changed the intention and the meaning of the words? :confused:
"you got me mystifiiiiiiiieeed"
AMber


Personally, I thought he did say the financial contributors are better!!! :D

[amber]

I'm not making anything up, I'm responding to the classless remark he made.
So you think it's classless that he pointed out that some of the most vocal ledgies who are demanding things don't contribute?
I think it's classless that people are demanding the disclosure of private emails to Marty, and then acting like he's doing something wrong, and variously insulting all the Mods, for keeping it to himself. The sense of entitlement, period, is a bit classless, IMO.
AMber

[amber]

Personally, I thought he did say the financial contributors are better!!! :D
How? Which words did he use that said that? seriously, if they're there, I'll happily acknowledge...
AMber

[Nixxxed]

I wonder what he did to get the other 2 strikes...

The same thing he got banned for -- excessive insults, feuding, and harassment. And, in typical fasion, he created public threads about those private incidents in an order to rally his minions and make the owners/moderators look bad.

Read for yourself -- call up CV's profile page and open the "Find all threads started by..." link. Go to the last page and look for threads entitled "Big Bad Poster" and "The Case for Rescission". (Sorry, I tried to post actual links to these, but my browser keeps crashing...)

[dissention]

I'm not inferring anything, I'm looking at what the actual words said, which i assume hold the meaning johnny intended, no more, no less. What he said was A, so I assume he meant ASee how that works? some people call it good listening, although in this case it would probably be good reading....
AMber

Assuming is essentially the same as inferring. :shrug:

[dissention]

Personally, I thought he did say the financial contributors are better!!! :D

:lol: Wise ass!

[ThePenguin]

I see that CarneVaca's email to me has been posted. Frankly, I do not understand why. As you can see from the letter, he 'challenged' me to post it and I declined. The reason was because he had been banned. Why does someone get an additional post after they are banned? It does not seem right to me that because I declined this 'challenge', that someone else has the right to step in and accept it for me. That seems fair to you gerald and Mari? Can you at least see why I think it would be my decision to make?

Anyway, it's been posted already and probably most people have seen it. If it were to be removed, I'm sure that it would just be circulated anyway so it can just stay. Aside from two things, I don't really see anything in it that hasn't been mentioned already anyway though and the letter certainly doesn't change the ban. Two comments were not addressed-- (1) do I feel 'duped' and (2) I stated publically that I would not ban CarneVaca for the criticisms made about the stickies, Villavic's closed post, etc..

With respect to feeling 'duped', I actually had not even though about that until CarneVaca wrote it. Honestly, the answer is no. When people apply for membership for the Ledge, I don't get a photocopy of their driver's license, passport, or a security deposit. I do not do background checks or require biographical sketches. After they post I do not pour over IP addresses and compare styles of writing. Most of my Fleetwood Mac Penguin time for the past summer has been spent working on the new discography script and not reading messages on The Ledge. I do not feel it is a personal failure of any kind because I did not make the connection and I really do not feel duped. When the moderators found out about the situation, it was acted upon immediately.

With respect to the public statement about not banning CarneVaca for criticisms made against the Ledge management, that was true then and is true now. The reasons for his ban were stated in my post yesterday. At the time of my initial public statement too, I had no idea that he was also Dulcimer and NoThatFunny and therefore was not weighing any kind of judgement on the actions of those usernames too.

The discussions about the contributions here strikes me as pointless and really just silly. It is certainly appreciated when people make small contributions to help Lis and I with the site but it is not required and certainly has no bearing here. People are not given any special (or worse) treatment because they do (or do not) contribute.

I do not intend to keep posting in this thread but just wanted to address CV's letter. The reason for the ban was given by the moderators and this thread was continued so that comments could be aired. As dissention pointed out, the decision for the ban is not going to be reversed because of the discussion. Please try to bring the overall tone down a bit though....

- Marty

[dissention]

So you think it's classless that he pointed out that some of the most vocal ledgies who are demanding things don't contribute?
I think it's classless that people are demanding the disclosure of private emails to Marty, and then acting like he's doing something wrong, and variously insulting all the Mods, for keeping it to himself. The sense of entitlement, period, is a bit classless, IMO.
AMber

No sense of entitlement here, only a sense of fairness. :wavey:

[Johnny Stew]

How? Which words did he use that said that? seriously, if they're there, I'll happily acknowledge...

Not wishing to speak for Bella Figura, or put words into her mouth ('cause I sure know how that feels), I think her comment was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek, based on a certain notation underneath her own username.

[amber]

Assuming is essentially the same as inferring. :shrug:
not really. and assuming someone meant just what they said is normal. I didn't go off word and infer new and different meanings which only had vague relationship to the actual concrete meaning. That's what words do, that's why people use them - they mean something. And with most words, the meaning is fairly set.
Whatevah, you can infer around all you want. Maybe next you'll say that somehow he meant that all brown haired people between 25-35 should immediately send $500 to the ledge. Or maybe you'll say he meant that Frogs grow on the trees outside his house. I mean, you've already made up so much that wasn't there, who's to say you won't take it farther?
AMber

[dissention]

not really.

Do you own a thesaurus? :laugh:

As for the rest, that tune has already been trumpeted, Amber. We disagree, end of story.

[Patti]

I haven't really said anything through all this, but I'm a little disturbed at a couple of things. First of all, Diss, I love ya :xoxo:, but you are notorious for classless comments, at least IMO, so what are ya giving JS such a hard time for?

What I find most disturbing, however, is how odd I find Carne's behavior. Here is a man who is obviously quite intelligent, married and a father, and he spends all this time trying to outwit people on a message board???? THAT disturbs me greatly. I think now that he has been banned, he can spend more quality time with his child and less time "playing" around. Sometimes I really enjoyed reading Carne's posts; other times he really made me angry. He was always entertaining and often controversial. But this ain't real life folks, so I hope his young child benefits from this banning. That's what really matters.

[Bella Figura]

yes, I was just kidding!!! Amber!!! :D

[Bella Figura]

What I find most disturbing, however, is how odd I find Carne's behavior. Here is a man who is obviously quite intelligent, married and a father, and he spends all this time trying to outwit people on a message board???? THAT disturbs me greatly. I think now that he has been banned, he can spend more quality time with his child and less time "playing" around. Sometimes I really enjoyed reading Carne's posts; other times he really made me angry. He was always entertaining and often controversial. But this ain't real life folks, so I hope his young child benefits from this banning. That's what really matters.


you're not married to a prankster, are you? :) lucky girl, believe me, they will expound any amount of energy for a good laugh...

[dissention]

I haven't really said anything through all this, but I'm a little disturbed at a couple of things. First of all, Diss, I love ya :xoxo:, but you are notorious for classless comments, at least IMO, so what are ya giving JS such a hard time for?

First of all, thanks for the compliment. :laugh: :xoxo:

Yeah, I make the most classless comments this side of Dick Cheney on the Senate floor, but I see a difference between my cracks and what I saw as rather rude about who is entitled to what on the board. It was especially perplexing coming from a moderator. Essentially, what he did was belittle all of the users in this thread who don't contribute. Normally, I would just respond by saying that my mere presence is contribution enough, but I'm not known for keeping my thoughts to myself, am I? :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

I'm not going to continue debating this. As usual, it's down to a matter of semantics.
But I did not mean that anyone's opinions are any less valuable, if they haven't made a monetary contribution, or more valuable if they have.

I don't feel that way now, nor have I ever.
In fact, I was not a "Supporting Ledgie" myself for quite some time after that option was made available, because, frankly... and not that it's anyone's business... but I don't have a lot of money. And what I do have, I need to hang on to.

So in my situation, I saved a dollar or two here or there, and then made a donation when I had enough money set aside to do so.
But other people have families and/or spouses to support, bills to pay, medical expenses to cover, etc., etc.
So, whatever the reason may be, I would NEVER be the one to hold it against someone for not making a monetary contribution. I have no idea what anyone's financial situation is, and I wouldn't presume to guess who could and couldn't afford to make a donation.

As I said earlier... and whether it was believed or not... I was simply trying to put things into perspective, and ask for some respect for Marty's decision(s).

I don't apologize for what I said, because I didn't mean it in a rude or "classless" way, and because I can't control how every individual on these boards might interpret something I say.

[shackin'up]

if he was positive in the majority of his posts, why did he have 2 other strikes? And if he was super smart, and really wanted to stay on Ledge, wouldn't he have modified his behavior after the first or second strike?

1. Why do you think his signature was "rescind the strike". Not because you think he agreed with that punishment earlier?

2. In 500 posts it's easy to force 5 innings of strikes.

3. The guy was great when he was on the edge. But to keep on the edge for long does not go without mistakes. If you keep debates so lively for 95% of the time, I think you deserve to be set straight in the other 5%, but also be forgiven for your mistakes.
Unfortunately, people on this FABULOUS penguin-site and great board, disagree with me.

[shackin'up]

I'm sorry johnny.
I'm not gonna ask for the fourth time to answer my questions.
I BELIEVE that you all tried to be considerate.
But you did not communicate that way. Even if I asked to show me where to find that human touch and put it in the context of the positive strength of Carne's posts, you don't seem to see that it would have been smarter to play it open like the banned punk asked.

where's that third-finger-emoticon when you need it?

[The Tower]

What I find most disturbing, however, is how odd I find Carne's behavior. Here is a man who is obviously quite intelligent, married and a father, and he spends all this time trying to outwit people on a message board???? THAT disturbs me greatly.

Yeah, it all seems kinda mental-creepy to me, too.

I have to say in all honesty, that I thought this comment-

Marty runs this board, Marty PAYS for this board (with a valued assist from those who are supporting members... a list of whom, I've never noticed including anyone making the loudest outcries here)

-was not too cool. I mean, it was simply a little dig- it pointed out that most of the people complaining about this situation don't contribute to this board. I thought it was unnecessary and condescending.

In any case, Carne was certainly smart enough to realize that his shenanigans were going to get himself in trouble. For the mods of this board to let him slide because he has 3,000 posts would just allow others to possibly pull off the same stuff without retribution- which isn't very fair to people like Jacob who got reamed in the process. However, I did appreciate many of Carne's contributions (for the record I LOVED his discourse- it was wonderful, thought provoking and highly entertaining). So, for those who are saddened to see Carne go, perhaps they should direct their displeasure at Carne- after all, he knew the score and is responsible for his own actions.

[amber]

We disagree, end of story.
End of story? Are you sure you don't want to make some more stuff up? :D
AMber

[shackin'up]

So, for those who are saddened to see Carne go, perhaps they should direct their displeasure at Carne- after all, he knew the score and is responsible for his own actions.

Believe me. That's the first thing I did. I was angry at him first. It's an arrogant pr*ck, too. Like I have stated before and nobody saw that as harrassment. Come on, this is the virual world. Respond or neglect.

[Patti]

you're not married to a prankster, are you? :) lucky girl, believe me, they will expound any amount of energy for a good laugh...

Even if it's not that funny?;)

[Patti]

First of all, thanks for the compliment. :laugh: :xoxo:

Yeah, I make the most classless comments this side of Dick Cheney on the Senate floor, but I see a difference between my cracks and what I saw as rather rude about who is entitled to what on the board. It was especially perplexing coming from a moderator. Essentially, what he did was belittle all of the users in this thread who don't contribute. Normally, I would just respond by saying that my mere presence is contribution enough, but I'm not known for keeping my thoughts to myself, am I? :laugh:

Welcome!

And point well taken. I don't wanna speak for Le Stew, but I sensed frustration in that comment. Nothing more. And your presence is *more* than contribution enough! ;)

[DeadliestPoison]

To expand upon Gaius' comparisons of Greg and Kate posting each other's PM messages in their signatures. The difference is that Greg and Kate are the only two parties involved, and obviously have each other's approval to share those PM messages.
Buh, wait, what? I'm six degrees of lost.

EDIT - Nevermind, found the post. :)

[dissention]

End of story? Are you sure you don't want to make some more stuff up? :D
AMber

Nope, that's your job...alongside assuming, of course. :D

[amber]

Nope, that's your job...alongside assuming, of course. :D
My job? really? When do i get my paycheck? Wow, and i thought i had a crappy job, turns out i have this really great one.... :)
AMber

[Bella Figura]

Even if it's not that funny?;)

yep, the truest thing that has been written so far regarding this issue is that Carne is having a great laugh at all our posts even though the cost is he can now only read our posts on the Ledge as a "guest"

[seteca]

I was one of the first few posters on this thread and asked to know why CV was banned, so I think it's right that I post my thoughts in response.

First off, thank you to Marty, Johnny Stew & any other moderator who has responded in this thread - I know quite a few message boards where Admin do not discuss their decisions even if WWIII is about to break out.

Although I understand the reasons you (plural) have given, I, along with many, many, other Ledgies, am sad to see that CarneVaca has been permanently banned. He was one of the few Ledgies whose posts I always enjoyed reading. I also understand, and respect, that this decision is final, and that the decision was logically reached with the FAQ in mind.

However, I also see an infamous problem which has famously recurred throughout ancient and modern history: should you ALWAYS follow the rules, even if it is the majority's wish (and in their interest) to do otherwise? Yes, this is a private message board, owned and controlled by Marty & Lisa with the help of the moderators, but I always assumed that the FAQ were thoughtfully set up in order to protect (in many ways) the users of the forum - the 2000+ Ledgies. Without the Ledgies, there would, for all intents and purposes, be no Ledge Boards. Like I said in my first (and only other) post in this thread, if I started a poll asking "Should CV be allowed back?" I think it is pretty clear what the result of that poll would be, i.e. a high majority YES. (I did read Marty's message which explicitly asked Ledgies not to start any such kind of a thread so I will respect that request, which means, yes, my previous sentence is technically speculation.) So, if the majority of Ledgies not only have no problem with the actions of a particular Ledgie, but also would certainly not like to see him go as a result of those actions, what is gained by banning him from The Ledge? At the end of the day, this, like any other internet message board, is just an internet message board (I mean that with all due respect, and full appreciation of it) so I'm not going to ridiculously start talking deep political theory, but there does seem to have been an unexplained disregard for the ideologies that form "basic democracy". It's a very toned-down version of the kind of situations which occur on message boards like those I mentioned above, where someone is suddenly banned or a post is completely deleted with no warnings or reasons given, purely because (and only because) the owner/admin felt like it.

I'll end this post with a very recent example of the sort of situation I'm talking about. Yesterday afternoon, during a bright sunny day in London, a member of "Fathers 4 Justice" (a group of divorced fathers who want to stop courts from being able to rule in complete favour of mothers for custody of their children) dressed as Batman, put a ladder onto the main gates of Buckingham Palace, climbed over, ran across the front courtyard, scaled the walls, stood on the side of the main terrace and began a 5 hour protest, all because he wanted to see his children again. Buckingham Palace is surrounded by heavily armed police and soldiers who are under strict orders to shoot anybody who even attemps to climb over that fence, let alone run across the courtyard and climb up the wall towards the Queen's bedrooms. The officer who had his machine gun trained on him did not open fire. He made a split second decision that this man was probably a protestor or a mental patient, and did not shoot him. However, his orders do not ask him to make that sort of decision - they were simple: shoot anyone who tries to get over that fence. He disobeyed that order based on common sense and has now been praised by the entire Met. Police Force for his decision - had he acted otherwise, a harmless protestor would now be dead and his children would have no father.

My point is that sometimes the truly correct decision is not always the logically correct one.

[Nixxxed]

He disobeyed that order based on common sense and has now been praised by the entire Met. Police Force for his decision - had he acted otherwise, a harmless protestor would now be dead and his children would have no father.

My point is that sometimes the truly correct decision is not always the logically correct one.

Your entire post was very thoughtful and well-written, and I see your point.

However, the Batman you're speaking of pulled his stunt ONCE. On his SECOND and THIRD tries at this type of controversy, possibly even dressed as different super-heroes, he'll be shot and killed, leaving his children with no father. Not to mention the fact that his actions may cause other, totally and completely innocent bystanders to be killed in the crossfire.

And what about all the people who decide that his methods are actually acceptable? With all the blessed, craved controversy he has created, the copycats will be killed on their FIRST try.

[½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ®]

This thread reminds me of the old Star Trek episode where the glowing light lived off of the crews anger and bickering at each other. Dr. McCoy popped a neck vein because Spock never thanked him for the brain surgery. Scotty was drinking heavy because his anti matter started to matter. Spock was pissed because his death grip was nothing but a limp squeeze on the shoulder. Captain Kirk had his bell-bottoms in a tizzy because the tribbles ate all his stellar stash. The Clingons were pissed because they’re women had spines in they’re foreheads and ungodly hairy nipples and the whole time this light got stronger and brighter. The crew eventually figured out the light was feeding off they’re anger so they got the whole universe together for one big orgy in the neutral zone. Even the Borg showed up and everyone loved and loved until the light faded and left them alone. The reason I decided to type all this is because I see a light growing stronger on this board and its not a good light. I also wanted to say “If you were one of the chicks at that orgy and just didn’t get your fill because you’re a spine face with hairy nipples. That stuff turns me on.” :]

[saradorna]

I think you're not 1/2 insane but completely insane and that you had another Id in this message board. :rolleyes:

Isabel

[David]

Captain Kirk had his bell-bottoms in a tizzy because the tribbles ate all his stellar stash.
Char?

is that you?

[shackin'up]

You articulate perfectly in a great post, cummulating in the quote
My point is that sometimes the truly correct decision is not always the logically correct one.

what I tried to say with

BUT you can sum up every rule in the book. I'm talking about acting IN REASON, and CONSIDERING CONTEXTS

I feel supported by your post. So Thanks again. :xoxo:

gerald

[trackaghost]

I still don't understand why Carne had the mutiple accounts (perhaps to amuse himself?) but I've looked back at his posts and they appear pretty harmless really. He's just agreeing with himself most of the time, not really worthy of a ban (unlike 4Buck recently).
And that Hippocampus quote The Tower posted is pretty funny to read in retrospect.

[HomerMcvie]

I still don't understand why Carne had the mutiple accounts (perhaps to amuse himself?) but I've looked back at his posts and they appear pretty harmless really. He's just agreeing with himself most of the time, not really worthy of a ban (unlike 4Buck recently).
Why did 4Buck get banned???
I do think the multiple accounts reek of manipulation (sorry, Carne). I mean, why else have them? :sorry:

[shackin'up]

Why did 4Buck get banned???
I do think the multiple accounts reek of manipulation (sorry, Carne). I mean, why else have them? :sorry:

If I understood him correctly, those accounts were originally accounts of relatives and/or friends.

[cliffdweller]

1. Why do you think his signature was "rescind the strike". Not because you think he agreed with that punishment earlier?

2. In 500 posts it's easy to force 5 innings of strikes.

3. The guy was great when he was on the edge. But to keep on the edge for long does not go without mistakes. If you keep debates so lively for 95% of the time, I think you deserve to be set straight in the other 5%, but also be forgiven for your mistakes.
Unfortunately, people on this FABULOUS penguin-site and great board, disagree with me.

That still doesn't answer the question posed to you. Of course he didn't agree with his "punishment" I mean let's face it, 95% of prisoners say they're innocent right?

Staying "on the edge" is not what he was banned for and you know it. And "lively" does not even begin to describe his insulting attitude and you know that too.

[cliffdweller]

If I understood him correctly, those accounts were originally accounts of relatives and/or friends.

Somehow I HIGHLY doubt this is true.

[shackin'up]

Somehow I HIGHLY doubt this is true.

That's what he said to me. Think of it what you want. But I believe what he mails me privately.

[dissention]

That's what he said to me. Think of it what you want. But I believe what he mails me privately.

Hey, watch out. Did you have his permission to post what he said privately? I think another strike is coming your way, pal. :p

[amber]

That's what he said to me. Think of it what you want. But I believe what he mails me privately.
I'm just suprised you believe everything...I mean, the guy already has two aliases, which HE used, regardless of whether they were set up for relatives, or not. I would just take most things he said with a grain of salt, maybe some camphor, perhaps a little worchestershire sauce, maybe grill it up with some onions, then....oh, uh, sorry, i'm really hungry.... :laugh:
Amber

[amber]

Maybe I shouldn't say.... but I guess it's no secret. It was for posting offensive comments about Lindsey's wife and misogynist things in general really. Nasty stuff. She also had two different accounts, which she would also use to agree with herself about creepy things.
about people who use to names to agree with themselves...can't they all just wish they had an identical twin, like I do, and leave it at that? :laugh: :laugh:
AMber

[dissention]

Maybe I shouldn't say.... but I guess it's no secret. It was for posting offensive comments about Lindsey's wife and misogynist things in general really. Nasty stuff. She also had two different accounts, which she would also use to agree with herself about creepy things.

I thought it was because of her woman-hating comments...which I found funny because she was a woman. :laugh:

[shackin'up]

Staying "on the edge" is not what he was banned for and you know it. And "lively" does not even begin to describe his insulting attitude and you know that too.
I'm sorry but I did not consider his posts insulting. We disagree on that. So stating that I know that too is incorrect. I know that not.

[shackin'up]

I'm just suprised you believe everything...I mean, the guy already has two aliases, which HE used, regardless of whether they were set up for relatives, or not. I would just take most things he said with a grain of salt, maybe some camphor, perhaps a little worchestershire sauce, maybe grill it up with some onions, then....oh, uh, sorry, i'm really hungry.... :laugh:
Amber

Well, I have NEVER believed everything he posted over here. He was obviously playing debate-games here, like a few others do too. But I have a very good friendship with him over email and PM. So don't think I acted here as a naieve boardmember ( what I AM actually), and the fact about those alliasses was just an answer to a question. I don't want to defend that at all. And I agree that he used them to play with, regardless of their origin. But you don't have insight in my personal correspondence with him.

Have a good meal. Carne used to have great lunchsuggestions over here. Ask Strand.

[amber]

Well, I have NEVER believed everything he posted over here. He was obviously playing debate-games here, like a few others do too. But I have a very good friendship with him over email and PM. So don't think I acted here as a naieve boardmember ( what I AM actually), and the fact about those alliasses was just an answer to a question. I don't want to defend that at all. And I agree that he used them to play with, regardless of their origin. But you don't have insight in my personal correspondence with him.

Have a good meal. Carne used to have great lunchsuggestions over here. Ask Strand.
oh, of course i don't. And it was just a random comment...I didn't know hardly anything about him, except when he pm'd me to try to get me to vote for something...he was pretty polite, and tried to make a deal, but i told him I didn't trust him to uphold his deal...wait, i guess i did know a little that he may have not been completely up front...hmmm. Anyway, I had a hard boiled egg for lunch, cause i'm broke this week :rolleyes: but thank you!!!
AMber

[teedee]

Yes, because our opinions will count more if we send our money. :rolleyes:

I tried not to be offensive in this thread, I bit my tongue, I did not set out to be rude, but that comment I quoted above was simply classless.




yes dis, YOUR comment was CLASSLESS, but that was not a quote of what johnny said.

[teedee]

It also doesn't mean that moderators can be rude to other posters because they haven't necessarily donated money.



Dis , i find it funny that you look at what johhny said and can call it rude , or tell him that you cant use , "thats not what i meant" and then state thats exactly what he meant. ,but then with a post from CV, everyone can say it wasnt rude or he didnt break the rules . or thats NOT what CV meant, etc... Its not your board, its not your rules, and if you did respect the MODS decision, you wouldnt have to continually disect THIER decision. yes you can post your feelings about it here as they stated, but to keep asking MODS why why why, when they have clearly told you why, is just prolonging what has already been said and done, I think the MODS get it that you dont like thier decision, but they stand by what they did and gave reason for why and what they did. they did take things into perspective as another poster suggested, it just so happens that thier overall perspective doesnt agree with the likes of that poster. But to allow him to post a Good bye, and have the last word as someone suggested as being a classy move b y the mods, why should the mods allow that. when you are being warned with strikes for your behavior and dont show any sign of taking those warnings into consideration in your future posts, why would a goodbye post be allowed, we all know his nature of posts and it wouldnt have been a simple goodbye post, we all got a taste of what it was when someone posted it in this thread, without permission. IT would just keep the posts of how you all disagree with the mods decision going on and on with out taking into consideration why the mods banned him in the first place. so the mods took a way a friend of yours from your FM board, thats all that really happened in the end. if he really was that good of a friend of yours, well im sure you exchanged emails in the lifetime that he was on this board and you can surely stay in touch. its not the end of the world. if you truly dislike the rules and their decision, everyone is free to leave or stay, but to keep asking why why why when you clearly got your answers is a waste of time. For some of you who say it isnt clear, its simply that you cant accept someone making a decision that you disagree with. we all dont have to agree and the mods know that, but you should accept what they have decided as being whats best for the boards future or you can leave if it really bothers you that much. its their decision and i have to respect that.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

Don't you ever get bored of following Diss around on the boards? ;)

[cliffdweller]

I'm sorry but I did not consider his posts insulting.


:shocked: :rolleyes:

[Janet]

Man, going through those pages was tough.

I can see where everyone is coming from, but I can't understand that why in the end, why people can't see WHY we did what we did.

I am not miss super moderator. I work so much and I have such little time, but I do try to keep an eye on things just so there is peace. That's all I am looking for, a nice place to post where no one feels threatened or bullied.

We can argue and laugh and discuss and disagree, but it just crosses a line when people attack each other.

I don't feel like GOD, I don't feel I have a right to judge, but that FAQ we have is there so we don't have to play GOD or judge. The rules are there and if someone doesn't follow, they are given warnings, strikes...so much before they are ever banned.

There was alot of agonizing over this decision. ALOT. If we let one person just get away with breaking FAQ guidelines, then everyone should get away with it, hell, let's just not even have the FAQ.

I think things are totally fair. I think we let you guys do whatever. We just don't stand for people cruelly putting each other down..what's wrong with that? We just want peace and for everyone to feel welcome. No bullies.

Oh well, not everyone can be happy all the time. But this decision has been made. ALOT of time was taken because we didn't just say...ok, bye bye. We just had to do what we had to do. We hated doing it.

I'm sorry this had to happen but maybe it's a good thing for HIM...overall.

[Janet]

Too little too late, but I totally don't understand why anyone thought JS was saying contributers are better than non.

I waited ages to give money but after being on these boards since 1997, I wanted to give something. It was my choice. Does that make me better? No. I honestly don't have ONE person I chat with from these boards. I am pretty much on my own. My words mean nothing, even though I gave.

So many of you are way more vocal, more liked, more important and you didn't give a cent. To each his own, right?

:)

[dissention]

yes dis, YOUR comment was CLASSLESS, but that was not a quote of what johnny said.

Ummm...yes, it was. :shrug:

[dissention]

Don't you ever get bored of following Diss around on the boards? ;)

:lol: :xoxo: My thoughts exactly, Pip.

Seriously, I think it's sweet that I have my own group of little stalkers (I would name names, but that would be classless), but now I can really see why Stevie really wants nothing to do with the fans these days.

[dissention]

Dis , i find it funny that you look at what johhny said and can call it rude , or tell him that you cant use , "thats not what i meant" and then state thats exactly what he meant. ,but then with a post from CV, everyone can say it wasnt rude or he didnt break the rules . or thats NOT what CV meant, etc... Its not your board, its not your rules, and if you did respect the MODS decision, you wouldnt have to continually disect THIER decision. yes you can post your feelings about it here as they stated, but to keep asking MODS why why why, when they have clearly told you why, is just prolonging what has already been said and done, I think the MODS get it that you dont like thier decision, but they stand by what they did and gave reason for why and what they did. they did take things into perspective as another poster suggested, it just so happens that thier overall perspective doesnt agree with the likes of that poster. But to allow him to post a Good bye, and have the last word as someone suggested as being a classy move b y the mods, why should the mods allow that. when you are being warned with strikes for your behavior and dont show any sign of taking those warnings into consideration in your future posts, why would a goodbye post be allowed, we all know his nature of posts and it wouldnt have been a simple goodbye post, we all got a taste of what it was when someone posted it in this thread, without permission. IT would just keep the posts of how you all disagree with the mods decision going on and on with out taking into consideration why the mods banned him in the first place. so the mods took a way a friend of yours from your FM board, thats all that really happened in the end. if he really was that good of a friend of yours, well im sure you exchanged emails in the lifetime that he was on this board and you can surely stay in touch. its not the end of the world. if you truly dislike the rules and their decision, everyone is free to leave or stay, but to keep asking why why why when you clearly got your answers is a waste of time. For some of you who say it isnt clear, its simply that you cant accept someone making a decision that you disagree with. we all dont have to agree and the mods know that, but you should accept what they have decided as being whats best for the boards future or you can leave if it really bothers you that much. its their decision and i have to respect that.

I would read this post if it had a shred of punctuation, but hot damn, my prescription isn't strong enough to even attempt a reading of it at present time. But, and this is only an educated guess, I think I can sum up yet another one of your posts that serve no purpose but than to harrass me: ill-informed and full of half-truths. :wavey:

[amber]

:lol: :xoxo: My thoughts exactly, Pip.

Seriously, I think it's sweet that I have my own group of little stalkers (I would name names, but that would be classless), but now I can really see why Stevie really wants nothing to do with the fans these days.
By looking at your own posts? :laugh: :xoxo:
I think it's cause you say everything as if it were the only way, which makes people want to argue with you. :shrug: And i see TeeDee's point... :cool:
AMber

[amber]

I would read this post if it had a shred of punctuation, but hot damn, my prescription isn't strong enough to even attempt a reading of it at present time. But, and this is only an educated guess, I think I can sum up yet another one of your posts that serve no purpose but than to harrass me: ill-informed and full of half-truths. :wavey:
Wow, you didn't even read it and you judged it as ill informed and half truthful!!! A new high for you!!!
AMber

[dissention]

By looking at your own posts? :laugh: :xoxo:
I think it's cause you say everything as if it were the only way, which makes people want to argue with you. :shrug: And i see TeeDee's point... :cool:
AMber

Amber, I probably litter my posts with "IMO" more than anyone else on this board. Fact is, there has been a little group of people around here who rarely post, and when they do, post only to argue with me. Kind of the same behavior that Carne was supposedly banned for...carping and harrassment. It's rather ridiculous. You're falling into the same rut in this here thread. :wavey:

[dissention]

Wow, you didn't even read it and you judged it as ill informed and half truthful!!! A new high for you!!!
AMber

Nah, I don't have to read it. I've been around long enough to have read Miss Teedee's posts many a time, I know the what the usual content is: to tell me I'm so wrong and off-base, and blah blah blah. That song was sung. ;)

[amber]

Nah, I don't have to read it. I've been around long enough to have read Miss Teedee's posts many a time, I know the what the usual content is: to tell me I'm so wrong and off-base, and blah blah blah. That song was sung. ;)
And yet, you judged it anyway....but, yeah, i don't like to read criticism of my points, either, but then if don't read them, I don't presume to judge them...
AMber

[amber]

Amber, I probably litter my posts with "IMO" more than anyone else on this board. Fact is, there has been a little group of people around here who rarely post, and when they do, post only to argue with me. Kind of the same behavior that Carne was supposedly banned for...carping and harrassment. It's rather ridiculous. You're falling into the same rut in this here thread. :wavey:
no because i post about everything. i don't post just to argue with you. And if you say, for instance, "you are an ignoramus and everything you say is crap, IMO" , that IMO is pretty meaningless. and that's often the way you phrase things, imo ;) And Carne was banned for being insulting, like that, while he is carping. Teedee did not call you names - he/she simply argued with your points, without turning to name calling, or really saying anything rude. I mean, I like you, I liked Carne, but I still think you're both incredibly, uh, rude? controversial? sometimes, and feel it's just fine to voice my opinion about that. After all, you never hold back from saying exactly what you think, you shouldn't care or be suprised if people argue with you. And when you don't like people arguing with you, and you try to say "you're carping on me and harrassing me" or "end of story" well, who are you to say when it's time for everyone else to be quiet, and stop talking about what you posted? If you can't take the argue, then don't answer, right? IMO :xoxo:
AMber

[Sugar]

Exactly when did this thread about CarneVaca become the "What we hate about Dissention" thread?

Seriously.

[Sugar]

Am I supposed to be different, and just ignore whatever he says, or walk on eggshells...I'm sorry if I upset you...
AMber



I don't think anyone expects you to be different.

[amber]

I don't think anyone expects you to be different.
:woohoo: :woohoo: Wooohoooo!!
I mean, sugar, maybe a lot of people aren't the type to argue if they disagree, but I sometimes will...which it seems like only a few girls on the ledge are like that....But, to me, Diss argues all the time, too :thumbsup:
Anyway... :p :wavey:
AMber

[dissention]

no because i post about everything. i don't post just to argue with you. And if you say, for instance, "you are an ignoramus and everything you say is crap, IMO" , that IMO is pretty meaningless. and that's often the way you phrase things, imo ;) And Carne was banned for being insulting, like that, while he is carping. Teedee did not call you names - he/she simply argued with your points, without turning to name calling, or really saying anything rude. I mean, I like you, I liked Carne, but I still think you're both incredibly, uh, rude? controversial? sometimes, and feel it's just fine to voice my opinion about that. After all, you never hold back from saying exactly what you think, you shouldn't care or be suprised if people argue with you. And when you don't like people arguing with you, and you try to say "you're carping on me and harrassing me" or "end of story" well, who are you to say when it's time for everyone else to be quiet, and stop talking about what you posted? If you can't take the argue, then don't answer, right? IMO :xoxo:
AMber

There you go, making things up...the same thing you accused me of doing. ;)

I would NEVER say "you are an ignoramus and everything you say is crap, IMO." I may call someone out and tell them they're talking out of their ass when it's obvious that they are, but I would never go to the extent that you claim I would.

I can take any argument, my dear, I just call out hypocrisy when I see it, same with bull****. Which is beginning to stink up this thread. :wavey:

[dissention]

Exactly when did this thread about CarneVaca become the "What we hate about Dissention" thread?

Seriously.

:laugh:

When Teedee, in all her infinite wisdom, piped up. I'm waiting for my friends Christopher and snwriter to show up. snwriter can tell us more stories about how Stevie sold out Madison Square Garden because she was there...just to prove me wrong. :laugh:

[teedee]

Amber, I probably litter my posts with "IMO" more than anyone else on this board. Fact is, there has been a little group of people around here who rarely post, and when they do, post only to argue with me. Kind of the same behavior that Carne was supposedly banned for...carping and harrassment. It's rather ridiculous. You're falling into the same rut in this here thread. :wavey:




And when you post dis, your posts arent in the same manner? now we are harrassing you? no, we disagree with you and you see that as harrassment. so only you post the whole truth and we only post half truths. please you love to instigate, by the manner of your posts and your response. you know what you say and how you say it will trigger a response. if anything , you are the one following in cv's footsteps. please dont spin it around that we only want to fight with you. if you post, expect people to reply with a different point of view and if they agree with you thats fine to. and if i have to post IMO to make it all mean something to you well then i guess i failed to see that in the rules. that "IMO" has no bearing on anything other than its just your opinion, which you are entitled to. but so arent all of us as well.

[teedee]

Nah, I don't have to read it. I've been around long enough to have read Miss Teedee's posts many a time, I know the what the usual content is: to tell me I'm so wrong and off-base, and blah blah blah. That song was sung. ;)


its been sung, and its also been covered by many, including your self,. IMO lol , oh and your posts dont tell others they are wrong, because its just your "IMO" lol too funny

[teedee]

:laugh:

When Teedee, in all her infinite wisdom, piped up. I'm waiting for my friends Christopher and snwriter to show up. snwriter can tell us more stories about how Stevie sold out Madison Square Garden because she was there...just to prove me wrong. :laugh:





Dont blame me , I never said i hated diss, not once. now use your post above, you call it as you see and and no one else can. you make comments , in all my infinite wisdom, how sweet of you , and yet you expect ppl not to respond to you in a negative way. we know you dont mean things as compliments. and if you want to talk about carping and harrassing, and name calling and following in the footsteps of your dismissed mentor, look no further than your mirror. I have no hate towards you at all. i can take all you can give, I always consider the source, and know exactly what to expect but it tends to get very boring very fast when you know what to expect.

[sara1998]

I've never seen so damn much arguing over **** before in my life. I wish I had all of the energy spent on this board arguing with eachother so I could go to work, play with my kid, and clean my house all in one day. How can you all let yourselves be caught up in a constant cyber-arguement? I suppose I'm using my "house cleaning-kid playing-going to work" energy reading it all, but I'll admit, it is amusing....

Carry on....

Maria

[Janet]

Exactly when did this thread about CarneVaca become the "What we hate about Dissention" thread?

Seriously.


Exactly, when did it? This was supposed to be CV, which I think has been explained to death and now it's about dissention. I think we just should let this all go and let this thread DIE already!

This is way too personal and the personal attacks are getting out of hand.

I'm asking if you guys could just keep it to PM's or just stop altogether...before it gets way , way out of hand!
THANK YOU!!

[shackin'up]

Can I request to close this thread?

[Hawkeye]

Well this thread dying is basicallya metaphore for CV dying on this board. And closing it would be nailing the coffin shut, since this thread is basically the funeral (The most unholy funeral in history :laugh: , I want a funeral like this :laugh: )

[Mari]

then leaving this thread open would be like a tombstone that everyone can visit, right? :angel:

[paleshadow]

I've never seen so damn much arguing over **** before in my life. I wish I had all of the energy spent on this board arguing with eachother so I could go to work, play with my kid, and clean my house all in one day. How can you all let yourselves be caught up in a constant cyber-arguement? I suppose I'm using my "house cleaning-kid playing-going to work" energy reading it all, but I'll admit, it is amusing....

Carry on....

Maria


Seriously. I mean, it's just a message board. I hope no one is losing sleep over this. What's stopping him from just registering with a new screen name anyway? I mean it's not like he's been deported, so let's put things in perspective. I'm sure Carne, and the rest of his incarnations aren't that worked up anymore. I'd hope so anyway.

[HomerMcvie]

then leaving this thread open would be like a tombstone that everyone can visit, right?
But doesn't anything else reek of censorship? No thanks. If you don't like it, then don't read it. Freedom of choice.

[Janet]

I don't think it should be closed.

I just hope that people understand what happened and move on. Unfortunately, it's the way it is and it can't be reversed.

I vote just to keep it open...

[musiclover]

Well a couple of days ago, I saw Carne on the BuckinghamNicks board.

[Mari]

But doesn't anything else reek of censorship? No thanks. If you don't like it, then don't read it. Freedom of choice.
eh well, that is my point actually. Leave it open so everyone interested can read it.

[shackin'up]

I don't think it should be closed.

I just hope that people understand what happened and move on. Unfortunately, it's the way it is and it can't be reversed.

I vote just to keep it open...

I thought you asked to let it die.
That was the reason for my question to close it, cause a moderator suggesting to die a thread could as well close it. Two months ago I would have been in the position to delete a thread, cause I started it. I just don't like the idea that moderators ask to let a thread die. Close it or leave it. Nothing personal, Janet, I normally like your contributions.
Yes, I like the idea of a tombstone. Let's keep it alive.

[HomerMcvie]

eh well, that is my point actually. Leave it open so everyone interested can read it.
Sorry Mari, at my first (and only) read, I thought you didn't want the tombstone here. My bad.
RIP Carne. :shrug:

[rianbay1]

Carne Vaca...Good riddance, I say. :sorry:

[Janet]

I said let it die because I would hope everyone has an understanding and doesn't argue it anymore.

I want it to stay up for anyone who hasn't been around and has questions. Simple as that:)

[The Tower]

I just happened to click on "Who's online?" and who do I see, but CarneVaca, looking at The Ledge index.

What's up with that??? Interesting.........

[amber]

I just happened to click on "Who's online?" and who do I see, but CarneVaca, looking at The Ledge index.

What's up with that??? Interesting.........
Cooooooool.....Hi Carne, you great big!@#$%%!! :xoxo: :laugh:

[Hawkeye]

I'm guessing it's another person using the name CV since he's banned someone else can use the name.

[amber]

I'm guessing it's another person using the name CV since he's banned someone else can use the name.
oh. that's weird, who' want to use that name?

[The Tower]

I'm guessing it's another person using the name CV since he's banned someone else can use the name.

Nope. If you go check his public profile, it says this.

"Last Activity: 10-01-2004 05:38 PM"

That activity was viewing the index when I saw it.

[amber]

Nope. If you go check his public profile, it says this.

"Last Activity: 10-01-2004 05:38 PM"

That activity was viewing the index when I saw it.
How does he do that if he's banned?

[Hawkeye]

OK I stand corrected. Good for Carne

[Nixxxed]

Could it just be that he's (very appropriately) banned from posting, not viewing?

[amber]

Could it just be that he's (very appropriately) banned from posting, not viewing?
Right, but i thought it meant he couldn't sign in with his name...I dunno, though.