Nicks vs. Buckingham - Page 2

Johnny Stew · #16 09-10-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

But the moderators here being the untrusting, power drunken control freaks that they are, disposed of me with absolutely no evidence or common sense backing up their wild claims.

Perhaps you'd like to let folks know that you and Lux had both used the "Schmoopy" ID, and that the matching IPs which resulted from that are why you were mistakenly banned.

Unless you'd rather stick with the "power-mad moderators" angle?

Johnny Stew · #17 09-10-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

And second of all, that's not the only accusation sent my way. But I shan't elaborate to protect the innocent, because I assume you are aware of the other claims.

Ah, yes, the identical threads that were posted (about four times) and re-posted even after they had been moved.

lagringader&r · #18 09-10-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

Seeing as how I was never given any sort of reason directly for why my membership was terminated because it was so conviently sent only to other parties, I may be missing something. But from what I've been told, the reasons had nothing to do with that thread. I merely got a warning for that thread about a week ago - well before I was banished into the cold night air.

I hope I'm not the only one to say WELCOME BACK, BOBO. Maybe I should start a thread. And on your birthday too! That sucksssss. I don't understand the whole Schmoopy thing but it was you and Lux just using it as an alternate name thing? Anyway, I'm glad you're back. Still want to do the Cool Whip thing?

gldstwmn · #19 09-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

Although they make a good omelet.

Thanks. We try.

Johnny Stew · #20 09-10-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

Seeing as how I was never given any sort of reason directly for why my membership was terminated because it was so conviently sent only to other parties, I may be missing something. But from what I've been told, the reasons had nothing to do with that thread.

That's exactly right. But you mentioned "other accusations," which I took to be a reference to the warning you received in regards to those threads.

At any rate, your username was banned because of the shared IP between you, "Schmoopy" and Lux. It was initially thought that "ReFleetwoodMac" was also a secondary ID being used in the same manner as "Schmoopy."
Which is why an explanation was given to Lux, as opposed to you.

lagringader&r · #21 09-10-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Oh please. Miss Grannykins couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. She'd be about equally matched with Queen Elizabeth.

I think Lindsey WOULD be the equivalent of Queen Elizabeth in a fight.

amber · #22 09-10-2005, 04:29 PM

So, what was the mistake? Why does he get to come back? Was it because it was his birthday? If him and lux were doing it, why wasn't lux banned and then let back? Why do people use two addresses? What's the point? If they want to talk to themselves, can't they just do it with their own name? Or in the privacy of their homes like I do?
I'd like that omelet now, please.

Edit - wait, so you just banned "schmoopy", who still actually exists as both Refleetwoodmac and lux, but is not an actual person?

ontheEdgeof17 · #23 09-10-2005, 04:29 PM

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

gldstwmn · #24 09-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

That's a valid point.

amber · #25 09-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

shhhhh! I want to know about it! What's your problem??? You are soooo not nosy.

although, really, why would you care if they talk here?

amber · #26 09-10-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's a valid point.

oh, thanks a lot, Curtis. If you just minded your own business, I wouldn't be in this predicament.

Johnny Stew · #27 09-10-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Is this board talk?

Seems like it should be a PM conversation.

You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.

gldstwmn · #28 09-10-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.

No, no, no Johnny. I meant the conversations going on that don't make any sense, not your dialogue with RFM.

amber · #29 09-10-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

You're absolutely right, Curtis.

ReFleetwoodMac brought it up publicly, so I answered publicly.
But it is better suited for a private conversation.

well, don't you think the rest of us should understand so that...uh...we can avoid the same pitfalls? I mean, me and my friend were just going to make up a new user name and share it. Should we not do that? If we did, would the new shared identity be banned, or one or both of us? If one, why one?

lagringader&r · #30 09-10-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

well, don't you think the rest of us should understand so that...uh...we can avoid the same pitfalls? I mean, me and my friend were just going to make up a new user name and share it. Should we not do that? If we did, would the new shared identity be banned, or one or both of us? If one, why one?

That's a good point. So is it that you're not supposed to have two user names or that two peeps can't share one (like Lux and Bobo did as *Schmoopy*)? Why is it bad either way?