CarneVaca is banned permanently

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

We disagree, end of story.

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

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by Bella Figura

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

First of all, thanks for the compliment.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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]

Originally Posted by amber

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

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

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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]

Originally Posted by Patti

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]

Originally Posted by seteca

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.

Isabel

[David]

Originally Posted by ½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ®

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.

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.