banned from politics

Sam Vimes

i got banned from politics because of this thread:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054921422

i got banned because a mod made a number of personal insults against me and then i made one (admittely strongly worded) back

i don't think mods should be allowed break their own rules, especially if they're then going to ban people for breaking the same rule in retaliation


the main one was he said "i'm keeping things simple for commander vimes". i consider that to be a personal insult with nothing to do with the thread and so against the rules of the forum. either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult. it might sound childish, but he started it and he's supposed to be a mod

Amz

Fully deserved ban. If you can't keep your counsel you don't deserve to be allowed on the forum.

Pighead

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy. The ban remains. To put it simply you were punching above your weight. A few of your points made Pigheads bushy eyebrows rise into an arch. And to top it off you blew your top and used some obscene language after barely any provocation.

It reminded me of that time I played in a football match in 87 and some young cnut kept running rings around me making an absolute fool of me. What did I do? Ignored the ball and hit him Keane like with a leg braeker of a tackle. He was too good for me and I reacted badly. Never played for that team again.
Anyway best of luck with your crusade.

Hagar

If you feel strongly enough about an insult aimed at you, say so publically in a post in a non-confrontational manner, report the original post and await the mods decision. Anything else is a reciepe for a banning.

seamus

Commander Vimes wrote:

the main one was he said "i'm keeping things simple for commander vimes". i consider that to be a personal insult with nothing to do with the thread and so against the rules of the forum. either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

I completely disagree. Perhaps to you that was an insult, but in the context it wasn't meant as one.

Because boards.ie has so many members, the difference in existing knowledge between certain members is going to be vast. Often, someone will start a thread about something, and talk about it so far as they understand. When this understanding is limited, you'll see the more knowledgeable members "keep it simple", otherwise you just end up looking like a intellectual pompous arsehole. After a while of this "keeping it simple", someone knowledgeable will join in and not realise that everyone is trying to keep it simple, and will start pciking at posts and saying things like "That's very general" or "That's not the whole truth". Then the knowledgeable members have to defend their knowledge and say "I was keeping it simple".

Imagine trying to explain the universe to someone without a degree in physics, and then a Physicist arriving in, telling you that you're not being comprehensive enough, and talking about superstrings. When this happens in debating, the least knowledgeable people feel inadequate, and tend to leave or argue way out of their depth.

Sam Vimes

Pighead wrote:

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy. The ban remains. To put it simply you were punching above your weight. A few of your points made Pigheads bushy eyebrows rise into an arch. And to top it off you blew your top and used some obscene language after barely any provocation.

It reminded me of that time I played in a football match in 87 and some young cnut kept running rings around me making an absolute fool of me. What did I do? Ignored the ball and hit him Keane like with a leg braeker of a tackle. He was too good for me and I reacted badly. Never played for that team again.
Anyway best of luck with your crusade.

i didn't post it because he was "running rings around me", i posted it because he insulted me. i've managed to clock up 1,700 posts without insulting anyone but the level of his arrogance just put me into a rage. i realise i was hasty in posting obscenity, i apologise for that.

if he was "too good for me", why did he feel the need to break his own rules several times (5 by my count) to argue against me?

does the fact that i was replying to an insult from a mod not count for anything?

gandalf

Ban justified. If you felt you were being insulted you should have reported the offending post. I see no reports of this kind and from reading the thread I believe you are being too sensitive to what Earthman said, also your attitude was aggressive before Earthman even replied to the thread.

Sam Vimes

seamus wrote:

I completely disagree. Perhaps to you that was an insult, but in the context it wasn't meant as one.

Because boards.ie has so many members, the difference in existing knowledge between certain members is going to be vast. Often, someone will start a thread about something, and talk about it so far as they understand. When this understanding is limited, you'll see the more knowledgeable members "keep it simple", otherwise you just end up looking like a intellectual pompous arsehole. After a while of this "keeping it simple", someone knowledgeable will join in and not realise that everyone is trying to keep it simple, and will start pciking at posts and saying things like "That's very general" or "That's not the whole truth". Then the knowledgeable members have to defend their knowledge and say "I was keeping it simple".

Imagine trying to explain the universe to someone without a degree in physics, and then a Physicist arriving in, telling you that you're not being comprehensive enough, and talking about superstrings. When this happens in debating, the least knowledgeable people feel inadequate, and tend to leave or argue way out of their depth.

imagine you were posting in a thread and in your opinion another poster was posting complete and utter crap and being arrogant about it. and then the person who's been missing the point of what you're saying for hours then insults your intelligence. how would you feel about that?

Hobbes

Oooh a trial by public! These are always fun. (use helpdesk if you don't want random people replying to your complaint)

Welcome to politics.. its not AH. You generally have to back up facts with sources if you get pulled up on them. Going on about 10 apples or story about your friend doesn't cut it there.

That alone generally gets you a warning. (and people wonder where I get the gimmie a link habit from )

Earthman also mentioned no bitching in page2 and I can't see where he started it. If anything he was having a go at your lack of facts in your post and you called him stupid in a round about way, which was followed up by Earthman in tit-for-tat later.

Sam Vimes

gandalf wrote:

Ban justified. If you felt you were being insulted you should have reported the offending post. I see no reports of this kind and from reading the thread I believe you are being too sensitive to what Earthman said, also your attitude was aggressive before Earthman even replied to the thread.

its true my attitude was agressive because another poster who's name i can't remember was also insulting me. to be honest i probably wouldn't have posted it if it had just been earthman but his insults on top of the other blokes had me in a right pisser

maybe i'm just not used to the politics forum. is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

GobShi7e

Fully deserved ban.

Sam Vimes

GobShi7e wrote:

Fully deserved ban.

i have conceded that the ban was justified. of course by the same logic earthman also deserves a ban

Dirk Gently

Would a ban for a certain amount of time not be more justified? I agree that he deserves to be banned but a permanent ban is a bit harsh. I doubt he's going to offend again and he knows he was out of order anyway.
If he does offend again then a permanent ban would be justified. I know myself how easy it is to make a “slip of the keyboard” which is why I preview every message I post so as to edit the bad bits before posting. Just think a permanent ban should be a last resort after a warning is given.

Sam Vimes

clown bag wrote:

Would a ban for a certain amount of time not be more justified? I agree that he deserves to be banned but a permanent ban is a bit harsh. I doubt he's going to offend again and he knows he was out of order anyway.
If he does offend again then a permanent ban would be justified. I know myself how easy it is to make a “slip of the keyboard” which is why I preview every message I post so as to edit the bad bits before posting. Just think a permanent ban should be a last resort after a warning is given.

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

Dirk Gently

It's debatable whether the mod broke the rules, I’ve been know to thread the line earthman took on occasion, subtlety implying something without actually outright slagging off someone. That’s a good use of language in my opinion.
Your outburst was not debatable and you fell into the trap. I do think the decision was harsh though and would be in favor of a lesser ban, maybe a week or what ever they see fit. A permanent ban is too harsh in my opinion. A timed ban would give the banned person time to reflect and would ensure he doesn't repeat the offence. If he did repeat it then a permanent ban would be totally justified and no one would argue with it.

seamus

Commander Vimes wrote:

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

As clown bag points out, that's extremely subjective and subject to debate. He wasn't even engaging directly with you.

BuffyBot

by the same logic earthman also deserves a ban

In your humble..can't say I'd agree.

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

Only to some people.

<edit>
If you read the rules, you'll notice that condescension is not (nor has it ever been) a bannable offence.

Calling someone a troll, on the other hand, is explicitly mentioned. As for the subsequent outbursts....yeah.

You say someone else was insulting you...I assume you're upset because you reported their posts (as the same rules request you to) but nothing was done?

Up to the "keeping it simple" comment, Earthman only ever attacked your arguments - again keeping entirely within the rules. As for whether or not the simple comment was an insult...I couldn't honestly say, but it has to be acknowledged that he was answering criticism that his presented line of reasoning was simplistic. Arguably he worded it wrong. Again, I assume your complaint is that you reported what you perceived as his insults and nothing was done?
</edit>

jc

Commander Vimes

Commander Vimes wrote:

this would make more sense, especially since the mod was breaking his own rules

They're not my rules, they are the charter.
I explained to another poster that I was keeping my points simple thats common enough when debating otherwise points can be lost in convoluted longer posts.
It's not my fault if you decide to go on a hissy fit as a result of your big misinterpretation of that post.

I am willing to accept that you went overboard due to a lack of familiarity with the conventions of the politics board.

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

Hagar

Earthman wrote:

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

Thank the man, then sit it out.

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

They're not my rules, they are the charter.
I explained to another poster that I was keeping my points simple thats common enough when debating otherwise points can be lost in convoluted longer posts.
It's not my fault if you decide to go on a hissy fit as a result of your big misinterpretation of that post.

I am willing to accept that you went overboard due to a lack of familiarity with the conventions of the politics board.

The permananent ban is being commuted to one month.

thank you. i still disagree with you but i've seen what happens when i do that so i won't

Sand

I must be psychic. Soon as I saw the ban, I knew thered be a thread in Feedback about it.

You deserved the ban. Basically you earned it with the actual blatant insult, but you deserved it long before that.

Look at your starting post; It takes bad information, spins it, and then ironically insults the intelligence/factual knowledge of anyone whod believe your made up version of the story.

You then went on a very long very annoying pointless refusal to accept that tax take can rise even when tax rates fall, that budgets need not be cut simply because tax rates are. Even the possibility was denied, flying in the face of all economic study and analysis, let alone the reality of Irish history - massive tax evasion and chronic debt in the high tax 80s, budget surplus in the low tax 90s/present day. Now there are some posters who are wrong, they have a certain grasp of facts from which they form their opinion. If it is demonstrated that there are additional facts, theyll reassess. Then there are people who are worse than wrong, theyre stupid, and they waste everyones time with their stupid posts. Theyre beyond all hope.

Objectively, yeah a permament ban was harsh for a first offence (though it was a pretty unambigious first offence) but I cant see a protest movement forming around your cause tbh.

maybe i'm just not used to the politics forum. is it common practice to talk down to people like they're five years old in that forum?

Yeah, pretty much. If they post like theyre five years old.

Sam Vimes

Sand wrote:

I must be psychic. Soon as I saw the ban, I knew thered be a thread in Feedback about it.

You deserved the ban. Basically you earned it with the actual blatant insult, but you deserved it long before that.

Look at your starting post; It takes bad information, spins it, and then ironically insults the intelligence/factual knowledge of anyone whod believe your made up version of the story.

You then went on a very long very annoying pointless refusal to accept that tax take can rise even when tax rates fall, that budgets need not be cut simply because tax rates are. Even the possibility was denied, flying in the face of all economic study and analysis, let alone the reality of Irish history - massive tax evasion and chronic debt in the high tax 80s, budget surplus in the low tax 90s/present day. Now there are some posters who are wrong, they have a certain grasp of facts from which they form their opinion. If it is demonstrated that there are additional facts, theyll reassess. Then there are people who are worse than wrong, theyre stupid, and they waste everyones time with their stupid posts. Theyre beyond all hope.

Objectively, yeah a permament ban was harsh for a first offence (though it was a pretty unambigious first offence) but I cant see a protest movement forming around your cause tbh.



Yeah, pretty much. If they post like theyre five years old.

lets leave it at "i disagree". feedback isn't the place for such posts. also, i'm far from stupid. no one who actually knows anything about me calls me stupid

sceptre

I'm not going to trawl old ground but the charter's pretty clear on what specifically isn't allowed (and anything specifically disallowed isn't so for fun). Directly attacking a poster leads to a simple decision.

Dave!

Fair play for commuting the ban!

And this sets a horrible precident, now everyone knows that posting a complaint in Feedback can in fact lead to a ban being removed, so expect an influx of thread!

For the record, I think ye were both patronising each other and the OP obviously took a post badly and posted the bad words... bad bad words...!

amp

Pighead wrote:

Pigheads had a read of the thread Commander Vimes(4/10, notions of upperosity) and I'm afraid I can't help you buddy.

What help would that be?

Pighead

amp wrote:

What help would that be?

What do you mean what help would that be?

The help that would have been is obvious. If Pighead had read the thread and agreed with Commander Vimes grievances then the ban would have been lifted. Dunno about you but I'm pretty sure that could be interpreted as pretty damn helpful.

Such a strange question.

Dirk Gently

clownbag loves the way pighead always talks about himself in the third person.

VIM

Pighead wrote:

Such a strange question.

Not really. Especially when you look at the person who asked the question (he who is 'above' us all).

Tar.Aldarion

VIM wrote:

Not really. Especially when you look at the person who asked the question (he who is 'above' us all).

I answered nothing.

Now, what an incredibly boring thread that politics one was, the ban was well deserved. Not a permanent one though. If you had said you were keeping a point simple for him, would you expect to be banned?
I wouldn't.

Karl Hungus

I'd say the ban was totally justified, and your little example of Earthman's so-called abuse is just clutching at straws.

Chinafoot

Hehe had to laugh when I saw this on that thread before Earthman was simplifying things:

Commander Vimes wrote:

i was trying to dumb things down because you don't seem to understand the concept that if the govt takes less, they'll have less

Seems to me that you were the most condecending and aggressive one on that thread tbh.

*Shrug*

hullaballoo

Commander Vimes wrote:

thank you. i still disagree with you but i've seen what happens when i do that so i won't

lol

"I DISAGREE WITH YOU





no I don't, haha!"

Sam Vimes

peachypants wrote:

Hehe had to laugh when I saw this on that thread before Earthman was simplifying things:


Seems to me that you were the most condecending and aggressive one on that thread tbh.

*Shrug*

well he did call it "fairytale maths reminiscent of first class". i was explaining why it was so. he was trying to discount it by calling it juvenile even though it was supposed to appear juvenile

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

well he did call it "fairytale maths reminiscent of first class".

And? He's attacking the argument and not the poster with a comment like that. Its the fine line that has always been drawn in Politics.

he was trying to discount it by calling it juvenile even though it was supposed to appear juvenile

So you wrote something which you intended to be taken as juvenille. and got offended when he called it (the argument - what he's supposed to attack) juvenile, and so you lost the rag at him????

Its looking like your logic is as shaky as your math.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

And? He's attacking the argument and not the poster with a comment like that. Its the fine line that has always been drawn in Politics.


So you wrote something which you intended to be taken as juvenille. and got offended when he called it (the argument - what he's supposed to attack) juvenile, and so you lost the rag at him????

Its looking like your logic is as shaky as your math.

jc

i think i'll just avoid the politics forum from now on. people there seem to have a real talent for missing the point. i got offended when he said he was keeping things simple for me, not when he called my maths juvenile. calling it juvenile was an example of missing the point, not being offensive

i don't mind my posts being picked apart but if you're going to comment on my logic, at least be sure you understand what i'm saying

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

i think i'll just avoid the politics forum from now on.

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.

people there seem to have a real talent for missing the point.

If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

This approach of yours is what got you banned in the first place. Apparently, you've no intention of changing, so I think you're doubly correct in deciding to stay away from politics.

i got offended when he said he was keeping things simple for me,

Its your perogative to be offended by whatever you choose to be offended by, but he neither attacked you nor broke any other rule by explaining to someone else why he had made the point simplistic after they pointed out that it was so.

Its telling that you only seemed to realise he was keeping things simple in his replies to you after he pointed it out to someone else who saw the complexities that he had omitted and how they were relevant and asked about them.

In other words, you couldn't tell from the argument itself that he was skipping over some (arguably important) complexities.....but got offended when he told somone that he had done so for your benefit.

Like I said...its still your perogative to get offended, but it was never going to offer you any sort of leeway to decide the rules don't apply to you, particularly in that forum.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.


If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

you can say i insulted you by saying you missed the point. doesn't change the fact that you missed the point

bonkey wrote:

Its your perogative to be offended by whatever you choose to be offended by, but he neither attacked you nor broke any other rule by explaining to someone else why he had made the point simplistic after they pointed out that it was so.

i find it insulting when people way they're keeping things simple for me. maybe you don't. people are different.

bonkey wrote:

Its telling that you only seemed to realise he was keeping things simple in his replies to you after he pointed it out to someone else who saw the complexities that he had omitted and how they were relevant and asked about them.

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes. i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple which is why i posted the afformentioned "first class maths". i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

bonkey wrote:

Like I said...its still your perogative to get offended, but it was never going to offer you any sort of leeway to decide the rules don't apply to you, particularly in that forum.

i never said the rules don't apply to me. if you read back through this thread you'll realise that

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Fair 'nuff. Doesn't sound like your cup o' tea anyway.


If you can't beat 'em....insult 'em....again.

This approach of yours is what got you banned in the first place. Apparently, you've no intention of changing, so I think you're doubly correct in deciding to stay away from politics.

Commander Vimes wrote:

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes. i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple which is why i posted the afformentioned "first class maths". i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

Bonkey I think you've called this one right.
If all else fails he'll insult them again....

I'll make it easy for CV then by reinstating the permanancy of the ban.

Sam Vimes

Earthman wrote:

Bonkey I think you've called this one right.
If all else fails he'll insult them again....

I'll make it easy for CV then by reinstating the permanancy of the ban.

i wasn't insulting you in that last post. i said you SEEMED (past tense) stupid because what you were saying was so simplistic. i didn't realise you were purposely being simplistic.

yeah right :rolleyes:

bonkey

Commander Vimes wrote:

you can say i insulted you by saying you missed the point. doesn't change the fact that you missed the point

Except you didn't say that I missed the point. You generalised on to politics posters in general. Thats shifting from making a comment about what I said to be an ad hominem attack on a bunch of people.

i find it insulting when people way they're keeping things simple for me. maybe you don't.

Unless I know I'm up to the more complex stuff, no I don't. If I knew that, the first thing I'd do is ask them to stop simplifying rather than blowing my top and insulting them. Its only if they continued that I might get annoyed.

people are different.

Indeed. Thats why I don't explode at them for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like.....why I'd ask them reasonably to adjust first. You obviously don't believe in that approach, which leads me back to believing I'm right in saying the politics forum wouldn't be your cup of tea.

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot. he seemed to be attributing all good in the world to low taxes and all evils to high taxes.

Further demonstrating your lack of understanding of what he was saying only serves to suggest that he was right in simplifying things for you. Insulting him while doing so, then as you do now once again, only serves to suggest that he was right in banning you.

i didn't realise he was doing it "for my benefit" because i'm not used to being talked down to.

i never said the rules don't apply to me. if you read back through this thread you'll realise that

Really? From your original post:

either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult.

Now, here's an extract from the rules of the politics form that covers this event:

If you have a problem with a post, complain to the mods. Do not respond to the post in question.

Seems pretty much to me that you're saying you don't believe you should be punished for doing something the rules explicitly tell you not to.

See, I used to moderate that forum, and reactions like yours are exactly why I put that rule in the original charter, and my guess is that the current moderators keep it there for exactly the same reason - dealing with people who believe that as long as they can claim provocation, they have some sort of excuse for unacceptable behaviour.

jc

Sam Vimes

bonkey wrote:

Except you didn't say that I missed the point. You generalised on to politics posters in general. Thats shifting from making a comment about what I said to be an ad hominem attack on a bunch of people.

i don't think generalisations are against the rules. (i may be wrong). i'd go as far as to say that the majority of what i wrote in the original thread and large parts of what i wrote here were misinterpretted and i found myself defending things i didn't say. i realise that not all people in politics do that.

bonkey wrote:

Unless I know I'm up to the more complex stuff, no I don't. If I knew that, the first thing I'd do is ask them to stop simplifying rather than blowing my top and insulting them. Its only if they continued that I might get annoyed.

as i've said several times in this thread, i didn't realise that. i'm not accustomed to people dumbing things down for me and so didn't realise that's what they were doing.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. Thats why I don't explode at them for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like

i "exploded" because i was insulted, not "for not behaving in a manner identical to how I'd like".
this is an example of trying to defend something i didn't say

bonkey wrote:

Further demonstrating your lack of understanding of what he was saying only serves to suggest that he was right in simplifying things for you.

he literally said "people emigrated because taxes were too high" (paraphrased). i understood what he was saying, but he left out large, very important parts. i didn't understand his MEANING because he wasn't exaplaining fully what he meant. he was "simplifying"

bonkey wrote:

Insulting him while doing so, then as you do now once again, only serves to suggest that he was right in banning you.

i agreed he was right in banning me.

bonkey wrote:

Really? From your original post:

either we should both be banned or neither of us should.

personally i think that only he should because i was just responding to an insult.

if its in the charter that responding to an insult isn't an excuse i can accept that point

Ivan

Bonkey, you continue to be one of my favourite ever posters on boards. Keep it up Though I didnt realise you stopped modding the politics forum... its been a while since I posted there last

Anyway, for a bit of on-topic love I'd just like to say to Commander Vimes, to just give it up. I, and many others, believe you were wrong and your ban was justified. That much alone, should be reason to give up but the simple fact is, you arent helping your situation. So, just put down your shovel and quit digging.

Glad to be of service

sceptre

Commander Vimes wrote:

if its in the charter that responding to an insult isn't an excuse i can accept that point

Not impressed. Bonkey went and quoted bits and there's still an "if" above. The charter doesn't very specifically list specific instances where X and Y are specifically prohibited while allowing Z under specific circumstances because there would be people who get banned for piss-poor behaviour due in part to not bothering their asses reading the charter prior to the event taking the step of reading the charter after and saying "if it's in the charter..." or "blah isn't banned by the charter"

I generally don't see very many cases where "I exploded because" if followed by anything worth reading.

As for Ivan's post I'm only speaking for myself but I suspect the other mods would agree that any time bonkey wants his old job back we could find another seat at the virtual table.

Sam Vimes

Ivan wrote:

Bonkey, you continue to be one of my favourite ever posters on boards. Keep it up Though I didnt realise you stopped modding the politics forum... its been a while since I posted there last

Anyway, for a bit of on-topic love I'd just like to say to Commander Vimes, to just give it up. I, and many others, believe you were wrong and your ban was justified. That much alone, should be reason to give up but the simple fact is, you arent helping your situation. So, just put down your shovel and quit digging.

Glad to be of service

how many times do i have to say that the ban was justified? i think a one month ban was justified, which is what i was given. however, its just been commuted to a permanent ban for no other reason than earthman misread my post. i did pm him about it but he doesn't seem to be replying.

can you tell me what's insulting about:

i formed a derogatory opinion while i was not in possession of all the facts and when presented with the facts, i changed that opinion.

i can't see the insulting bit

that's what i meant. that's what i said



for people who don't feel like turning back, here's the bit with some excess cut out:

Commander Vimes wrote:

to be honest, he seemed to me to be an idiot.
i did notice he was being simplistic. i just thought he was being simplistic because he was simple.

note i'm speaking in the past tense. now here's the important bit:

Commander Vimes wrote:

I DIDN'T REALISE HE WAS DOING IT "FOR MY BENEFIT" BECAUSE I'M NOT USED TO BEING TALKED DOWN TO.

in other words, i thought he was an idiot because of something i didn't realise and when i did realise it, i changed my opinion. what i said does not reflect on him in any way. it reflects on me for not realising his intention


i don't know how i can make it any more clear than that. i did not insult earthman. period.


edit: i think people will be happy to know i won a bet with myself. i bet that at least one person would say i insulted him when it was clearly not my intention. its an example of "missing the point" that i've mentioned. i just hoped it wouldn't be earthman

Sam Vimes

sceptre wrote:

I generally don't see very many cases where "I exploded because" if followed by anything worth reading.

that's a generalisation. apparently they're not allowed. besides the fact that in this case i think there is something worth reading following it. he said i exploded because they didn't behave in a manner identical to how I'd like. this is clearly untrue

Dirk Gently

commander vimes, why did you feel the need to keep this thread alive after you got your ban reduced down to one month.

I regret now posting earlier, arguing on your behalf to get the ban reduced. You should have been happy with that decision and left it at that.
The ban was deserved but it was a bit severe and a one month ban was a resonable result for you. You've since shot yourself in the foot again.:rolleyes:

sceptre

Commander Vimes wrote:

that's a generalisation.

Obviously. I didn't put in the word "generally" because I liked the sound of it.

apparently they're not allowed.

That's something you just made up or carefully drew an inference that suited you from something someone half-said. Unnecessary for a rational discussion.

besides the fact that in this case i think there is something worth reading following it.

I'll disagree from my point of view and say there's nothing in the last post I've taken the time to read that contained anything interesting either. I'm afraid you've blown your chance to have me take more time to consider the issue by reading any additions.

oscarBravo

Commander Vimes wrote:

i did not insult earthman. period.

Hm...

Commander Vimes (directed at Earthman) wrote:

at this point, i'm prepared to say f uck you you little p rick.

Maybe I'm missing the point.