AH Personal abuse..is it bannable or what?

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

reply in kind

re·ply verb \ri-ˈplī\
: to do something in response;

You cannot reply if yours is the first comment.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

re·ply verb \ri-ˈplī\
: to do something in response;

You cannot reply if yours is the first comment.

Actually you can. Figure out why

So it's grand so long as the other fella started it is what you're saying. I must check the charter out for that bit.

Madam_X

Bambi wrote: »

Is someone still a teensy bit sore over the stick that their little tree house gang took in that thread?

I take my bans when they come and you can take your little grudge somewhere else, There's a good chap.

Were they not just quoting examples of stuff you said which was similar to the post you highlighted in the OP? If you dish it out, it's reasonable to be expected to take it.

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

is what you're saying.

Your complaint has no merit because you aren't engaging in this in good faith, but are instead merely trolling, is what I'm saying.
You simply think that nobody has seen it before, when someone tries to make someone else get so annoyed that they break the charter.
And you'd be right - we've never seen that before.
So long as you discount the several thousand others who've done it before you and the few hundred doing it right now, on this site alone.

In other words, this thread's appropriate conclusion is "OP is trolling, no admin time needs wasting here".

Dyr

Madam_X wrote: »

Were they not just quoting examples of stuff you said which was similar to the post you highlighted in the OP? If you dish it out, it's reasonable to be expected to take it.

I would have been banned if I did, as it happens I got a red card for going too far in on instance.

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

I would have been banned if I did, as it happens I got a red card for going too far in on instance.

Why do you think he made the remarks he did?

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

Your complaint has no merit because you aren't engaging in this in good faith, but are instead merely trolling, is what I'm saying.
You simply think that nobody has seen it before, when someone tries to make someone else get so annoyed that they break the charter.
And you'd be right - we've never seen that before.
So long as you discount the several thousand others who've done it before you and the few hundred doing it right now, on this site alone.

In other words, this thread's appropriate conclusion is "OP is trolling, no admin time needs wasting here".

Casting aspersions is easy and fun but lets avoid it eh? I could just as easily claim that you are not here in good faith given that your first post smacked of score settling.

I got the answer I needed prior to your arrival, so I'm happy. But perhaps bear in mind I've been around here longer than you have before you start deciding what I haven't seen before.

Its interesting though, that you use "we" in your post. Are you speaking on behalf of a group?

Dyr

Nodin wrote: »

Why do you think he made the remarks he did?

Read back, unlike other posters the bould wiley has a tendency to argue himself into a corner and then disappear or resort to pulling out the racist card.

I accepted being given a ban for implying that a poster was a retard a few weeks back, that's a fair cop. Implying that a poster is a racist and member of a proscribed organisation falls under the same rule in my book

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

Read back, unlike other posters the bould wiley has a tendency to argue himself into a corner and then disappear or resort to pulling out the racist card.

I accepted being given a ban for implying that a poster was a retard a few weeks back, that's a fair cop. Implying that a poster is a racist and member of a proscribed organisation falls under the same rule in my book

I think that he referred to you as being a member of a proscribed organisation to highlight the fact that he believes you to be a racist. Given your posting history, he can hardly be banned for that, more the manner in which he expresses it.

Dyr

Nodin wrote: »

I think that he referred to you as being a member of a proscribed organisation to highlight the fact that he believes you to be a racist. Given your posting history, he can hardly be banned for that, more the manner in which he expresses it.

I suppose if you're obsessed with hammers all you'll see are nails.

And if he was actually seeing racism in that thread, as opposed to just using it to label anyone who takes a contrary opinion to him, why was he not reporting it to the mods?

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

I suppose if you're obsessed with hammers all you'll see are nails.

And if he was actually seeing racism in that thread, as opposed to just using it to label anyone who takes a contrary opinion to him, why was he not reporting it to the mods?

....it would have actually been sectarianism in that specific instance I think. I presume he lost the head and responded in an intemperate manner, rather than report the post, which is why he received a card.

LoLth

OP: that post was actioned by the Mods after you reported it. (the post received a warning)

as you point out, you have received bans for similar posts in the past, however, you received those bans after receiving warnings and infractions and you still continued to post in the same manner resulting in a ban. You were given fair warning, its only fair the other users get the same treatment.

From a personal point of view: you give a fair amount of abuse yourself in your posts, even while you have this thread in feedback. I can only assume that your reason for posting here is less about getting "justice" than it is about getting even with someone that out-ignoranted you in a disagreement.

closing thread because its at best an attempt at getting a trial by popular opinion and an effort at rules-lawyering. The charter is there to protect the average user, not to be used as a weapon by those that regularly ignore it when it suits them.