Boozer who?

[Hopper]

My town passed an ordinance against disorderly conduct which said: "Any person convicted of engaging in disorderly conduct shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100,000 and a sentence not to exceed one year."

One day, ole Lardass Jackson opened a door which swung out to the right with his LEFT hand (obviously a disorderly thang to do, all in itself). Then he kinda stubbed his toe on the threshhold and stumbled a bit, temporarily losin his balance (VERY disorderly).

Officer Fife arrested his sorry *** for disorderly conduct, naturally. He was given a $20,000 fine and 6 months in the county clink (all in all a very moderate sentence). At the trial, his lame-*** bottom-feeder tried to argue that the ordinance was unenforceable and void because, among other things, he said it didn't define "disorderly conduct," and hence did not inform people of what was prohibited.

Judge Burke wasn't fallin for that. He said: "I'm gunna convict Lardass, like I always do. He's been convicted, so now you know what "disorderly conduct" is, see?"

The bottom-feeder tried other arguments too, sumthin along the lines of no "mens rea" (whatever that is) warranting punishment. Judge Burke shot that one down, rather handily, I must say, too. He said: "He left his house, and went onto public streets, deliberately. That wasn't no accident."

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Ban the windbag!

Bozzer suxxxx.

 

[Hopper]

It's pretty obvious that there is no "objective" moderating policies.

I agree, Plate, it is pretty obvious. But why make a pretense otherwise? If you're right, the FAQ's should simply say: "If you say, do, think, or act in a way that 3 moderators don't approve of you will be removed from the board."

 

[Hopper]

The standards of conduct on this board have as much relevance and truth to them as a NY traffic sign -- something like "No honking in the city - $500 fine"

How does "truth" even enter into the issue? A law is a law. A law like yours is especially desirable, because that way you can bust anyone you want. Everybody honks, so if you don't like the looks of a guy, just wait a spell until he honks, and ya got his sorry *** dead to rights.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Yeah, democracies are rad. Unfortunately JF is not one of them. Get over it.

 

[Hopper]

If you don't like it 2814, leave.

2814's posting style is irksome to most, including me. The guy is obviously intelligent and has some worthwhile things to say, but you know before you even start readin one of his posts that it will be chockfulla self-congratulation and declarations that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. One comes away with the impression that he has a severe inferiority complex which he attempts to disguise by projecting an exaggerated sense of self-importance and superiority. There are many like him here, although he may be one of the most extreme.

Needless to say, he gets a lot of negative feedback for his overall demeanor. Call me "crazy," but I feel like the posters on this board are capable of handling this situation in their own way, and don't need the "protection" that banishment affords the super-sensitive. If you are one of those, put the guy on ignore, but there's no need to try and drag everyone else down to your level of weakness. If they are so weak that, even though they have him on ignore, they can't tolerate the fact that he is even allowed to make posts, then, yeah, they should leave.

They should leave, not for 2814's benefit, but for their own sake. They really have no more business participating in a chat board (this, or any other) than a 3-year old girl has in joining in a gangfight. They're just gunna git hurt, and are incapable of preventing or avoiding injury to themselves.

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree, Plate, it is pretty obvious. But why make a pretense otherwise? If you're right, the FAQ's should simply say: "If you say, do, think, or act in a way that 3 moderators don't approve of you will be removed from the board."

Why make a "pretense" otherwise? Probably because it isn't a pretense at all. It's their prerogative (and in posters' best interest) to explain some the the ground rules for participation in order to cultivate a certain type of interactive experience for you and me.

 

[Hopper]

Why make a "pretense" otherwise? Probably because it isn't a pretense at all. It's their prerogative (and in posters' best interest) to explain some the the ground rules for participation in order to cultivate a certain type of interactive experience for you and me.

How could they possibly be "ground rules," if they aint no real rules?

 

[Inn Dawn]

2814's posting style is irksome to most, including me.

Do you find your own posting style irksome by any chance?

 

[Hopper]

Do you find your own posting style irksome by any chance?

I'm sure many (mebbe most) others do. Many here have made a special point of announcing, for the approval of all, that they have put me on ignore.

Others, who haven't put me on ignore, apparently read some of my posts and feel compelled to regularly express their sincere desire that I be banned. If only they were mods, eh?

 

[franklin]

Why make a "pretense" otherwise? Probably because it isn't a pretense at all. It's their prerogative (and in posters' best interest) to explain some the the ground rules for participation in order to cultivate a certain type of interactive experience for you and me.

What?

 

[One Brow]

How could they possibly be "ground rules," if they aint no real rules?

Anti-trolling rules are still real rules, even though you can't quantify trolling. Anti-spamming rules are still real rules, even though you can't quantify spamming. Sure, we'd all like bright-line rules, but it's not always possible.