Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[Hopper]

Actually, in your string of five in this thread you replied to the same post twice and another user twice. It is you who has conveniently forgotten this. Go back and look if you don't believe me

I don't see it at all. To the extent I responded to the "same poster" twice it was (with the exception below) a poster who had made more than one post--I didn't even read the second one until later.

The exception: After initially overlooking a joke you made in your post, I re-read it and saw the humor. To acknowledge that, I made a special effort to let you know your humor was understood and appreciated by me, so I said (to you), after reposting your joke: "By the way, THAT was funny!"

It was this very post which, it seems earned me an infraction (unless 4 is enough, that you won't say--or unless 3 replies to 3 posts is too much--again, you won't say. Maybe replying to 2 out of six posts already made is enough--again, I don't know).

That's I git for tryin to show my appreciation, I guess, eh, Kicky? I somehow shoulda known better, sho nuff.

 

[sirkickyass]

Ok. Now we agree. Your most recent infraction was for:

a) five posts in a row
b) that responded to three different posters
c) and two of your posts responded to the same post.

Was that so hard? I can assure you that, in light of your previous warning PM, had this been done as three posts, one responding to each poster, that I wouldn't have voted for an infraction. Frankly I doubt anyone else would have either.

 

[Hopper]

Ok. Now we agree. Your most recent infraction was for:

a) five posts in a row
b) that responded to three different posters
c) and two of your posts responded to the same post.

Was that so hard? I can assure you that, in light of your previous warning PM, had this been done as three posts, one responding to each poster, that I wouldn't have voted for an infraction. Frankly I doubt anyone else would have either.

To accurately reflect, rather than distort, the facts your "b" should read: b) "that responded to three different posters who had made 6 different posts."

What if I had left out the one acknowledging your joke? That would eliminate this "hangin crime," wouldn't it: "two of your posts responded to the same post."

And it would reduce my "offense" to responding to only 4 pre-existing posts, instead of 5. Then what?

 

[sirkickyass]

Given that you had just received a warning PM, I don't know how that vote would have gone down. Context matters. Given that you've now been fighting it for days, the context is once again different.

Certainly, I'm not going to engage in a million different test cases you could dream up and will defer to the "actual case or controversy" standard. My job isn't to give you advisory opinions at your request. At this point you have received far more feedback as to your warning/infraction than everyone else who has been given one in this iteration of the board combined.

I'm going to end my contribution to this dicussion here (as I grew bored of it long ago) and simply put it this way: Feel free to post how you want to post. We will feel free to moderate how we want to moderate. We can all deal with the consequences of that as they come.

 

[Hopper]

You know, that sounds like an essential admission that he's seeking to troll other users into giving him negative rep to me....If seeking to have the worst reputation on the board isn't trolling for negative reactions, then what is?

I'll say this, and then leave it be. You can find out a lot more about who a person "really" is if he thinks you are stupid, powerless, and unpopular than you can if he thinks you're smart, powerful, and popular.

 

[bigb]

I have no problem with 2 or even 3 posts in a row, if they are written within just a couple of minutes, responding to 3 different posts. Hopper, your problem is that you will post 5 or 6 in a row, over the span of an hour (or longer), responding to one post and yourself. That is the base of the issue, at least as far as I am concerned.

As far as having a poster on ignore and that creating bias, I fail to see the correlation. Just because I don't want to read Hopper's lame "diz here bidnizz" type of posting doesn't mean I'm automatically biased against him. Maybe it's just me though. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

 

[Hopper]

Hopper, your problem is that you will post 5 or 6 in a row, over the span of an hour (or longer), responding to one post and yourself. That is the base of the issue, at least as far as I am concerned.

Well, Catratcho, if that's the issue, as far as you're concerned, then I would at least ask if you even know what the infraction issued was based on. If not, Kicky and I just discussed it in recent posts in this thread. The actual "transcript" begins on page 3 (on my screen anyway) of this same thread. Somehow I just don't think that very many people who came across that particular sequence of posts and counter-posts would see "trollin."

For your convenience, here's my prior summary of the situation (you can of course decide for yourself it it's accurate):

"I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you (Kicky) stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

 

[One Brow]

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times.

I don't respond to the same post multiple times, certainly. If you really think my longest string is 3 even in this new incarnation of the boards, you're just wrong.

Of course, from my recollection, you said you investigated a some 25 or so of my most recent posts.

Not to mention, the whole notion that this reduces the readability of the boards when you have the poster on ignore is laughable. Bypassing text you can't see is the easiest thing in the world. The only explanation I can conceive for it not being simple is an inner conviction that the text is something you know can and should be refuted, so you don't really want to bypass it.

moevillini's explanation of "not on ignore, but skipping" is a little more plausible, but even then, it does not take much simply to follow the avatars on the left-hand side.

 

[moevillini]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

 

[Hopper]

Ya know, Eric, I'm not singling out, or even grouping in, Mo, Kicky, or anyone else in particular, when I say that I suspect that the average person would feel fully justified in making all of his personal habits mandatory and all of his personal dislikes illegal if he he were given the power to do so.

If this particular "average guy" hates homosexuality, then homosexuality would be illegal. If he goes to church every Sunday, then church attendance on Sunday would be mandatory for all. The things he legislated for and against, and then enforced, assuming he was given dictatorial powers, would by NO means be confined to "important" matters, either. If he didn't like yellow cars, he would make yellow cars illegal, etc. And if some particular thing "annoyed" him, like, say, tattoos, then LOOK OUT! We're probably talkin about fairly heavy jail time. Same thing with anything that "inconvenienced" him. If he didn't like traffic on his way to work, he would make it illegal for anyone other than himself and those to whom he gave his personal prior consent to drive on the streets and highways.

It doesn't take long for most absolute dictators to start legislating thought and opinion, too. It becomes illegal to promote, or even think, certain ideas that are "subversive," i.e., which do not conform to the dictator's demands for "proper thought." Soon, mere "attendance" at church is not sufficient, one must publicly declare a faith in God and affirm the infallibility of the church. History shows this over and over, and human nature, it aint changed none. Just look at the dicators of the 20th century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

All of this assumes, of course, that he has unchecked and unlimited power. Things would be different if he were somehow accountable to the "people's will." As the old sayin goes: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The point in NOT to compare Jazzfan mods to Hitler or Stalin, in any possible way. The point is simply that, once empowered, it is suddenly easier and more attractive to protect your own "rights" while ignoring the legitimate rights of others, if they inconvenience you. The focus is on ME, and what I want, certainly not you, or what you might want. You don't count as much as me, because, like, some pigs is just more equal than others, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Hopper]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

Mo! When you and me gunna git together for that there little "group hug," eh!?

 

[bigb]

Well, Catratcho, if that's the issue, as far as you're concerned, then I would at least ask if you even know what the infraction issued was based on. If not, Kicky and I just discussed it in recent posts in this thread. The actual "transcript" begins on page 3 (on my screen anyway) of this same thread. Somehow I just don't think that very many people who came across that particular sequence of posts and counter-posts would see "trollin."

For your convenience, here's my prior summary of the situation (you can of course decide for yourself it it's accurate):

"I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you (Kicky) stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

Yeah, I kinda understand that you are choosing to not "get" it. Great. Good for you. At this point in time, I'm operating on the belief that you are simply not letting it die just to be annoying or to get back at the mods. I strongly feel that you do in fact understand what is being said. When you're not pulling your gangsta homeboy shtick, you come across as very intelligent. I find it hard to believe you don't understand what's been explained. Given that, I'm done in here.