What's new
By:
Filters

The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably no one cares, but I can verify that Jason did post to the moderator board on Aug 2nd, saying Hopper had asked for an appeal. Now, whether Jason misunderstood Hopper's request to him or not, I can't say. But it is incorrect to say that sirkickyass is lying about that.

(And based on the discussion, I, like kicky, assumed that Hopper's appeal had not been granted.)
 
colton said:
Probably no one cases, but I can verify that Jason did post to the moderator board on Aug 2nd, saying Hopper had asked for an appeal. Now, whether Jason misunderstood Hopper's request to him or not, I can't say. But it is incorrect to say that sirkickyass is lying about that.

(And based on the discussion, I, like kicky, assumed that Hopper's appeal had not been granted.)
Click to expand...

Well, Colton, a couple of things:

I never once said Kicky was lying about that. I said he made a false statement, and I still think he did, but...

It seems like this post is made in response to the question I asked, but it doesn't seem to address that question at all. You upbraided Eric, claiming that HE (not me) got the "facts" wrong. I asked you what facts he got wrong.
 
Hopper said:
It seems like this post is made in response to the question I asked, but it doesn't seem to address that question at all. You upbraided Eric, claiming that HE (not me) got the "facts" wrong. I asked you what facts he got wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm 99% sure you are trolling me, and unlike kicky I'm not going to indulge you.

If this is a legit question, then I sincerely apologize.
 
colton said:
I'm 99% sure you are trolling me, and unlike kicky I'm not going to indulge you.

If this is a legit question, then I sincerely apologize.
Click to expand...

I accept your apology, Colton. It is indeed a serious, and legit, question. I don't see how you can possibly conclude that Eric got any "facts" wrong based upon the statement he made, which you quoted, but maybe I'm missing something that you know and I don't.

Believe it or not, some posters take it as legit to ask why moderators are accusing them of misrepresenting "the facts."
 
Hopper said:
Believe it or not, some posters take it as legit to ask why moderators are accusing them of misrepresenting "the facts."
Click to expand...

If One Brow is one such poster, he should reply to me himself. Or send a PM.

Either way, I fail to see why I should discuss it with you.
 
colton said:
If One Brow is one such poster, he should reply to me himself. Or send a PM.

Either way, I fail to see why I should discuss it with you.
Click to expand...

Whatever, Colton. If you don't care to discuss your accusations of factual misrepresentations with other posters, then maybe you should not make such accusations PUBLICLY for all to see. For all you know, you have now undermined a lot of people's faith in One Brow's veracity. It seems only decent that if you're going to make the accusation public, for all to see and discuss, then you could provide your basis for such a claim in the same forum you announced it. But, like I said, whatever....
 
I just want to know one thing:

How are you sending PM's when you're banned? I wasn't able to read or respond to PM's during my little vacation, so how on Earth were you able to send any? And on that note, since you can't send them, how do you plan on getting a response? Of course Tink didn't respond, you didn't send him anything. Are you lying, have a duplicate account, or is it more sinister? Eric, please tell me that write4u isn't an idiot savant.
 
You are free to make accusations of factual error and then refuse to defend them, Colton, but I hope that doesn't bind me to the same M. O. I said I could not see how Eric could have the "facts wrong," and I'm willing to say why, too. As posted earlier, Kicky sent told me this in an infraction notice:

""...we have noted a tendency to post large block quotes without using the quoting feature. Some users have complained that this makes it difficult to determine which portions of your text are original material and which portions are quotes. Please be advised of this effect on the board's readability."

Unless I am badly misreading this, Kicky seems to be saying that not putting quotes in ballons has an adverse affect on the "board's readability."

So what did Eric say? In relevant part, he said:

"Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read."

The "on high" reference is obviously to Kicky, and, given that, Eric seems to be faithfully and accurately conveying what Kicky said. Now you say:

"One Brow, please leave off the snide comments directed at the moderators. Especially when you get the facts wrong that you are complaining about."

What facts are wrong?

Side note: Can't ANYONE else see how ridiculous this "requirement" of going back and editing prior posts when responding to subsequent question is? I asked you a question. You made a post refusing to answer, so I went on.

ONLY NOW, when going back over posts, do I find out that you have completely rewritten a post I thought we had passed. Does one, everytime he asks a question or makes comments, have to keep going back to page one of a thread and continously re-read every post made to see if any poster has responded to his comment by editing a post they made earlier?

Taken literally, this "rule" would lead to absolute chaos on the board. Every poster would just be allowed one post per thread, and would be required to edit (add to) that post if he said another word in the thread. Example, I ask: Does anyone know the date of the Jazz's first home game? Nobody can answer that in a new post, because that would be "repetitive posting?" Nobody can make a post sayin "Yeah, October 1st" (or whatever), at least not if they have made a prior post, they have to go back to page one, where they made their first post and answer the question there.

I assume the "rule" is not that literal, but that's the problem. Nobody knows what it really is. This is the SECOND time, in this thread alone, where I ask a moderator a question, and don't see a response to it because they go back and answer the question in a prior post which I have no reason to re-read.
 
Somehow, some way, Gawd only knows how, but somehow, I have managed to read hundreds of documents (both official and unofficial), novels, newspaper stories, magazine articles, and just about every other printed medium I can think of, except comic books, when, (*gasp*) the quotes are NOT PUT in cartoon balloons! How did I ever manage to cope with such illegibility, I wonder?
 
OK, fine. I've got time for one more post before I go to bed.

Marcus's sig: "“the basketball gods were thinking about me” ~ Al Jefferson on his coming to Utah"

One Brow's statement: "Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read. I would hate for you to get a warning for that."

The implication is that Marcus is running a risk of getting a warning for the sig. That's completely false, and One Brow knows it. Or should know it. Therefore One Brow had his facts wrong.

And it was a very snide comment, like I said, made SOLELY as a jab at the moderators. That's what ticked me off about it and prompted my response.

As for your own situation, I hardly even know where to begin. You seem to have 3 modes. 1) Stupid dialect mode. 2) Intelligent poster mode. 3) Reactionary troll mode. Sadly modes (1) and (3) far outweigh mode (2). Why don't you just concentrate on writing intelligent posts and leave off the other two modes? The board would be much more pleasant that way.
 
Hopper said:
...

Side note: Can't ANYONE else see how ridiculous this "requirement" of going back and editing prior posts when responding to subsequent question is? I asked you a question. You made a post refusing to answer, so I went on.

ONLY NOW, when going back over posts, do I find out that you have completely rewritten a post I thought we had passed. Does one, everytime he asks a question or makes comments, have to keep going back to page one of a thread and continously re-read every post made to see if any poster has responded to his comment by editing a post they made earlier?

Taken literally, this "rule" would lead to absolute chaos on the board. Every poster would just be allowed one post per thread, and would be required to edit (add to) that post if he said another word in the thread. Example, I ask: Does anyone know the date of the Jazz's first home game? Nobody can answer that in a new post, because that would be "repetitive posting?" Nobody can make a post sayin "Yeah, October 1st" (or whatever), at least not if they have made a prior post, they have to go back to page one, where they made their first post and answer the question there.

I assume the "rule" is not that literal, but that's the problem. Nobody knows what it really is. This is the SECOND time, in this thread alone, where I ask a moderator a question, and don't see a response to it because they go back and answer the question in a prior post which I have no reason to re-read.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I am totally stumped. I have no idea what is being referred to here. What "requirement" are you talking about? What "rule"?

Other than apologies, which it appears you'll not get beyond what's already been posted, what do you want?
 
For what it's worth, I believe these were the posts that prompted kicky's comment to hopper that "Some users have complained that this makes it difficult to determine which portions of your text are original material and which portions are quotes."
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43306#post43306

And for what it's worth I agree with the premise... it's hard to tell without clicking on the link(s) hopper supplied which words are hopper's and which he is quoting from another source.

OK, I didn't really have time to look that up. Off to bed for me.
 
Hopper said:
Somehow, some way, Gawd only knows how, but somehow, I have managed to read hundreds of documents (both official and unofficial), novels, newspaper stories, magazine articles, and just about every other printed medium I can think of, except comic books, when, (*gasp*) the quotes are NOT PUT in cartoon balloons! How did I ever manage to cope with such illegibility, I wonder?
Click to expand...

OK, if you're going to be like that, let me ask you: what fraction of those official documents quoted multiple paragraphs without using any form of indentation or without at least putting quotation marks at the start of each quoted paragraph?
 
colton said:
OK, fine. I've got time for one more post before I go to bed.

Marcus's sig: "“the basketball gods were thinking about me” ~ Al Jefferson on his coming to Utah"

One Brow's statement: "Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read. I would hate for you to get a warning for that."

The implication is that Marcus is running a risk of getting a warning for the sig. That's completely false, and One Brow knows it. Or should know it. Therefore One Brow had his facts wrong.
Click to expand...

Why should be be required to draw this conclusion? It's ambiguous as to just what the threat is. After I read it, I sent a P.M. to Kicky asking if that was supposed to be a warning. This has a serious basis. In an earlier thread Kicky falsely claimed I had been "warned" on the old board to refrain from something. Again, the claim was completely false, so it's very hard to fathom what Kicky even means when he claims you have been "warned."

I got no response from Kicky, so after quoting the excerpt in question to Eric. I asked him, who as a former moderator might have reason to know, this question:

"Tell me, what the hell does that even mean, and what is the purpose behind it? Does he mean all quotes must be put in cartoon balloons, and, if not, I will be ruining the "readability" of the board, and hence subject to the assessment of an infraction?"

His considered response was:

"Yes, that's exactly what he means. from what I can tell."


He was sincere, and he certainly has a viable basis for reading it that way, if you ask me.

That's part of the problem around here. Just because the mods know what they have in mind when they write something ambiguous, they feel it's wholely warranted to insist that EVERYONE reading it knows exactly what they meant. They seem to have NO conception of how their "declaration" might be perceived by a reader without the gift of mind-reading powers. Perhaps they should express themselves more clearly, respond to questions, when asked, etc. rather than insist that everyone KNOWS what they mean when they don't even say it.
 
Last edited:
colton said:
For what it's worth, I believe these were the posts that prompted kicky's comment to hopper that "Some users have complained that this makes it difficult to determine which portions of your text are original material and which portions are quotes."
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43306#post43306

And for what it's worth I agree with the premise... it's hard to tell without clicking on the link(s) hopper supplied which words are hopper's and which he is quoting from another source.

OK, I didn't really have time to look that up. Off to bed for me.
Click to expand...

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43483&viewfull=1#post43483

another example
probably plenty more, given that it's a 20+ page topic.
 
colton said:
OK, if you're going to be like that, let me ask you: what fraction of those official documents quoted multiple paragraphs without using any form of indentation or without at least putting quotation marks at the start of each quoted paragraph?
Click to expand...

Well, Colton, how is that relevant? I don't see that occuring in the post you singled out. It starts and ends with quote marks, I make a brief comment, then give the cite, so that anyone who wants to read it for themselves can. What's the problem?

I personally have never seen every single paragraph set off separately by quotes in a multi-paragraph quote that I recall. Either way, I would know they were quoting, until I saw the "endquote" marks.
 
Last edited:
moevillini said:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43483&viewfull=1#post43483

another example
probably plenty more, given that it's a 20+ page topic.
Click to expand...

Here again, Mo, I don't see the problem. Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?

But suppose I start a quote and forget to close it sometime, then what? Will I get another P.M. from a mod? A warning? An infraction? Suppose I misspell a word. Will I eventually be banned from a basketball fan site for those errors, if they continue? Is this English class now, or what?

Why do the mods feel they have to comb my posts for some petty matter to complain about and then "advise" me of the problem I am creating "for the board" in an infraction notice, eh? Zup wit dat?
 
Last edited:
This is a test:

This paragraph is indented, as I compose it.

This one aint.

That's what I thought I recalled. Colton, maybe you should develop software which allows you to indent before complaining to and about the posters in your domain because their paragraphs are not "indented," know what I'm sayin?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top