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

[Jason]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4

 

[sirkickyass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4

+2. I had forgotten all about that scene.

 

[One Brow]

Personally, I'm planning on waiting until any individual poster gets a warning or an infraction for any issue involving quote tags before I get my panties in a bunch.

That's such a lawyer thing to say. I am wiling to bunch my boxers (and avoid the sexist terminology) over wrongs that are planned and not yet committed.

though maybe you and kicky can fight for the title of "wiggle room"

I don't know. You seem to have gotten an edge on both of them within the last few posts.

 

[colton]

You'll need to make up your mind, here. Either you think I sincerely believed Marcus would get such a warning for a one-line signature, or I was making a snide comment. They can not both be true (although they can both be false).

I'll save you the trouble of trying to figure that out. My purpose was two-fold: 1) announce one of the most bizarre, arbitrary, and silly rules I have ever seen put forth on this forum (since it had not been widely distributed), and 2) register my strong disapproval at the rule. I accomplished both goals.

One Brow, by calling it a "rule", you are again incorrectly implying that people run serious risks of getting warnings and infractions leveled against them for violating this. That would be much more believable if you could point to a SINGLE instance of a SINGLE poster EVER getting such a warning or infraction. You can't, of course.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

One Brow, by calling it a "rule", you are again incorrectly implying that people run serious risks of getting warnings and infractions leveled against them for violating this. That would be much more believable if you could point to a SINGLE instance of a SINGLE poster EVER getting such a warning or infraction. You can't, of course.

Leveled against them or levied against them?

 

[Hopper]

Well, Eric, one thing seems clear here, eh? You just don't get it. If you "get it," you say this: "Yes, sir. I understand completely and you are absolutely right. Everything you say makes perfect sense and I am deeply indebted to you for educating me and reducing the state of ignorance I live in. Anything else, while you're here? You need some shirts ironed, or anything?"

Unfortunately, the mods don't like people who don't get it. I hope you're not banned soon, ya know?

Thanks for the tip about the (unended) quote marks at the beginning of a new paragraph. This is not a practice I have noticed in the past, but, then again, I don't pay great attention to matters of petty punctuation to begin with. I just look for the endquote marks. I'm just that kinda stupid fool, I guess.

If I do that in the future, perhaps this will eliminate the whole cartoon ballon issue, who knows? Of course that will do nothing to change the underlying issue, i.e., the determination of (at least a majority) of the mods to ban me due to personal animosity. They don't need no new-fangled rules for that. They already have many rules which they can selectively interpret and enforce to effectuate their ends. ANY post they don't like can always be called "trollin" the way they have interpreted the rules. It also seems that 2 consecutive posts can get you infracted and banned, if (and only if) they want to, according to the novel rule they have created.

 

[sirkickyass]

R. I. F.

you're automatically disqualified


though maybe you and kicky can fight for the title of "wiggle room"

This is what I get for skimming. It's not been a good day.

 

[billyshelby]

Out of curiosity, besides us who are the other two?

Well, roseparkjazzfan is obviously one of them. And if my theory is correct, that would make you 2 of the 4 smartest people on the board.

 

[colton]

Of course that will do nothing to change the underlying issue, i.e., the determination of (at least a majority) of the mods to ban me due to personal animosity.

Yes, and the members of the moderating staff that were in place when you received your previous ban were just out to get you, too, right? (Were *any* of the moderators the same? My memory says no.)

Sheesh.

OK, Hopper, I've had enough. If you have any more complaints about the moderators please direct them at me or Jason in PMs, and do not post them to the general board.

Back-seat Moderators: If members note a possible problem, they are welcome to bring it to the attention of a moderator or administrator via a private message. However, members are asked to not act as "back-seat moderators"; please do not make moderation-related comments in board threads. Members who consistently "act" as moderators may receive infractions.

 

[Hopper]

OK, Hopper, I've had enough. If you have any more complaints about the moderators please direct them at me or Jason in PMs, and do not post them to the general board.

Colton, by "complaints against," do you mean "disagreement with?"

 

[One Brow]

One Brow, by calling it a "rule", you are again incorrectly implying that people run serious risks of getting warnings and infractions leveled against them for violating this. That would be much more believable if you could point to a SINGLE instance of a SINGLE poster EVER getting such a warning or infraction. You can't, of course.

So, it's not a rule until after it is applied multiple times? Once? Because there is a relatively lax enforcement policy? I disagree. If it is a policy that, under the current process, can lead to warnings/infractions/banishment, it is most certainly a rule, even if one that most people will comply with naturally.

Colton, by "complaints against," do you mean "disagreement with?"

Take my word for it: he does, within the context specifically of board discipline and rules. Disagreements with moderators on gay marriage and similar topics can continue to be posted in the appropriate threads.

 

[Scat]

Out of curiosity, besides us who are the other two?

I'd have to give Dutchjazzer and ncoloradojazz the nod.