|
1391. Ms. No - 4/30/2001 3:43:25 AM Wabbit,
Both look good to me. There's a typo in the Hosting Guidelines---second paragraph, last line "though" should be "through".
1392. Ms. No - 4/30/2001 6:03:15 AM Autodaffy,
It's nice to know that you can be relied upon to treat others with the same respect with which you have yourself been treated.
1393. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 4/30/2001 10:10:59 PM In point of fact the good doctor treats others with respect than I myself recieve.
I note by the by that no one has addressed either of my questions. Perhaps the only way to recieve a response here is to insult the improprietors.
Bless the heavens but yours truly as well as being a doctor and scholar is a gentlemen and shall peradventure not stupe to such poltroonery.
Methinks I was encouraged to nail my missives here rather than the new thread domicile so that they could be ignored with impudence. Yet, patient wight that I am, I shall ask gently once more, what exactly is the administrative role of Beano here?
Chief crowd control enforcer? 1394. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/2/2001 6:48:29 AM Testing...testing...testing...testing...
1395. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 5/2/2001 6:49:22 AM Should I repeat my missive on the other domicile in hopes that it shall be addressed? 1396. Dusty - 5/3/2001 1:27:24 AM But the transformation of the Welcome thread into a DC thread raises Policy issues. Do we create thread topics and assign hosts to manage that subject, or do we grant thread hosting rights to individuals to do whatever whim strikes their fancy? I know that Ace has pushed into new ground on this issue, but Marj has taken it a quantum leap beyond. While some may misinterpret this as a slap at Marj, that is not my intent. What are the rules? Can Wombat decide that History is boring and change the thread title to "Discuss Sex and Policy here?" 1397. JJBiener - 5/3/2001 1:36:07 AM Dusty - I could be mistaken, but I believe the conversion from Welcome to DC was discussed in Suggestions and there was generally agreement with the change. It is different from Ace's thread where the changes were completely arbitrary. 1398. Ms. No - 5/3/2001 2:46:28 AM Dr. X,
Frankly, yes, I've been ignoring you. 90% of what you post is needlessly verbose, deliberately antagonistic and generally only for the purpose of complaining about how badly you feel you've been treated. It never occurred to me that you might have a legitimate question buried in there somewhere.
JJBiener is the Mote treasurer and a thread host. He is not a Moderator nor does he have moderator priveledges. He is, however, one of the founding members of this forum and as such has a deeply held affection for it and a large personal investment in its running. I believe that anyone in such a position might have comfortably spoken to you in the "We" form, meaning "we" The Community rather than "We" the Moderators of whom he is not a member. 1399. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 6/7/2001 2:18:05 AM > Frankly, yes, I've been ignoring you.
Zounds--would that the so-called "moderators" who are in point of fact a harem of harpies for the jackbooted martinet known as Nilson were as derilectable in their duties when dealing with the good doctor's domicile. In point of fact they are most efficient when commiting theivery upon my person.
> 90% of what you post is needlessly verbose
A wight who uses the redundency "needlessly verbose" has little to offer the good doctor in efficient verbiage.
> deliberately antagonistic
Unlike your valued so-called "treasurer," in point of fact I have not threatened to kick anyone's ass.
> It never occurred to me that you might have a legitimate question
buried in there somewhere.
It never appeared to yours truly that by commencing my missive with "The good doctor has two questions" further indication would necessitate itself. In the future I shall endeavor to fire off flares and garnish with garish neon colors. 1400. Ms. No - 6/21/2001 7:55:39 AM Perhaps you should rethink the tongue in cheek nature of the phrase "needlessly verbose".
One need not threaten bodily harm to be antagonistic as you well know.
If 90% of what you write is worth skipping then it's hardly surprising that I ignore you until you've sifted out the pertinent issues. Not unlike RosettaStone, your constant harping becomes a distant background buzz most often overlooked because of it's ceaselessness. 1401. iiibbb - 7/4/2001 9:16:16 PM Is it my understanding that as host, while I cannot change the topic, I can change the title?
I have been toying with the internet title, but have not deviated from the theme of "exploring the internet".
If I am mistaken, I will pick something and stick to it... but my intention was only to drum up interest. 1402. iiibbb - 7/4/2001 9:20:15 PM I know Ace changed title alot, but if I remember it was major deviations in topic that was the problem... 1403. arkymalarky - 7/4/2001 10:59:17 PM Never concern yourself over rules based on anything Rose says. 1404. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 1:12:24 AM iiibbb,
It depends on how much you'd like to change the topic. If the deviation is particularly great then it's better to retire the current thread and start a new one in most cases. If it's still going to be a links-based thread then I see no problem with just making a statement about the change, changing the profile and re-naming the thread.
I'm not a big fan of multiple re-names of a thread. Expecially not in the manner that occurred a few months ago with Ace and Francis or even the earlier case where Fielding and Dr. X were vying for alphabetical supremacy in the thread list. I completely understand that you may be "shopping" titles at the moment and need a bit of time to settle on one, but I think it's best if eventually there is a definite name for the thread. 1406. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 3:18:45 AM shit. erase that because Charlie's name was given in body of copy. will redo. 1407. RosettaStone - 7/5/2001 3:19:22 AM From the Mote Annex, before they're deleted by PR-expert IJ:
Khanzab:
"As the person who gave Rosetta's real name --I'm no fan of his--I find it absolutely reprehensible that Charlie L*******(real name given) has used it to harass the right-wing loon this way.
But not surprising after having been further exposed to L****'s bland brand of idiocy.
Rosetta, you should take this scumbag's criminal actions seriously and report him. It's not funny."
RosettaStone:
"CharlieL is protected by mote moderator Ms. No, his friend. The fact that he can use information he got in Slate's fray three years ago to dig into telephone databases and repeatedly publish my full name, correct address and daughter's phone number for political reasons is of no concern to her.
When I bring it up here I'm warned that I will be banned from mote.
Cazart is right. Mote doesn't protect its members privacy." 1408. bubbaette - 7/5/2001 3:57:15 AM It appears to me that Rosie Pot has been exposing another motier's name here. 1409. PsychProf - 7/5/2001 4:19:56 AM Hahahaha...hoisted by his own petard. 1410. Ms. No - 7/5/2001 4:30:03 AM RosettaStone,
This is not the place to discuss Table Talk's policies or infractions of their rules. It is for Mote Policies.
It is not the Policy of the Mote to police other internet forums. However we might feel about what takes place in those forums we have no authority over them. Were it even possible to police the entire Internet according to the rules we've established here, we have neither the time nor the resources to undertake such a monumental task.
Were CharlieL's actions in Table Talk deplorable? Yes they were. Should he be punished here for an infraction at another forum? Should you be? That is not our policy and you should be no less glad then he is for it. 1411. JudithAtHome - 7/5/2001 4:40:27 AM What about Rose posting Charlies name here? I thought that wasn't allowed...something he learned in another forum being posted here? He called for it to be deleted so he knows it's wrong...
|
