|
1522. judithathome - 4/12/2002 12:48:10 PM I seriously doubt some of us can post happily in both or at least in Cal's thread because of stuff like this:
Concerned, please don't use such long anchor text, and provide the link without too much editorializing. You can editorialize right below (in the same post). And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.
She feels compelled to lecture people on How to post and What to post and what they SHOULD have said, etc. It is getting old.
You state: blatant disregard for host authority and repeated antagonistic behavior isn't a protected right. It certainly seems like antgonistic behavior by a host when one is constantly berated for the manner in which they post. It is the main reason I'm not posting in that thread. I look on it as saving Cal the extra work of having to either lecture me or send me to the Inferno. 1523. betty - 4/12/2002 1:18:30 PM Ms. No,
I think bubba is making a point that's being overlooked. We need to draw up clear guidelines of what Spam is. Twenty posts in a row, all of which are relevant and add perspective to a topic, doesn't seem like spam to me, it just seems like somebody's got a lot to say. And unless you want to hear endless bitching about the arbitrary way in which this seems to be enforced, there are going to have to be clear guidelines or free speech.
From Cal's definition of Spam there is a lot of gray and room for interpretation, we need to have a real definition adopted in our RoE or else hosts become cranky little dictators who are difficult to predict and can act on personal agendas. I'm not saying that it has happened yet but it sure feels that way from the hostility around here lately.
1524. concerned - 4/12/2002 1:35:37 PM I'm curious wrt registration. Are the issues which were discussed upthread still applicable? Or has the process been streamlined since then? 1525. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/12/2002 2:32:50 PM 1514. Ms. No - 4/12/02 11:58:43 PM
Wiz,
I don't know if you saw my Message # 1497 but I'm quite serious about it. Your comments on the issue at hand are welcome but random cheerleading and sniper shots are off topic.
Sorry, No -- I didn't see it [. . . and I'm glad!]. 1526. Julius Caesar - 4/12/2002 10:47:04 PM Let there be no mistake. I'm stunned it is even being debated. My services were offered to tame jexster. By any means necessary. When this town is burning, you give a holler. I'll ride in.
And I'm bringing Hell with me. 1527. wonkers2 - 4/12/2002 11:04:04 PM But who will play Cassius? 1528. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 2:48:36 AM i see no reason to leave this thread de-anchored.
CG has acted within the ROE. those that don't like don't participate - that's the way it works here.
reattach this thread to Suggestions and let it go. 1529. rubberducky - 4/16/2002 2:54:34 AM er...
don't like it, don't participate 1531. jexster - 4/18/2002 12:53:16 AM I am serving notice on everyone, that each and every time that Caligula moves an on topic post of mine from her so-called discussion thread, I will be heard from.
And she will not like what she hears.
Either a thread is open to all on a fair and equal basis or it should be open to none.
She removed the following from her "Bitch Fighting Thread" yesterday
What is Behind Bush's War Drive?
Will be the topic of a discussion at SFSU today
Unfortunately I will be in Housing Class doing battle with a representative of The Mother of the Axis of Evil.
However, thanks to Wiz's timely and excellent link of the Immanuel Wallerstein article from the LAT, I will be doing my part in the War Against Global Geopolitical Incompetence.
Thanks Wiz!
She started this.
I will end it.
1532. wabbit - 4/18/2002 12:56:40 AM No, you won't. You'll either learn to differentiate between an on-topic post and spam, or you will be getting longer and longer suspensions. The last ten posts of yours in the Fighting Global Terrorism thread are nothing but spam. You have the next few days off. See you Monday. 1533. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 2:47:59 AM RD,
Sounds good to me. Wabbit mentioned in Suggestions that she'd like to leave Policies up for another day and then re-anchor tomorrow. 1534. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:45:43 AM Looks like the Strangler missed, but Wabbit didn't.
Oooooooooh!:) 1535. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:46:49 AM Btw, how's the current registration situation accommodation operation, if any, coming along? 1536. wonkers2 - 4/18/2002 4:50:32 AM Let the record show that wonkers and the cap'n don't approve of Captain Queeg/Bligh tactics. Lighten up girls! 1537. concerned - 4/18/2002 4:53:21 AM Got strawberries? 1538. wonkers2 - 4/18/2002 4:55:21 AM Somebody, quick throw the Queeg's palm tree overboard! 1539. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 5:08:58 AM Concerned,
I'm not sure what registration problem you're referring to. Automatic registration has been back up and running for nearly two months now.
Was there something else?
1540. concerned - 4/18/2002 5:11:43 AM Re. 1539 -
Thanks for the information. Are we keeping up hyperlinks from other sites? 1541. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 5:31:46 AM Wonk,
Lighten up how? I mean, do thread hosts set the tone of their threads or not? Jexter had ample opportunity to comply. He had 31 other threads in which to post if he didn't wish to conform to the tone of that particular thread.
Clearly Jexter wished to cause havoc in that thread. Clearly he wished to needlessly antagonize and abuse the hosts of that thread. Clearly he wished to ignore the RoE.
Clearly CalGal and Ducky did not attempt to prevent him from posting as is evidenced by the fact that there are more posts by Jexter in that thread than by anyone other than CalGal. That's not even remotely close to banning him from a thread.
1542. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 5:35:56 AM Concerned,
Are we keeping up hyperlinks from other sites?
We are registered with several search engines but I don't know what was done about reciprocal links. I very much doubt that Salon would have agreed to such a thing or any other forum that's making money off subscriptions somewhere, but, honestly, I don't know for sure as I wasn't involved in that.
|
