sock puppet wrote:DCP emulates JSJr in his litigious nature, that's for sure.
[DCP had zero involvement in this thread or reasons for it being removed.]
Red color needed for that post, no?
[Thanks for making the change I suggested.]
Last edited by Guest on Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:In that case it would have been a courtesy to those of us who have posted on that thread to have put up a short statement explaining what had been done and why.
Statement of what was done and why given here ... it was obvious it would be a short wait until someone asked.
Litigation by whom, by the way?
take a wild guess.
Clearly you are speaking as a moderator, so please talk in red to recognize that.
Once the action had been taken, an explanation should have been posted as a matter of course. The answer "Well, we're telling you now" is out of place and discourteous. Mods talk nice when they are being mods. As you are being now.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:Clearly you are speaking as a moderator, so please talk in red to recognize that.
Once the action had been taken, an explanation should have been posted as a matter of course. The answer "Well, we're telling you now" is out of place and discourteous. Mods talk nice when they are being mods. As you are being now.
[it is shades policy that one should not be kicked after having moderator action taken. thus public announcements are not given]
Chap wrote:Clearly you are speaking as a moderator, so please talk in red to recognize that.
Once the action had been taken, an explanation should have been posted as a matter of course. The answer "Well, we're telling you now" is out of place and discourteous. Mods talk nice when they are being mods. As you are being now.
[it is shades policy that one should not be kicked after having moderator action taken. thus public announcements are not given]
Sorry Rockslider, I'm not following. When you say "kicked," do you mean kicked off the board? Or "kicked" as in publicly criticized for being moderated?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:Sorry Rockslider, I'm not following. When you say "kicked," do you mean kicked off the board? Or "kicked" as in publicly criticized for being moderated?
In my personal opinion, Shades is an amazing man in his tolerance and patience with individuals. His policy is definately intended to try and protect the person having moderation action taken against them. His intent is to minimize public criticisim, especially where the individual is not here to defend theirself.
RockSlider wrote:[based on threats of litigation the thread has been removed from public access]
sock puppet wrote:DCP emulates JSJr in his litigious nature, that's for sure.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Has the good doctor ever sued anybody?
I do remember that he was sued by an evangelical minister. I represented some of the defendants, but not him. The minister dismissed my clients one day after telling my associate that God told him to do so.
He's a serial threatener of litigation, and that is the litigious nature of which I was speaking.
Brad Hudson wrote:Sorry Rockslider, I'm not following. When you say "kicked," do you mean kicked off the board? Or "kicked" as in publicly criticized for being moderated?
In my personal opinion, Shades is an amazing man in his tolerance and patience with individuals. His policy is definitely intended to try and protect the person having moderation action taken against them. His intent is to minimize public criticisim, especially where the individual is not here to defend theirself.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was criticizing Shades. I just didn't understand what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:Sorry Rockslider, I'm not following. When you say "kicked," do you mean kicked off the board? Or "kicked" as in publicly criticized for being moderated?
In my personal opinion, Shades is an amazing man in his tolerance and patience with individuals. His policy is definitely intended to try and protect the person having moderation action taken against them. His intent is to minimize public criticisim, especially where the individual is not here to defend theirself.
The idea that a major thread like Eric's could be vanished without moderator explanation without anyone discussing its disappearance is really not very plausible.
We have now had a much longer discussion of Eric's disappearance from the board than we would have done if a simple statement had been issued in these words as soon as the thread was hidden:
1. Eric's thread has been hidden from public view due to threats of litigation. 2. Eric has left the board voluntarily and his account has been deleted.
No further public comment will be made.
End of.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
