Page 3 of 4

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:27 pm
by Fence Sitter
Binger wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:15 pm
Fence Sitter wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:02 pm
I don't think so. Banning is an extremely rare event here. Dissenters tend to get overwhelmed. Who are you thinking about?
That is one of the funniest posts ever posted on this forum.

Well done. I really laughed.
You seem unable to read for context.
But are easily amused.

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:42 pm
by huckelberry
Fence Sitter wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:27 pm
Binger wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:15 pm


That is one of the funniest posts ever posted on this forum.

Well done. I really laughed.
You seem unable to read for context.
But are easily amused.
a point of curiosity here, did Smokey actually get banned or did he just tire of posting stuff. I wondered a couple of times if the persona and point of view was all just a fiction which the author tired of so ended and adopted a new different persona.

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:45 pm
by Moksha
If Binger were in an oyster, he would have a pearl form around him.

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:57 pm
by Binger
Moksha wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:45 pm
If Binger were in an oyster, he would have a pearl form around him.
Thane Queue.

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:11 pm
by huckelberry
huckelberry wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:42 pm
a point of curiosity here, did Smokey actually get banned or did he just tire of posting stuff. I wondered a couple of times if the persona and point of view was all just a fiction which the author tired of so ended and adopted a new different persona.
Upthread it was observed a couple of times that banning a poster is rare. Binger thought that funny, doubting its accuracy I would think. I am aware of limits put on some posters for a period of time. I think LDSfaqs could only start threads in a limited forum. It limited the number of youtube links from him.

Is a question about actual banning somehow off limits or private?
Does anybody actually know?

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:18 pm
by MG 2.0
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:11 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:42 pm
a point of curiosity here, did Smokey actually get banned or did he just tire of posting stuff. I wondered a couple of times if the persona and point of view was all just a fiction which the author tired of so ended and adopted a new different persona.
Upthread it was observed a couple of times that banning a poster is rare. Binger thought that funny, doubting its accuracy I would think. I am aware of limits put on some posters for a period of time. I think LDSfaqs could only start threads in a limited forum. It limited the number of youtube links from him.

Is a question about actual banning somehow off limits or private?
Does anybody actually know?
I was banned. Kidney stone today. Sitting around in pain. Should be reading a book.

Regards,
MG

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:51 pm
by huckelberry
Mg, your response creates more question than clarification.You are posting now so are obviously not banned. What sort of temporary ban are you referring to?

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:55 pm
by Kishkumen
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:18 pm
I was banned. Kidney stone today. Sitting around in pain. Should be reading a book.

Regards,
MG
I hope you feel better. Kidney stones are the worst. Get well and see you soon!

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:56 pm
by Kishkumen
huckelberry wrote:
Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:42 pm
a point of curiosity here, did Smokey actually get banned or did he just tire of posting stuff. I wondered a couple of times if the persona and point of view was all just a fiction which the author tired of so ended and adopted a new different persona.
Smokey was a board terrorist. If there was anyone who should have been banned--I thought he was--it was Smokey.

Re: Sic et Non Is Dead

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:07 pm
by MG 2.0
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:51 pm
Mg, your response creates more question than clarification.You are posting now so are obviously not banned. What sort of temporary ban are you referring to?
This was a few years ago. Back in my wilder days. Thanks Kishkumen. No one home today except me and the kidney stone. Not fun at all.

Regards,
MG