MAGA: Why a Trump Vote is the Ultimate Dating Dealbreaker For Women!

[Jersey Girl]

In the meantime, thank you for another post about me, moderator.

You’re welcome again. And now the time out is on.

Honoring Binger/Whiskey’s request for transparency, he’ll be unable to chat with us under his present user name for two weeks. This is a great opportunity for him to get some Christmas shopping done, however, so it’s not all bad.

Binger/Whiskey’s request for a permanent ban has been denied. There’s always next time.

-c-

What's the basis for the 2 week suspension?

[canpakes]

You’re welcome again. And now the time out is on.

Honoring Binger/Whiskey’s request for transparency, he’ll be unable to chat with us under his present user name for two weeks. This is a great opportunity for him to get some Christmas shopping done, however, so it’s not all bad.

Binger/Whiskey’s request for a permanent ban has been denied. There’s always next time.

-c-

What's the basis for the 2 week suspension?

The prior temporary ban, imposed last month for repeated use of the ‘c’ word even after a warning, was one week. Doubling the time on subsequent bans has precedent, although it would make much more sense to simply have Binger back in the queue rather than subject to a ban on activity.

This time around, it’s a bit more of (but not limited to) a Tobin Syndrome situation, but if you read through the past few days of posts within the top several threads in Paradise you might get a good feel for what’s going south and why.

All communication between Binger and myself today via PM has included Shades and Xeno.

[canpakes]

You’re welcome again. And now the time out is on.

In retrospect, I feel like ignoring him has been my best option, not only because of the nonstop BS (and who knows? He might actually believe some of his crap), but because he's a self-proclaimed alcoholic and is asking for a permanent ban.

It’s unfortunate that anyone needs to put anyone else on ignore, but I understand why it happens. In this situation, it doesn’t prevent comments being aimed back at you. When those unseen replies end up just being batches of personally-directed insult posts from a single individual that then gum up a thread, this can become problematic.

Venting here often makes me feel better, just for the opportunity to articulate what I'm feeling. …

This - in and of itself - is not an issue, if you’re venting about Trump, because your rant is directed at Trump. Beyond that, you do tend to reference ‘Trump voters’ as a group, and I wish that at his happened less often, so that the sub seems less like a bar full of sailors and drink (lol) as well as gets away from the sort of vague characterization that Hound also exhibits with use of ‘progressive’, ‘Marxist’, etc. Even with that, there are relavent differences with the latter example and yours, which are obvious when comparing posts from both of you.

Same for Doc. Less profanity would be a good thing (and Shades has stated his preference for less).

[Some Schmo]

It’s unfortunate that anyone needs to put anyone else on ignore, but I understand why it happens. In this situation, it doesn’t prevent comments being aimed back at you. When those unseen replies end up just being batches of personally-directed insult posts from a single individual that then gum up a thread, this can become problematic.

That's completely understandable from a board administration perspective. Finding out that he'd been piling up "personally-directed insult posts" vindicates my decision to ignore it all, just from a peace of mind perspective.

Venting here often makes me feel better, just for the opportunity to articulate what I'm feeling. …

This - in and of itself - is not an issue, if you’re venting about Trump, because your rant is directed at Trump. Beyond that, you do tend to reference ‘Trump voters’ as a group, and I wish that at his happened less often, so that the sub seems less like a bar full of sailors and drink (lol) as well as gets away from the sort of vague characterization that Hound also exhibits with use of ‘progressive’, ‘Marxist’, etc. Even with that, there are relavent differences with the latter example and yours, which are obvious when comparing posts from both of you.

I'm conscious of how some of my vague references to large groups can be construed, and I'm self-critical of it to an extent. A lot of what I write are obviously assumptions I'm making about people based on something they did (which I see as a pretty big difference when compared to large groups of people grouped by the race they happen to be born into, or other circumstances to which those people had no choice in the matter). I know that making broad generalizations is at least problematic, if not outright BS. Venting often results in crazy crap. I'll own it.

I've written a lot of stuff over the years where I'm conscious of not over-explaining myself, and value brevity over walls of text. The risk here is that people won't understand the full context of what I'm trying to say and in many circumstances, fill in the blanks with the worst intentions rather than no intentions at all, other than to articulate my thoughts.

I'm not trying to convince people of stuff - I'd rather let my comments survive or die in the marketplace of ideas.

And now I feel like I've over-explained myself.

Same for Doc. Less profanity would be a good thing (and Shades has stated his preference for less).

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I like when people are real with me. I've been reading Doc for many years now, and he seems pretty real to me.

You do too, incidentally. You just have a different style. If anything, you're too nice.

[canpakes]

I'm conscious of how some of my vague references to large groups can be construed, and I'm self-critical of it to an extent. A lot of what I write are obviously assumptions I'm making about people based on something they did (which I see as a pretty big difference when compared to large groups of people grouped by the race they happen to be born into, or other circumstances to which those people had no choice in the matter). I know that making broad generalizations is at least problematic, if not outright BS. Venting often results in crazy crap. I'll own it.

I've written a lot of stuff over the years where I'm conscious of not over-explaining myself, and value brevity over walls of text. The risk here is that people won't understand the full context of what I'm trying to say and in many circumstances, fill in the blanks with the worst intentions rather than no intentions at all, other than to articulate my thoughts.

I'm not trying to convince people of stuff - I'd rather let my comments survive or die in the marketplace of ideas.

I do ‘get’ this. My early conversations here were definitely much more wordy. I was especially intrigued by subs and bcspace because I wanted to drill down into and understand their contrary thought process. And, there’s always something to be gained from examining an opposing point of view. But I’ve also become much more succinct with commentary given the agendas of some folks and the fact that in real life activities at the moment don’t leave a lot of spare time for wordy debates.

And now I feel like I've over-explained myself.

Not at all.

Same for Doc. Less profanity would be a good thing (and Shades has stated his preference for less).

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I like when people are real with me. I've been reading Doc for many years now, and he seems pretty real to me.

Understood. I hail from back east where Doc’s style of communication is much more the norm than out west.

You do too, incidentally. You just have a different style. If anything, you're too nice.

Lol. That’s not always my default setting. : D

[Some Schmo]

I do ‘get’ this. My early conversations here were definitely much more wordy. I was especially intrigued by subs and bcspace because I wanted to drill down into and understand their contrary thought process. And, there’s always something to be gained from examining an opposing point of view. But I’ve also become much more succinct with commentary given the agendas of some folks and the fact that in real life activities at the moment don’t leave a lot of spare time for wordy debates.

I understand the effort based on simple curiosity, and I know I've gone down that road in my younger years. Problem I've learned over the years is that you can't get good information from bad faith. I feel like the guys you mentioned are prime examples of the examination itself affecting the outcomes. You're not getting them in their natural, unobserved habitat, and they don't want to show you that.

So what you end up debating is a façade, and what's the point of that?

You do too, incidentally. You just have a different style. If anything, you're too nice.

Lol. That’s not always my default setting. : D

Sounds like a occupational hazard, patient moderator that you are.

[Whiskey]

You’re welcome again. And now the time out is on.

Honoring Binger/Whiskey’s request for transparency, he’ll be unable to chat with us under his present user name for two weeks. This is a great opportunity for him to get some Christmas shopping done, however, so it’s not all bad.

Binger/Whiskey’s request for a permanent ban has been denied. There’s always next time.

-c-

What's the basis for the 2 week suspension?

Petty grievance. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

Thanks for checking in and asking, Jersey.

[Whiskey]

You’re welcome again. And now the time out is on.

In retrospect, I feel like ignoring him has been my best option, not only because of the nonstop BS (and who knows? He might actually believe some of his crap), but because he's a self-proclaimed alcoholic and is asking for a permanent ban.

Venting here often makes me feel better, just for the opportunity to articulate what I'm feeling. I'm not so sure it does the same for Whiskey.

The dude seems seriously troubled, and I'm not interested in taking shots at dudes who seem willing to shoot themselves. So I'm glad for his sake that I've been ignoring him (as much as possible... obviously, people still quote him). It wouldn't surprise me if a time out made him genuinely happier (or at least, less irritated about everything than the impression he gives). I hope it does.

Let's address a few details here, schmo. First of all, I have a great core group of friends. Many of them were on Cherry. Ya know, back when you and Voodoo were moderators. Remember that? And back when Voodoo was at my house? And when he stayed at my place. Remember that? We got along great back then. A few things were different then. One, I was drinking a lot back then. And two, you weren't deranged as “F” by Trump delusions. I have been sober for a damn long time. Probably one or more versions of Cherry were still up and running when I quit drinking and you and I were getting along just fine.

Calm down pal. You are fooling yourself on what you can read in the tea leaves, red hot headline news, and the spaces between the lines in an obscure forum. Maybe you really are crazy, marxist, socialist and looking for a reason to catch the trans or something. Or maybe it is all a big show. But whatever it is, you ain't seeing or interpreting facts well enough to support your crazy crazy judgments of people.

Also - when it comes to panny. Careful buddy. He lies and plays games. Play along if you want. Just know you are playing or getting played.

[Whiskey]

Try that again, Gad.

Do your very best to restate or rephrase what I am saying, according to me. K? I mean, your first effort was an effort, but it sucked. Try the unsuckey effort.

It's possible I dropped the ball there. I don't mind trying again. Let's start with the first line:

What you're saying is that Hound, who according to you is the most sane and rational person in the world

Assuming this isn't what you're saying, can you clarify the matter by naming a single person alive today anywhere in the world who is more sane and rational than Hound? Just name one person and I'll admit I was totally wrong about what you said.

You did drop the ball.
That is not what I am saying. No need to assume it is not. It just is not. It never was. That should clarify it.

If you have a "sane and rational" ranking of the world's population, please share it and I will point out the people on that list that I know, including someone who uses a fake name of "Hound" on this obscure forum if that is indeed someone that I know.

[canpakes]

Also - when it comes to panny. Careful buddy. He lies and plays games. Play along if you want. Just know you are playing or getting played.

Well, it’s no accident or oversight that you have never shown an example of either.

We do have an Uno deck around the house, though, so we could use that for the ‘games’ category.
: )