Moderator is Unfair

if you were replying to my post d'ster then you should know this:
This message is hidden because D'ster is on your ignore list.

i already told you that you weren't going to wind me up with all of your racial hatred. the sooner james bans you the better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah he should have banned him for sure at least D'ster is clever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's what I've been saying. But at least you aren't above self-deprication, I'll give you that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am responsible. If you ask, I shall answer.

James R denied the responsibility. When I answered, on a previous occasion, he deleted the post. He deliberately denies the right to reply.

--- Ron.

 

I am not in the business of banning, nor of "leave me alone".

If you want to endorse his policy, that is fine by be, but from what I had aleady seen, from previous threads about the moderation and the conduct of those involved the impression was rather that James R condemns himself. It is not so unlikely that the whole thing degenerates further until, come next year, it all packs up for want of anything more positive to attend to.

Banning may be a mind affecting concern for people with not much of a life apart from this, but I doubt that the offenders involved are so seriously attached.

--- Ron.

 

You can still reply. Set up your own internet site. Write a book. Shout it out on the streets.

 

I have set up internet sites before, for different issues on previous occasions, the greatest problem with which is to reach the intended target. there as here.
In the instance I refer to it would miss the target, to aim elsewhere.
It is all about targets and how to shoot.
How does all this look to a casual visitor to the forum?
There is a very limited appeal to the endless variations of the same old theme:

"if you don't agree wuth me then you must be stupid".

--- Ron.

 

or, someone could stop being such a fucking crybaby every 4 days.

 

You could get rid of the report button, to stop them complaining.

That is a possibility. Give mommy a rest.

--- Ron.

 

ha ha...

and Bush could write a book.

"Bill wrote a book at Yale. I read one." --George W. Bush, on William F. Buckley, Al Smith Dinner, New York City, Oct. 19, 2000

 

you are sooo self important.

why do you bother to grace us with your presence, if you are so much higher than the rest of us?

 

i am not endorsing anything or anybody, i simply called you on your statement that you have no need to condemn james. in practically every one of your posts in this thread you have taken snipes at james, it seems to me that you have a real need to condemn him.

 

To the extent that he would interfere with a legitimate interest of mine, perhaps there is a need, but that is beside the point, just another extension of the ad hominem, yet another needless attempt to educate me.

My interests are not the issue here. I am not so important. It is about the moderation of the forum.

--- Ron.

 

If I am not so important, then please, by all means attend to something else. Mind your own business.

--- Ron.

 

by all means, continue whining like a child whenever someone says something you dont like!

have you donated? i thought not.

then stop complaining.

 

If comments like that were of some use or value to people then perhaps they would donate.

If in the mean time they are not so inclined, let that then speak for itself.

Children take support for granted. Adults earn their keep.

--- Ron.

 

Are you still complaining that James wouldn't let you stalk your cybergirlfriend?

 

That is not what happened.

James' objection was the discussion of private affairs inappropriate to the forum, an objection that would and should have stood just as much against you, yourself, Mr nexus, a point that others apart from myself had already put. I do not complain of such a rule so long as it operates evenly.

On the subject of fairness I would possibly complain that a dishonest complaint was made against me about a person's name and that I was not allowed to respond, further to the issue, not that I'd expect it to count for much.

There are more serious matters to worry about, nor do I wish to be tempted to discuss it in the absence of the other party to put their side of the case. That would definitely not be fair.

--- Ron.

 

you dont contribute, so shush your head, little guy.

"not so inclined"...you mean you want to USE the bandwidth on this site for your personal dramas, without contributing?
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!! the moderaaaaators are doing their job! waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!

dont tell me about this. i moved to a different continent with 11 dollars in my pocket, and made a nice little life for myself. just because you are too cheap to chip in, dont insult the forum itself. its not a person. it cant hear you.

 

You do not know who contributes and who does not, do you?

Nor is it polite or fair to ask. If not for the anonymity of contributions the threads would be awash with allegations of bias because of it.

If you'd rather that scientifc opinion be subject to the the force of the financial market, fair enough, go run a forum to that effect, but I doubt that many here would wish for it.

It was not my choice to play the game of personal drama. Never once did I start a thread to target an individual. That was the chosen style of somebody else already, long before my time here, and with many others at it. All I did was to raise the stakes enough to show them what a heap of shit it was, and in that regard I stand with James R, not against him.

--- Ron.