rigorousintuition.ca

well, goodbye, Canadian_watcher.
I have asked why you were banned and as you can see from reading the thread there is no real reason forthcoming. People are sure "it must have been bad." I guess only the mods know the secret list, the level of 'bad' that can't be crossed, and they have the power to silence. They won't spell it out and no one seems to have caught the obviously egregious infraction but ask about it too pointedly and you might get suspected of insulting the moderation team!

And now, as they jump at the sound of the "T" word (and didn't you implicate YOURSELF in the same post as you did brekin, anyway??); they tie your name to the phrase "holocaust revisionism;" and they imply that you were manipulating and flattering the people whom you befriended on here all without allowing you the room to speak in your own defense, I hope you'll see that this place isn't worth it.

there's so much more to life and good people to meet, laugh with, play with and build with. let these fools stay and tear each others hair out for all eternity. A real life "No Exit."

Except that you did, you exited. And I will as well.

stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:48 pm wrote:well, goodbye, Canadian_watcher.
I have asked why you were banned and as you can see from reading the thread there is no real reason forthcoming. People are sure "it must have been bad." I guess only the mods know the secret list, the level of 'bad' that can't be crossed, and they have the power to silence. They won't spell it out and no one seems to have caught the obviously egregious infraction but ask about it too pointedly and you might get suspected of insulting the moderation team!

She was banned (for the 7th and final time) for refusing to change her behavior, which, to take the Icke thread as an example, was offensive as hell. Personal attacks left and right, accusing people of trying to smear her as an anti-semite (which didn't happen any other place than in her head), and just a generally petty and vindictive style. She had six (count'em - SIX) chances to "get a grip", and she just kept barreling on, all the while trying to make it look like she was the victim (of imagined slights).

It's all here on the forum (minus the infamous 'T' post), so it's not particularly hard to figure out, but it is of course easier to just throw out some random accusations and try to make the moderators behavior look suspect.

I thought this was the thread for saying a respectful goodbye. the other thread is where you get to trash her in spite of her not being able to defend herself.

stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:29 pm wrote:I thought this was the thread for saying a respectful goodbye. the other thread is where you get to trash her in spite of her not being able to defend herself.

Stevie ray, C_W isnt here now, but you are. And as i tried to say in my long post in the other thread, you might find the world a more interesting place with R.I. in it... I myself came back here after a year away following another painful thread and I'm glad I did.

This series of events is very unfortunate, sadly avoidable, and I don't envy the moderators' predicament in these situations. But if I become unable to moderate my own impulse to pound every bent nail into oblivion, to the point of massively disrupting the board with relentless tit-for-tat, please let me know. Then, if I don't cut it out, don't hesitate to ban the fuck out of me.

I just hope, actually I think it's likely, that c_W will come to understand why the moderators made this decision, then maybe after awhile she'll ask to come back, and I'd welcome her.

stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:29 pm wrote:I thought this was the thread for saying a respectful goodbye. the other thread is where you get to trash her in spite of her not being able to defend herself.

Bah. I never shied from confronting her bolognatiousness when she was posting - why would I change that now? Because she can't return fire?

And no, toasts aren't required to be respectful. I usually find the best ones to be bawdy, insulting, or deliciously inappropriate.

stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:29 pm wrote:I thought this was the thread for saying a respectful goodbye. the other thread is where you get to trash her in spite of her not being able to defend herself.

Not trashing anyone, just pointing out your baseless accusations.

stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:48 pm wrote:well, goodbye, Canadian_watcher.
I have asked why you were banned and as you can see from reading the thread there is no real reason forthcoming. People are sure "it must have been bad." I guess only the mods know the secret list, the level of 'bad' that can't be crossed, and they have the power to silence. They won't spell it out and no one seems to have caught the obviously egregious infraction but ask about it too pointedly and you might get suspected of insulting the moderation team!

Oh ffs. Are you really that lazy?

Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:51 am wrote:
As for your inquiry into the legitimacy of CW's previous suspensions, that's not really a question so much as your insinuation that we did a horrible job moderating. If you'd like more information, it's all here. There are no internal records for you to FOIA. If you want to conduct your own independent investigation, you can start anytime. Pro Tip: use google in addition to the phpBB search, you'll locate the key threads faster by running parallel queries.

Back on topic...toasting

Cheers to you Canadian_watcher

the members are still deciding as of now if you'd like to have a say.

Canadian_watcher's ban decision Poll

I don't know what time limit they've put on this nor whether or not it will even stand, however it seemed a shame to have it buried yet still active.

rollingstone » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:57 am wrote:the members are still deciding as of now if you'd like to have a say.

Canadian_watcher's ban decision Poll

I don't know what time limit they've put on this nor whether or not it will even stand, however it seemed a shame to have it buried yet still active.

Let's see, joined the forum day before yesterday, first post on the board and you're already workin' hard for Canadian_watcher. My guess is you're just a nice person humping for justice.

I joined because of the poll good sir, but I have only this account. If that's not kosher then I'm missing something?

You were so compelled by the sorrowful plight of our former forum member to join up, vote and stump for her, that sometime after 4:00 pm on Saturday the 20th of July, when the idea of a poll was first broached by Wombaticus, you immediately registered as a member in anticipation. Your account was activated that night, I presume - the admin is finally on top of these things - and the next day you forthwith voted in the poll and now are soliciting the participation of your fellows. If this is marginally correct, them my original assessment stands as fair, that you are concerned about the welfare of the board and square deals for the membership. We need more of your lot, to be sure, and welcome.

[BARRACUDA lifts his glass to drink, imperceptibly tipping the upraised cup in the general direction of suburban Toronto.]

Tell me comrade, is it your thought that the lady was served well in this case or no?

rollingstone » 22 Jul 2013 14:14 wrote:I joined because of the poll good sir, but I have only this account. If that's not kosher then I'm missing something?

and it's just a coincidence that the ip appears to probably geo-locate to an unnamed certain city in Canada.



and no doubt the incoherent complaint lodged a few days ago with our hosting provider was no doubt, also swamp gas.

barracuda, I have been reading here for a long time and yes, feel strongly about this. I figured I'd be called on my joining at this time, but I asked myself if that really mattered and decided it didn't.

justdrew, I can't even understand what you're talking about but have no way to defend myself either way.

The two of you are making a brilliant case for the reason I chose to finally create an account. Accusations against which someone can't defend themselves are dirty tricks.