rigorousintuition.ca

Oh! Bruce, please don't think we don't love you!

Better than snark would be an acknowledgment from you that a warning first should have been in order before suspension. In other threads Nordic had gone off on Hugh far worse than he did in this instance and sometimes received a warning but other times he did not.

Not hating on you at all, just sharing my thoughts with the hope of being helpful.

Bruce, I don't envy your position, I think you've been fair and tolerant on the beat, and I hope to be buying you a real-world beer soon. (And see you at Occupy.)

Iamwhomiam wrote:Oh! Bruce, please don't think we don't love you!

Better than snark would be an acknowledgment from you that a warning first should have been in order before suspension. In other threads Nordic had gone off on Hugh far worse than he did in this instance and sometimes received a warning but other times he did not.

Not hating on you at all, just sharing my thoughts with the hope of being helpful.

Nordic is awesome, and he knows that that's the way I feel. I can't imagine this place without him.

Having said that, though, there is a bit of history behind this one, and you should consider the possibility that some moderation took place behind the scenes that you weren't privy to. I mean, I often look stylish in black, but I'm NOT a fascist!

And thanks, Riddler. A beer sounds good right about now. Perhaps a Hefe with a wedge of lemon.

---

Cheers to the moderators, they're necessary and I'd hate to have to make some of the tough decisions they make. Sometimes the course corrections are coarse corrections, but one has to act to get the ship to respond before it's too late. If they had suspended me in that thread, I wouldn't have been too upset, except with myself.

Welcome back, Nordic.

And I hope Alice and Compared2what will return.

It's sad about Hugh, a sharp cookie tragically crumbled.

I hold nothing against Bruce for his suspension of me.

Bruce is one of my favorite people here.

Can the thumb screws come out now?

Kidding.

I can't really complain how things played out. We are now actually free to talk in a fruitful and serious fashion about media manipulation, propaganda, and whatnot.

And I had some time to spend away from here, which was actually a good thing.

The board seems to be in a bit of a lull right now. Hopefully it will soon liven up a bit.

Having stepped away for a while, then checking it out again today more fully than I have in the past week or two, I am reminded of what a thick skin one needs to even visit here. The truth about what's going on in the world is so upsetting. The photos of the disabled veterans, and the pictures from how Afghanistan used to be, especially the one of those gardens that are now just eradicated, hit me fairly hard. It's like "oh yeah, gotta toughen up to visit this place". But how tough do we really get? Or do we just store the emotion away somewhere, like in our joints and stuff? I just had a physical therapy experience last week that reminded me of that. It was intense.

Then again, do we want to just avoid the hard truths?

I guess that's all off topic here. I'm sure we've discussed it before anyway.

Jeff wrote:The mods and I have come to the decision that Hugh's current suspension become a permanent ban.

It doesn't give me any pleasure to announce this, but there finally comes a point.

Jeff, after seven years and 9,866 contributions to the board, all the ones I've read being interesting and informative and some amounting to mini-research essays, isn't there some accommodation the mods can come to besides a DU-style bum's rush? Hugh has persistently developed his ideas here, adding theoretical material and examples as he's discovered them, and most would have to admit that he's onto something real, even if it isn't the key to all mysteries. I think Marie Laveau summed up the feelings of many here:

Marie Laveau wrote:Anyway, Hugh, I've always enjoyed your posts, as I've said before. I don't necessarily agree, but how many people here have had an "a ha" moment from one, or maybe a couple, of Hugh's posts, even if they think he's out there?

Given that Hugh has been ceaselessly tormented by detractors who, despite his occasional pleas, have only rarely been reprimanded (big ups to Bruce), and given that even barracuda admitted peartreed's Hollywood thread was "blatant Manatee-bait" here, can I politely request that Hugh's ban be re-assessed, and that some less Draconian measure be devised to satisfy the invisible army of PMers who are apparently so distressed? I honestly don't think his style is the problem it's made out to be, and I don't think anyone would argue that his ideas don't perfectly complement more intuitive kinds of speculation, so why ruin a good thing?

Thanks, Bruce. No I did not consider this: "Having said that, though, there is a bit of history behind this one, and you should consider the possibility that some moderation took place behind the scenes that you weren't privy to."

I believe in most previous suspensions that I can recall, unless an especially egregious behavior has been exhibited, a publicly posted warning always came first and that is what prompted my remarks.

No harm. Nordic's good with it so it really matters little now. In the future I would hope to see warnings from our mods before suspensions are effected, that's all!

I will miss Hugh, but understand Jeff's difficult position.

...

Eyeno ain't no troll.

We all make mistakes in the things we post.

I guess he could cross the line a little every now and again.

I've noticed many do.

Saurian Tail is one of the wisest posters here.

Also Slomo.

Slomo ain't gone, is he?

I love Slomo.

Not everyone has the time to read and post extensively.

The zionists thing; I just wonder why no one ever mentions British Israelism.

Only the clever vanlose kid ever brought it up, I think.

Never mind. I stay out of that one.

Don't ban eyeno.

Don't ban Hugh. The main problem is the amount of energy folk put into actually trying to refute some of that stuff.

I hate bans.

I love you all.

Especially those that I especially love.

I just wish I had more time to read.

...

Jeff and the moderation team (present and past) have demonstrated a pattern of almost heroic forbearance with Hugh.

In return for their ongoing patience, Hugh often repaid them with innuendo and sometimes even outright contempt.

I'll not miss him.

brainpanhandler wrote:I've been trying to get suspended for years.

Your wubba is too strong.

I'll miss Hugh circa 2006-2007. He put up with a lot of shit back then. Perhaps it jaded him. However, he was far more personable back then and I greatly enjoyed reading and thinking about what he had to say. I'll never look at media, Hollywood and most importantly Disney the same again.

lupercal wrote:

Jeff wrote:The mods and I have come to the decision that Hugh's current suspension become a permanent ban.

It doesn't give me any pleasure to announce this, but there finally comes a point.

Jeff, after seven years and 9,866 contributions to the board, all the ones I've read being interesting and informative and some amounting to mini-research essays, isn't there some accommodation the mods can come to besides a DU-style bum's rush? Hugh has persistently developed his ideas here, adding theoretical material and examples as he's discovered them, and most would have to admit that he's onto something real, even if it isn't the key to all mysteries. I think Marie Laveau summed up the feelings of many here:

Marie Laveau wrote:Anyway, Hugh, I've always enjoyed your posts, as I've said before. I don't necessarily agree, but how many people here have had an "a ha" moment from one, or maybe a couple, of Hugh's posts, even if they think he's out there?

Given that Hugh has been ceaselessly tormented by detractors who, despite his occasional pleas, have only rarely been reprimanded (big ups to Bruce), and given that even barracuda admitted peartreed's Hollywood thread was "blatant Manatee-bait" here, can I politely request that Hugh's ban be re-assessed, and that some less Draconian measure be devised to satisfy the invisible army of PMers who are apparently so distressed? I honestly don't think his style is the problem it's made out to be, and I don't think anyone would argue that his ideas don't perfectly complement more intuitive kinds of speculation, so why ruin a good thing?

Well said, Marie Laveau and lupercal.

thanks MinM, Jeff I know this is perplexing but I hope some simple solution can be arrived at that would allow Hugh to continue posting here as his analysis is perfectly suited to RI and adds something unique and valuable to the forum that can be gotten nowhere else, thanks!

Chew tobacco, rookie.