Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already

[sirkickyass]

I find it "annoyin" to have to look at five posts in a row by posters I don't wanna read.

I have asked you repeatedly to identify a single instance of another poster responding with a string of five or six posts in a row. You have thus far declined to do so.

My position is that this behavior is essentially unique to you, particularly as it applies to responding to a single post multiple times or not responding to any post at all (I've given you links to examples where this is the case that you have conveniently ignored.) So this argument is a non-starter.

 

[Hopper]

I many of his multiple posts in a row could be alleviated if he would just edit (and show that it's an edit) the last post to include new thoughts, unless he is replying to multiple posts.

That is precisely the recommendation he was given via PM.

It was!? Like, who knew, eh? Now I'm really confused......

 

[Hopper]

I have asked you repeatedly to identify a single instance of another poster responding with a string of five or six posts in a row.

No, you haven't asked me "repeatedly" and you know there is no need to bother. I done tole ya...I don't run around droppin no dimes.

My position is that this behavior is essentially unique to you, particularly as it applies to responding to a single post multiple times or not responding to any post at all (I've given you links to examples where this is the case that you have conveniently ignored.) So this argument is a non-starter.

You're just repeatin yourself, Kicky, so I guess I'll briefly repeat my original responses, too.


1. Even though I refused to bring such posters to your attention, I did point out a poster's voluntary confession to doin it.

2. Nothing following the word "particularly" in your post has anything to do with the infraction I was given. Please just admit that, rather than continuing to distort the factual situation at hand, OK?

3. I wasn't talkin about a "single poster" to begin with. That doesn't matter to me. Only one thing matters to me, MY annoyance. Therefore there is only one question to ask: Am *I* annoyed (or inconvenienced). If so, then I figure any person who contributed to my annoyance or inconvenience is "trollin" and should be punished. It aint that hard, OK? Simple request, simple to understand, easy to implement.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, you haven't asked me "repeatedly" and you know there is no need to bother. I don't tole ya...I don't run around droppin no dimes.

In any event, you would be unable to.

1. Even though I refused to bring such posters to your attention, I did point out a poster's voluntary confession to doin it.

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times. You have had no response to this. You have been given multiple examples of where you do this. Your comparison of your own posting behavior to that of others is inapropo.

2. Nothing following the word "particularly" in your post has anything to do with the infraction I was given. Please just admit that, rather than continuing to distort the factual situation at hand, OK?

Actually, in your string of five in this thread you replied to the same post twice and another user twice. It is you who has conveniently forgotten this. Go back and look if you don't believe me.

3. I wasn't talkin about a "single poster" to begin with. That doesn't matter to me. Only one thing matters to me, MY annoyance. Therefore there is only one question to ask: Am *I* annoyed (or inconvenienced). If so, then I figure any person who contributed to my annoyance or inconvenience is "trollin" and should be punished. It aint that hard, OK? Simple request, simple to understand, easy to implement.

Feel free to submit your list. Since no one else posts in this manner, I'm sure it won't be a problem.

 

[Hopper]

Actually, in your string of five in this thread you replied to the same post twice and another user twice. It is you who has conveniently forgotten this. Go back and look if you don't believe me

I don't see it at all. To the extent I responded to the "same poster" twice it was (with the exception below) a poster who had made more than one post--I didn't even read the second one until later.

The exception: After initially overlooking a joke you made in your post, I re-read it and saw the humor. To acknowledge that, I made a special effort to let you know your humor was understood and appreciated by me, so I said (to you), after reposting your joke: "By the way, THAT was funny!"

It was this very post which, it seems earned me an infraction (unless 4 is enough, that you won't say--or unless 3 replies to 3 posts is too much--again, you won't say. Maybe replying to 2 out of six posts already made is enough--again, I don't know).

That's I git for tryin to show my appreciation, I guess, eh, Kicky? I somehow shoulda known better, sho nuff.

 

[sirkickyass]

Ok. Now we agree. Your most recent infraction was for:

a) five posts in a row
b) that responded to three different posters
c) and two of your posts responded to the same post.

Was that so hard? I can assure you that, in light of your previous warning PM, had this been done as three posts, one responding to each poster, that I wouldn't have voted for an infraction. Frankly I doubt anyone else would have either.

 

[Hopper]

Ok. Now we agree. Your most recent infraction was for:

a) five posts in a row
b) that responded to three different posters
c) and two of your posts responded to the same post.

Was that so hard? I can assure you that, in light of your previous warning PM, had this been done as three posts, one responding to each poster, that I wouldn't have voted for an infraction. Frankly I doubt anyone else would have either.

To accurately reflect, rather than distort, the facts your "b" should read: b) "that responded to three different posters who had made 6 different posts."

What if I had left out the one acknowledging your joke? That would eliminate this "hangin crime," wouldn't it: "two of your posts responded to the same post."

And it would reduce my "offense" to responding to only 4 pre-existing posts, instead of 5. Then what?

 

[sirkickyass]

Given that you had just received a warning PM, I don't know how that vote would have gone down. Context matters. Given that you've now been fighting it for days, the context is once again different.

Certainly, I'm not going to engage in a million different test cases you could dream up and will defer to the "actual case or controversy" standard. My job isn't to give you advisory opinions at your request. At this point you have received far more feedback as to your warning/infraction than everyone else who has been given one in this iteration of the board combined.

I'm going to end my contribution to this dicussion here (as I grew bored of it long ago) and simply put it this way: Feel free to post how you want to post. We will feel free to moderate how we want to moderate. We can all deal with the consequences of that as they come.

 

[Hopper]

You know, that sounds like an essential admission that he's seeking to troll other users into giving him negative rep to me....If seeking to have the worst reputation on the board isn't trolling for negative reactions, then what is?

I'll say this, and then leave it be. You can find out a lot more about who a person "really" is if he thinks you are stupid, powerless, and unpopular than you can if he thinks you're smart, powerful, and popular.

 

[bigb]

I have no problem with 2 or even 3 posts in a row, if they are written within just a couple of minutes, responding to 3 different posts. Hopper, your problem is that you will post 5 or 6 in a row, over the span of an hour (or longer), responding to one post and yourself. That is the base of the issue, at least as far as I am concerned.

As far as having a poster on ignore and that creating bias, I fail to see the correlation. Just because I don't want to read Hopper's lame "diz here bidnizz" type of posting doesn't mean I'm automatically biased against him. Maybe it's just me though. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

 

[Hopper]

Hopper, your problem is that you will post 5 or 6 in a row, over the span of an hour (or longer), responding to one post and yourself. That is the base of the issue, at least as far as I am concerned.

Well, Catratcho, if that's the issue, as far as you're concerned, then I would at least ask if you even know what the infraction issued was based on. If not, Kicky and I just discussed it in recent posts in this thread. The actual "transcript" begins on page 3 (on my screen anyway) of this same thread. Somehow I just don't think that very many people who came across that particular sequence of posts and counter-posts would see "trollin."

For your convenience, here's my prior summary of the situation (you can of course decide for yourself it it's accurate):

"I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you (Kicky) stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

 

[One Brow]

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times.

I don't respond to the same post multiple times, certainly. If you really think my longest string is 3 even in this new incarnation of the boards, you're just wrong.

Of course, from my recollection, you said you investigated a some 25 or so of my most recent posts.

Not to mention, the whole notion that this reduces the readability of the boards when you have the poster on ignore is laughable. Bypassing text you can't see is the easiest thing in the world. The only explanation I can conceive for it not being simple is an inner conviction that the text is something you know can and should be refuted, so you don't really want to bypass it.

moevillini's explanation of "not on ignore, but skipping" is a little more plausible, but even then, it does not take much simply to follow the avatars on the left-hand side.

 

[moevillini]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

 

[Hopper]

Ya know, Eric, I'm not singling out, or even grouping in, Mo, Kicky, or anyone else in particular, when I say that I suspect that the average person would feel fully justified in making all of his personal habits mandatory and all of his personal dislikes illegal if he he were given the power to do so.

If this particular "average guy" hates homosexuality, then homosexuality would be illegal. If he goes to church every Sunday, then church attendance on Sunday would be mandatory for all. The things he legislated for and against, and then enforced, assuming he was given dictatorial powers, would by NO means be confined to "important" matters, either. If he didn't like yellow cars, he would make yellow cars illegal, etc. And if some particular thing "annoyed" him, like, say, tattoos, then LOOK OUT! We're probably talkin about fairly heavy jail time. Same thing with anything that "inconvenienced" him. If he didn't like traffic on his way to work, he would make it illegal for anyone other than himself and those to whom he gave his personal prior consent to drive on the streets and highways.

It doesn't take long for most absolute dictators to start legislating thought and opinion, too. It becomes illegal to promote, or even think, certain ideas that are "subversive," i.e., which do not conform to the dictator's demands for "proper thought." Soon, mere "attendance" at church is not sufficient, one must publicly declare a faith in God and affirm the infallibility of the church. History shows this over and over, and human nature, it aint changed none. Just look at the dicators of the 20th century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

All of this assumes, of course, that he has unchecked and unlimited power. Things would be different if he were somehow accountable to the "people's will." As the old sayin goes: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The point in NOT to compare Jazzfan mods to Hitler or Stalin, in any possible way. The point is simply that, once empowered, it is suddenly easier and more attractive to protect your own "rights" while ignoring the legitimate rights of others, if they inconvenience you. The focus is on ME, and what I want, certainly not you, or what you might want. You don't count as much as me, because, like, some pigs is just more equal than others, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Hopper]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

Mo! When you and me gunna git together for that there little "group hug," eh!?

 

[bigb]

Well, Catratcho, if that's the issue, as far as you're concerned, then I would at least ask if you even know what the infraction issued was based on. If not, Kicky and I just discussed it in recent posts in this thread. The actual "transcript" begins on page 3 (on my screen anyway) of this same thread. Somehow I just don't think that very many people who came across that particular sequence of posts and counter-posts would see "trollin."

For your convenience, here's my prior summary of the situation (you can of course decide for yourself it it's accurate):

"I started a thread in the “general discussion” forum yesterday and a response or two was made there. I was gone from the thread for a couple of hours (from 9:10 to 11:04). In the meantime you had moved the thread from the "general discussion" forum to this, the "general nba" forum for reasons entirely beyond my comprehension. While I was gone, 6 new posts were made: One by you, two by Onebrow, and 3 by Vinny. When I returned, I responded to these new posts, in the order I encountered them, over a 16 minute period. Then you (Kicky) stepped in and said: "I'll note that he's once again decided to go the "five posts in a row" route in this very thread."

Yeah, I kinda understand that you are choosing to not "get" it. Great. Good for you. At this point in time, I'm operating on the belief that you are simply not letting it die just to be annoying or to get back at the mods. I strongly feel that you do in fact understand what is being said. When you're not pulling your gangsta homeboy shtick, you come across as very intelligent. I find it hard to believe you don't understand what's been explained. Given that, I'm done in here.

 

[Hopper]

I'm operating on the belief that you are simply not letting it die just to be annoying or to get back at the mods. I strongly feel that you do in fact understand what is being said... I'm done in here.

I never claimed I "didn't understand what is being said," Catratcho. Yeah, I can read. Never was my claim, or my point. But, certainly, one should always "operate on his belief" system.

If one guy tells me that 5 +5 = 20, I understand what he is claiming.

If another guy tells me that 5 + 5 = 15, I also understand what he is claiming.

Without either of them sayin another word, I also know that, while they could both be wrong, both can NOT be right.

Matter of fact, a week or two back, a homey of mine made just that claim, i.e., that 5 + 5 = 20. It just didn't sound quite right to me, so I asked him how he figured that out. His explanation didn't make much sense, and I tried to tell him that, but, turns out, I never told him anything. He told me plenty, though. I don't know how many times he told me that I "just wasn't listening," and that I was just "too stupid" to understand him.

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't respond to the same post multiple times, certainly. If you really think my longest string is 3 even in this new incarnation of the boards, you're just wrong.

Of course, from my recollection, you said you investigated a some 25 or so of my most recent posts.

I have just completed reviewing all 147 posts you have made in this incarnation of the board. I found one instance last month where you made four posts in a row. You responded to the same poster all four times because that poster wrote several separate posts replying to no one in particular.

I'll give you one guess who that one poster was.

If you believe my calculation is in error, please point me to the instance that I've missed.

 

[moevillini]

yup, still here, the ol' nag aint quite dead yet...

Mo! When you and me gunna git together for that there little "group hug," eh!?

 

[Hopper]

I told you before, I investigated this and it was a false confession. One Brow has no consecutive strings of posts longer than three and none replying to the same post multiple times. You have had no response to this.

Well, I guess ya don't need my response no more, eh, Kicky?

I have just completed reviewing all 147 posts you have made in this incarnation of the board. I found one instance last month where you made four posts in a row.

I never got schooled so good, or nuthin, but I think 4 is "longer than three," aint it?

Either way, the "selective enforcement" aspect is just a side issue (by "side issue," I don't mean "totally irrelevant," but...). What is the "need" for, or "usefulness of" such a rule in the first place, if you give all relevant aspects due weight?

Back in ancient times, certain civilizations had a rather interesting "legislation" procedure. Anyone could propose a new law, if they felt it was that important. Once proposed, the enactment of the law would later be decided by majority vote. There was one unique aspect, though. Anyone who proposed a new law that was NOT subsequently enacted would have a 20-lb iron ball chained to each of his legs for the rest of his life.

This was deemed to be due and deserved "punishment" for proposing to restrict the freedom of others without sufficient cause or justification.