Friday, August 14, 2009

Riot Act, reading of|by SueN

When we moved to the new site in March, all the people who had previously been banned were allowed back in. It was a fresh start for everybody. Unfortunately, some people, whether out of misplaced ideology, because they are paid, because it amuses them, or because they have been swept up into a gang war mentality, in practice continue to disrupt the forum far more than they contribute to it. And no, I do not consider expressing alternative views about the issues disruptive. Attacking fellow members is disruptive. Deliberately derailing threads is disruptive. And no, I do not mean normal thread drift, which is natural, particularly in a forum that welcomes ADDers!

Since I am the administrator, it comes down to my judgement, and I have decided that the time has come to weed out some of the worst ones again. The ones I ban will all have had plenty of warnings, either on this board or a previous one, and will have been continuing to disrupt.

As for everyone else, thanks very much for sticking with us, and please take this opportunity to focus on the very important issues that we have facing us, or to relax in the lounge. Please ignore any disrupters who are left.
Actually Sue, you have a moderator that is disruptive to threads. You have a moderator that goes around with out any proof calling others ideological names including I was specifically called out as being a brown shirt. When he said he never called me a Chicago School of Economics ideologue, I showed him that he specifically did call me that.

If you want to run your kingdom like that, that is fine. I did nothing more than what your own administrator have done continually on a daily basis. And he was the one that went around with "If the shoe fits wear it."

I just have one question for you. When I used the alert button after being told to use it for years, why was it that you came down on me and told me to correct myself when your Libtarded friends were allowed all the leeway including your "Editor" of Monkville?

If you wanted a growing community, then just thank Thom for his ineptitude on managing the boards. Including changing software so many times and then picking stupid ideological constrained individuals that are more than happy to parade around as idiots. The height of Thom's followers was when I noticed he had 10,000 members. A thread I started and devolved into complete character assassinations. Now how many does Thom have?

Thom, Sue. Just get one thing straight. NO ONE, I MEAN NO ONE IS PAID TO BE THERE!!!
That truly was a sad day when Thom started accusing board members of that. Also the day that Mrs. Hartmann started talking about members penis size, but that is for another day.

NP with me, Thom. It only shows that the left is just as intolerant as what they portray the right as being-which is still in question.

Good luck, Sue, Thom and Monk with no brain.

Ron Rutherford
PS: I will be back!!!
PSS: What happened
It is based solely on marginal utility functions and when Thomland no longer provides the same or more utility than the next possible function then I will move along or change. Not sooner or later.
What utility does it provide?
I have answered this many times before. Basically it goes back to the posts about how I "win" every discussion because I learn more in the process. Recently, I was looking at some development theories including what Warren Huntsinger had presented on Jane Jacobs.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home