Anderson has been banned.

[TQM]

It's always possible it's over something I don't know anything about. Perhaps the offending thread has been deleted.

But on the face of it, and in light of the volume of posts from cinelli, for instance, banning Anderson is itself remarkably offensive.

Please understand, I consider Anderson to be a pathetic snivelling worm, not unlike every other one of you.

So apologies in advance if there's something I've missed, but it sure looks like the offending moderator in this case is an imbecile.

Season's Greetings,

TQM

 

[danmand]

Surprising, if it is true. Anderson has been adopting a much more civil
tone lately.

 

[TQM]

It seems, on the face of it,

Anderson was debating the terms 'hooker', 'prostitute', and 'pimp'. It's in a thread in the lounge. While I won't defend his attempts at definitions (not that he is so far off either), I can't fathom that it should induce a banning.

He was, in this thread, arguing against violence against women......

 

[WoodPeckr]

Just took some time the read that thread.
Didn't see why Anderson should have been banned?.....
For the most part I am against all censoring and bans.
Let them show themselves for what they are 'warts & all'.....
They define themselves far better by being allowed to post, as they dig their own holes deeper and deeper.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

But on the face of it, and in light of the volume of posts from cinelli, for instance, banning Anderson is itself remarkably offensive.

Agreed.

Please understand, I consider Anderson to be a pathetic snivelling worm, not unlike every other one of you.

Awwww, shucks. Your charm is boundless.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

For the most part am against all censoring and bans.
Let them show themselves for what they are 'warts & all'.....
They define themselves far better by being allowed to post, as they dig their own holes deeper and deeper.

I second this thought.

 

[S.C. Joe]

I am against baning members too but sometimes its needed. I would hope theres a warning given out before just baning a member. Sometimes somebody just might be having a bad day.

Problem with baning people is its taking a voice away, ban too much then theres no point in having this forum since everybody thinks the same.

 

[Asterix]

If, as Steph had mentioned, he had sent a threatening pm to her and possibly other SPs, I can think of no faster way to get your butt booted out the door.



Questor, can't you take a joke?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

If, as Steph had mentioned, he had sent a threatening pm to her and possibly other SPs, I can think of no faster way to get your butt booted out the door.

I wasn't following the thread. If that's what happened I trust the ban will be permanent.

I must say it's a strange action from someone who was arguing against violence against women.

 

[Asterix]

Wouldn't be the first member who decided to self-destruct.

 

[BallzDeep]

Who cares about him, buh bye. I'm sure the mods had reason, I thought he was an idiot.

 

[danmand]

Who cares about him, buh bye. I'm sure the mods had reason, I thought he was an idiot.

If all idiots and morons were banned, this forum would be a lonely place.

 

[BallzDeep]

If all idiots and morons were banned, this forum would be a lonely place.

I thought he had a superiority complex and a condesending tone, both of which weren't needed.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I thought he had a superiority complex and a condesending tone, both of which weren't needed.

No, we need that here. How else can we learn about art?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

If all idiots and morons were banned, this forum would be a lonely place.

It might be a great bonding experience for you and TQM.

 

[jwmorrice]

Ah the memories!

I'm sure if Anderson were here now, he'd say something like...

"Where do I start with you, pumpkin? You all have ''envy'' for me, not dislike.

I am also not a ''dickwad'' but a very sucessful man who has spent his years perfecting what I have done. While you sit here reading and posting about hookers, I work.

I hold myself in very high regard. What place serves the best french fries? This is subjective and no right or wrong. Capitalism is wonderful. Do you have any idea what capitalism is ?

Go live in North Korea for a year and come back and spout your BS after you might understand something about this country."













P.S. Not exact quotes. Edited for humour's sake!

 

[Asterix]

I have a feeling he never really left, and is actually still here with us. In spirit I mean, of course.

 

[DATYdude]

Hmmm I have had my problems with Anderson in the past but lately we have been PMing about SPs and I ended up thinking he was OK although often a hothead.

Whatever, keep him, ban him, we'll all survive.

 

[TQM]

Sheik,

1. "Apologies in advance" means just that.

2. Banning without explanation is foolish at the best of times. Conclusions will be reached based on the evidence. I won't apologize for thinking it was based on the thread in question. He was actually warned in that thread to watch what he was saying in it. It was a natural assumption, and highlights why banning without explanation is foolish.

Ownership has the right to do so. Doesn't make it wise.

3. I fully believe that if Anderson did as you claimed, he should, ultimately, be banned. Threatening others shouldn't be tolerated. But I'd urge you and others to have a transparent policy and transparent procedures. I'd only add that as threatening others shouldn't be tolerated, the promotion of hatred is also a threatening act and should be treated similarly.

4. Anderson emailed me and told me he was banned - and he believed it was for the thread. I examined the thread, saw that someone had warned him, and then saw that he was in fact banned. I thought the warning foolish.

5. So Sheik, I am sorry again. And I don't have any trouble in saying it. But I wasn't wrong in what I did. I took a principled stand, and allowed for the possibility of unknown circumstances. I've had my share of disagreements with Anderson. This wasn't about sticking up for a "friend." Feel free to check my pm's to confirm this.

And frankly, I'd do it again, for anyone here under the same circumstances - and that includes you. As you're undoubtedly aware, there are some who shared my opinions here - so it's not like I was coming to unusual conclusions. They were based on all the evidence available.

 

[TQM]

additional thought:

Sheik, you are dead wrong that this discussion should be private, not public. Anything as serious as a banning should be handled with the utmost transparency.

The harm is when you hide things. It should be clear to you people were thinking exactly as I was, even if they left it unsaid. What's the benefit in allowing for such a misperception?

Without this clarification from you, the record of banning Anderson, but not cinelli looked pretty flawed. Again, feel free to check my pm's to confirm that others felt privately what I was willing to say publicly.