PDA

View Full Version : Should we ask the mods to ban memyselfI?


Pages : [1] 2

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 03:44 PM
AKA Denise for those who haven't made the relation.

There has been much debate over this in these threads:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=121938

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=121709

To try and keep the poll impartial I won't rehash those threads or my feelings here. However in the interrest of keeping things above board and honest here are some rules ladies and gentlemen:

1. This poll is open.
2. Do not vote more than once under different names.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 03:46 PM
I don't believe in banning anyone.

MOhillbilly
08-19-2005, 03:47 PM
i voted yes,but then id vote for much more severe things aswell.

tk13
08-19-2005, 03:48 PM
Doing a poll like this and making it public is not a good idea. Doesn't do anything but start trouble.

Donger
08-19-2005, 03:48 PM
No. I enjoy her posts immensely, almost as much as chiefs4me's.

KC Dan
08-19-2005, 03:48 PM
No, she's like an obnoxious kid. Ignore it and it will slowly disappear.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 03:49 PM
Doing a poll like this and making it public is not a good idea. Doesn't do anything but start trouble.
Yes, but it will help keep people from voting under fake names. For the first time I can remember I want someone banned but I want to see it done without fraud and abuse.

Logical
08-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Only people who have no debating skill want DEnise banned. She has many good thoughts and is tough to argue with because she is very strong willed. I admire her courage and she does not do what Thomas used to with the seagull posting. She defends her positions and is a challenge to reach. Some say she never admits she is wrong, but that is not true I have seen her do it. Granted it is infrequent and she is more slippery than a greased pig. This place would be a lesser place without her just like it would if we lost Iowanian or KCTitus.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Yes, but it will help keep people from voting under fake names. For the first time I can remember I want someone banned but I want to see it done without fraud and abuse.Wanting others banned seems weak to me.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 03:51 PM
Only people who have no debating skill want DEnise banned. She has many good thoughts and is tough to argue with because she is very strong willed. I admire her courage and she does not do what Thomas used to with the seagull posting. She defends her positions and is a challenge to reach. Some say she never admits she is wrong, but that is not true I have seen her do it. Granted it is infrequent and she is more slippery than a greased pig. This place would be a lesser place without her just like it would if we lost Iowanian or KCTitus.I rarely see anyone admit that they're wrong on the internet.

tk13
08-19-2005, 03:52 PM
Yes, but it will help keep people from voting under fake names. For the first time I can remember I want someone banned but I want to see it done without fraud and abuse.
The only way you're going to know if any of the names are fake is if a mod finds out... which they can look up and find out anyway without you making it public, if I'm not mistaken....

dirk digler
08-19-2005, 03:53 PM
Is this going to a simple majority vote or how does that work?

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 03:53 PM
Wanting others banned seems weak to me.
I've voted more than once to keep her. First, some quality posters are pointing at her as the reason they're not posting in the DC forum any more. Second, other people (such as Henry) have been banned recently for far lesser offenses than she's been committing and for far less time than she has been committing them.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 03:53 PM
Well this thread came later than usual this summer...

you guys had me worried. :p :)

KChiefsQT
08-19-2005, 03:53 PM
NOOOO... then I wouldn't get to look at a dog pissing on a Bush Cheney sign every day!!!!

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 03:54 PM
I've voted more than once to keep her. First, some quality posters are pointing at her as the reason they're not posting in the DC forum any more. Second, other people (such as Henry) have been banned recently for far lesser offenses than she's been committing and for far less time than she has been committing them.

Elaborate please. I'd be curious to see what, other than a perceived unpopular opinion, would be the 'bannable' offense I've allegedly done.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 03:55 PM
Well this thread came later than usual this summer...

you guys had me worried. :p :)
Don't worry, Rove was just backed up and didn't have time to tell us to do it until now.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 03:55 PM
I've voted more than once to keep her. First, some quality posters are pointing at her as the reason they're not posting in the DC forum any more. Second, other people (such as Henry) have been banned recently for far lesser offenses than she's been committing and for far less time than she has been committing them.I don't feel sorry for the people that don't post in here anymore. That's still weak.

My views are in the minority here and I don't mind posting nor do I let other peoples opinions affect my desire to post.

It sounds like a bunch of whiney BS to me.

dirk digler
08-19-2005, 03:56 PM
The only way you're going to know if any of the names are fake is if a mod finds out... which they can look up and find out anyway without you making it public, if I'm not mistaken....

I suggested it to be an open poll it keep clean and fair as best as we can.

I was curious if you could only allow people who have X number of posts to vote it keep out people using new accounts.

FTR I haven't decided yet. Denise doesn't bother me in the least but if she is running away good people than that is a problem IMO.

MOhillbilly
08-19-2005, 03:56 PM
if you vote NO you hate America.

ok i giggled while i wrote that.

Kclee
08-19-2005, 03:57 PM
I rarely see anyone admit that they're wrong on the internet.

What? Where do you get that from? You're wrong!




Well, on second thought, I do see where you're coming from. I changed my mind, you are correct sir.

jiveturkey
08-19-2005, 03:58 PM
What? Where do you get that from? You're wrong!




Well, on second thought, I do see where you're coming from. I changed my mind, you are correct sir.No you were right the first time, I am wrong. :clap:

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 03:59 PM
Don't worry, Rove was just backed up and didn't have time to tell us to do it until now.

Obviously NOT, how many threads are about me or have turned to discussion about me???

I mean, some of you are taking this whole deflect away from Iraq thing way too far. :p :)

tk13
08-19-2005, 04:01 PM
I also think it's a poor idea to put this in a subforum. Banning a member of the community in a public vote should not be done in a subforum. I don't care if that is where they have the majority of their posts. I'd hate to see someone banned because someone manipulated the system and put a banning poll in a forum where the entire community might not see it. Plus, personally IMO, in the main forum there's more people with the common sense to realize that the only thing she's done wrong is take unpopular political positions. I don't even agree with many of them, but she has her right to them.

Chieficus
08-19-2005, 04:02 PM
I'll say the same thing I said about the "electric/tom cash" banning thread on the main board...

If someone irritates you that much, ignore them. Unless they have actually done something "bannable" then leave 'em be...

siberian khatru
08-19-2005, 04:03 PM
Can we unban Henry?

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 04:04 PM
I'll say the same thing I said about the "electric/tom cash" banning thread on the main board...

If someone irritates you that much, ignore them. Unless they have actually done something "bannable" then leave 'em be...
Then we need to ask the mods to unban some people. As I understand it we have some people banned simply because they only posted in DC. If that's not correct I'd like to know about it.

Chieficus
08-19-2005, 04:05 PM
Then we need to ask the mods to unban some people. As I understand it we have some people banned simply because they only posted in DC. If that's not correct I'd like to know about it.

I don't know what their policy is on that... but she does post in the regular forum...rarely...

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 04:06 PM
I also think it's a poor idea to put this in a subforum. Banning a member of the community in a public vote should not be done in a subforum.
This was discussed by more than a couple of people. If the mods think it's poor form they can move it to The Lounge, I don't have a problem with it either way.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 04:11 PM
....other people (such as Henry) have been banned recently for far lesser offenses than she's been committing and for far less time than she has been committing them.

What happened there? :shrug:

Iowanian
08-19-2005, 04:13 PM
I don't want her banned..but I wish the Rutt would bannish herself to DU or fugtardsannoymous.com

that or maybe setting herself on fire in a public fountain...in protest of...whatever she's protesting that day.

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:14 PM
Obviously NOT, how many threads are about me or have turned to discussion about me???

I mean, some of you are taking this whole deflect away from Iraq thing way too far. :p :)

To put it simply, you've become (or perhaps always have been) a chiefs4me-like character with a few more IQ points.

the Talking Can
08-19-2005, 04:15 PM
I'll say the same thing I said about the "electric/tom cash" banning thread on the main board...

If someone irritates you that much, ignore them. Unless they have actually done something "bannable" then leave 'em be...

bingo

KChiefsQT
08-19-2005, 04:15 PM
To put it simply, you've become (or perhaps always have been) a chiefs4me-like character with a few more IQ points.

hahahahahahhahahahahahaha, sorry but that was funny. :)

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:17 PM
hahahahahahhahahahahahaha, sorry but that was funny. :)

No apologies needed. Sometimes accuracy is unintentionally humorous, I suppose.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:20 PM
To put it simply, you've become (or perhaps always have been) a chiefs4me-like character with a few more IQ points.

Dude, you need to brush up on your history. I've not 'become' a character like that. I created the mold. :p

Besides, someone of your deep wit and intelligence would not waste their time on just any ignorant pion...would they. ;)

Bowser
08-19-2005, 04:23 PM
What happened there? :shrug:

Basically got into a pissing match with Phobia, and lost.

Bushlied and all his dipshit incarnations deserved to be banned. Henry overloaded his mouth with his ass, and got banned.

As for D'nise, just put her on ignore. I don't understand why that is so hard. I will admit, I'm just a casual observer in DC, so I might not be talking with all the facts. But it seems to me she gets all kinds of folks pissed off, and won't back down. Are her views REALLY worthy of being labeled terroristmeme (serious question, don't give me that "She's a libbie hippy commie" crap.)?

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:24 PM
Dude, you need to brush up on your history. I've not 'become' a character like that. I created the mold. :p

And you apparently need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

Besides, someone of your deep wit and intelligence would not waste their time on just any ignorant pion...would they. ;)

Of course I would.

Bowser
08-19-2005, 04:26 PM
I voted no. If there were a "Put her on ignore" option, I would have gone there.

Boyceofsummer
08-19-2005, 04:31 PM
Telling it like it is? The majorities posting on this site are responsible for two terms of American Political failure. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but this is the reality. You don't have to frequent this Internet site for proof. Take a drive in your car and take look on almost every street corner. Gas prices are outa site. No lines at the pump. Then spin down to the nearest military installation. It will be pretty quiet as most of the personnel are stationed in the Middle East. Then gander at the news paper listings of mortgage and personal bank fore closures. After that, open your mail and revel in all of the latest inflationary prices of essential services. I'll give the President credit. At least he spent most of his spare time riding his mountain bike while on five weeks vacation. To hell with your partisan, warmongering, and incendiary poll!


Bush Pedaled while Cindy's Spurned: On the Ranch with Pres. "Bike Guy"
by Magorn
Tue Aug 16th, 2005 at 15:35:52 PDT
The Story of Cindy's vigil is one of contrasts. The longer she waits, worse the outrageous antics of the other side looks in comparison with her quiet dignity

This Morning's outrage came with an extra-large side of Irony. You simply can't make up something like a man plowing his pick-up through a field of crosses and American flags to show his Patriotism and support for our good Christian president. (and anyone want to bet on whether the truck that demolished a War memorial had a "support our Troops" ribbon on it?)

Truck boy though is a red herring. For sheer stupidity, effrontery and callousness, nothing can match what W did on Sunday. The man too busy with fundraisin', and world-runnin', and all sorts of important president stuff to meet with Cindy, Held a bike ride- complete with commemorative socks

However, on his bike and away from his handlers President Pee-Wee let his guard down and let his true character come out, and its not pretty. Lets put on a full-body condom and dive into that psyche shall we?


Magorn's diary :: ::
The money quote of the afternoon, W's Depak Choopra-esque soliloquy on balance in his life has been covered extensively already. But there was so much more revealed during this little jaunt.

Let's start at the beginning of the ride when W, laid down the Rules, to the reporters (and yes, he was serious in that way that people who later claim to be "only kidding" always are:)



Standing on the driveway outside his home, President Bush explains the rules for people who go mountain biking with him.

It will be a vigorous workout. It is not a race. And no one, the president says with a smile, is allowed to pass him.



Is our Commander-in- Chief really that much of a competitive asshole frat boy? Don't those rules remind you of the insecure jackass boss who will fire you if you beat them at a game but constantly gloat if you let them win?

How pathetically insecure is our president that he seeks validation by beating people who are forced to be nice to him? He's the freaking most powerful Man in the world {well after Karl and Dick} and he still needs people he can belittle to stroke his ego?!!

And make no mistake; the president was trying very hard to show off during the ride.

Let's hear USA Today's Sal Rubial'stake on the ride:



Over the course of a two-hour Tour de Crawford, Bush humbled every rider in Peloton One with a strong and steady pace over scorching hot paved roads, muddy creek crossings, energy-sapping tall grass and steep climbs on loose and crumbling rock....I started out riding next to him at the beginning of the ride, but when we left the dirt trails and hit the rolling asphalt the pace accelerated to more than 20 mph, which is pretty good for road bikes but absolutely blazing for heavier, knobby-tired mountain bikes. And did I mention that the only factor mitigating the mid-80s temperatures was a very strong headwind?


and this is where things get really Freudian:



(Bill Adair again)

"I like speed," he says. He has gotten to 32 mph on a hill at Camp David, lightning-fast when you're riding knobby tires on a paved road.

"It brings out the child in you," he says. "I think it's okay for a 59-year-old guy to still seek that youth, chase that fountain of youth. And I hope to be mountain biking for a long time."



Lovely. Our president is an adrenaline junky with a Peter Pan complex. Good thing he doesn't have access to nuclear weapons or anything. Going down hill at 35 mph on a bike is also called "recklessly hurtling down a hill out of control" . Which, come to think of it, is kinda an apt metaphor for America recently, wonder if there's a connection?.

And Sportswriter Sal Rubial's assessment of W's biking style is an equally apt analysis of his for his foreign policy:



The president does prefer the speed zones to the technically difficult traverses


Invasions, blowing shit up, destroying 3rd rate armies weakened by a decade of sanctions? Love that. Sticking around, rebuilding the nation, ensuring a stable peaceful society in the interim? Not so much.

Well Lets give credit where credit due. Bush is actually a very good bike rider:



Keeping up with Bush -- was as difficult as any race I've entered.


And this is significant because Sal is not USA Today's WH guy, (no, of course not, why oh why would you send a real journalist to private event with the president? the rest of the crew included "seven journalists, a woman from the State Department and her husband - a D.C. bike messenger Bush calls "Mailman" - and two Secret Service agents.)

Ya see, according to his bio:



Sal Ruibal is a 51-year-old sportswriter for USA TODAY who has covered the Tour de France six times and ridden most of the Tour's mountain passes. He is an experienced mountain bike racer who finished fifth in the Masters category at the 2002 World Championships of 24-Hour Solo Mountain Biking.


So no slouch on the pedals himself, he had to work to keep up with W, who was having an "alpha male" moment.

Of course, its not an entirely fair competition since unlike the sportswriter, who presumably has a day job, the president certainly has had plenty of time to train:



( From the St. Petersburg Times again)
He tries to work out six days a week, if not on the mountain bike, then on a bike Lance Armstrong gave him that hooks to a stationary trainer. Bush takes it on long flights aboard Air Force One.


And W himself described how he snatches tiny fragments of relaxation from his intense Presidential schedule:



(Sal again)
"I love the outdoors," he says, straddling his $3,000 Trek Fuel mountain bike. "If I'm not exercising here, I'll be fishing over there. If I'm not fishing, I'll be working with the chainsaw. { for those of you playing the home game "being President" and "comforting a grieving Mother were a very close 6th and 7th on his last, but were discarded for lack of time}

I really enjoy being outside, and mountain biking is a way for me to spend a fair amount of time -- four or five days a week -- outdoors.

{ NB he's not talking about while he's on vacation, he talking about what passes for his regular schedule}



Now, see, that's the advantage of taking a nice low stress job with no important decisions to make like being the PRESIDENT OF THE FREAKING UNITED STATES!, you have plenty of time to exercise.

But of course W Makes no apologies for his badly skewed priorities (shocker):



He has taken heat for his devotion to his bike. Twice, in the middle of the day, he was exercising when a crisis erupted: in 2001, a man wielding a gun was shot outside the White House, and in May, a plane strayed into restricted airspace above Washington. As the White House and Capitol were evacuated, Bush was riding his bike, as a Washington Post columnist put it, "blissfully unaware."

{ yeah I may have mentioned something about that too}

Bush is well aware of the perception and makes no apology.

"I think you can do your job better if you're fit. People think more clearly if you're fit."



Oh, I get it! your utterly narcissistic fitness obsession is Job Related you need to work out so you can be a better president! { when's that expected to kick in anyway?}

Which is a lovely theory, except: Bill Clinton was, how can I put this gently?, -a Big 'Ol Tub of Goo by comparison, and he, well, kicked your scrawny ass in every metric of Presidential performance imaginable!

Hmm. Wonder if he got an edge by spending all that extra time reading PDB's Instead of showing off a skill mastered in grade school to middle aged reporters? Just thinking out loud here.....

and then W's musings turn downright delusional:



Even surrounded by security, biking gives him solitude, he says. It's "a chance for me to feel like I'm outside the bubble."


Georgie, "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." > Swallow hard and get this: W thinks that riding his bike on a private ranch in the Middle of Freaking Nowhere Texas, surrounded by armed security guards is getting outside the Bubble!. W has officially retreated so far into the bubble he doesn't even recognize it anymore.

No Mr. President, "getting outside the bubble" means going to Camp Casey, or giving a speech in front of an audience that hadn't been pre-screened for their sycophancy. It does NOT mean playing around on a private retreat when you are Supposed to be governing!!!

and I promised you Socks and indeed there were Socks:



The president pulled out a cardboard box and passed out Peloton One bike socks to the participants, then posed with each rider for the official White House photographer.



Hmm Peloton....Sounds awfully French to me...Does Bill O'Reilly know about this?

But I saved the best for last. possibly the most revealing moment of the day, was when W gave himself a nickname:



In keeping with his pet name habit, he referred to himself as "Bike Guy." It is clearly an identification that has great meaning for him.


"Bike Guy". Hmm. That's just....spiffing. We are being led by a man who calls HIMSELF "Bike Guy". Its only too bad being "President Guy" or "Statesman Guy" or even "world Leader Guy" doesn't have the same meaning to him.

Logical
08-19-2005, 04:31 PM
Can we unban Henry?Was Henry banned?

Phobia
08-19-2005, 04:34 PM
Basically got into a pissing match with Phobia, and lost.


That 2 post exchange was a "pissing match"? Heh.

Henry had been here before. He's Jaz's little buddy. He doesn't know shit about football, which makes him peers with about half the board....

D.C. is here as a service to our community. It's not here to attract members. It's to keep the volitile discussions out of sight. We're not recruiting political commentary. There are plenty of sites like that on the internet.

KC Dan
08-19-2005, 04:34 PM
Telling it like it is?
You're one of those spammers, aren't you?

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:34 PM
And you apparently need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.



Of course I would.

So would I. :p

Bowser
08-19-2005, 04:37 PM
That 2 post exchange was a "pissing match"? Heh.


Yeah, that wasn't much pissing, eh? :)


How's that song go? If you wanna step up, step up..........

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:38 PM
So would I. :p

Some people view you in that way, I'm sure.

I disagree with you for the most part, but I don't deny that you have a decent mind. Your penchant for attention, however, is revolting.

alanm
08-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Nah... We're only subjected to her rantings here. She has a family who's subjected to her every day. :p ROFL

Braincase
08-19-2005, 04:45 PM
I can't say that I would support the banning of a conservative on a liberal board. I can't do the reverse here either. Banning somebody because you don't believe in their political perspective seems like a weak thing to do. I'd rather have the strength to hit the ignore button.

Mr. Laz
08-19-2005, 04:47 PM
Banning somebody because you don't believe in their political perspective seems like a weak thing to do. I'd rather have the strength to hit the ignore button.
nice

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:48 PM
Some people view you in that way, I'm sure.

I disagree with you for the most part, but I don't deny that you have a decent mind. Your penchant for attention, however, is revolting.

Give me a break, in no way did I start two different threads or turn one (or more others) into discussion about or of me. That was done by people who supposedly are 'tired' of me. :hmmm: :shake: ROFL

Me, I tend to ignore, successfully I must add, those who I do not want to annoy me. They are on ignore and for the most part I'm oblivious to their existance. It's quite empowering vs. the path some of these folks have chosen to take and then :deevee: .

mlyonsd
08-19-2005, 04:51 PM
How could I vote to kick her off the island when I'm one of the few she calls by first name?

:) I'm special.

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:51 PM
I can't say that I would support the banning of a conservative on a liberal board. I can't do the reverse here either. Banning somebody because you don't believe in their political perspective seems like a weak thing to do. I'd rather have the strength to hit the ignore button.

Interesting. Speaking for myself, I like this forum (and the main forum when political discussions were still allowed) for the very reason that it is neither right or left leaning in its creation. I used to post on a number of right leaning sites, and it simply got boring. It was just a big virtual circle jerk, with no opposite viewpoints. That's why I stopped listening to Rush over ten years ago.

The same cannot be said here. However, the sh*t stiring thread titles are unnecessary in my opinion. Why not just post the original headline and allow the thread to develop 'naturally?'

stevieray
08-19-2005, 04:52 PM
this is b b boring, let's spice it up....if denise get's banned I'll go too...

Then noone could say we didn't have something in common...it coudl be win/win situation for both sides.

:hmmm:

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:53 PM
Give me a break, in no way did I start two different threads or turn one (or more others) into discussion about or of me. That was done by people who supposedly are 'tired' of me. :hmmm: :shake: ROFL

Me, I tend to ignore, successfully I must add, those who I do not want to annoy me. They are on ignore and for the most part I'm oblivious to their existance. It's quite empowering vs. the path some of these folks have chosen to take and then :deevee: .

I was referring to your bomb throwing, and unnecessary, thread titles.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:55 PM
How could I vote to kick her off the island when I'm one of the few she calls by first name?

:) I'm special.

You and Jim. It's a love/hate thing. :p

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:56 PM
I was referring to your bomb throwing, and unnecessary, thread titles.

You must mean OOOPs. What can I say. It's my gig now. If it bothers you that much I will stop. I don't want one of my favorite adversaries to be upset.

Mr. Laz
08-19-2005, 04:57 PM
How could I vote to kick her off the island when I'm one of the few she calls by first name?

:) I'm special.
you ARE special

Donger
08-19-2005, 04:58 PM
You must mean OOOPs. What can I say. It's my gig now. If it bothers you that much I will stop. I don't want one of my favorite adversaries to be upset.

You can do whatever you want.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 04:58 PM
you ARE special

I was thinking more like

http://filebox.vt.edu/j/janeel/stuart_for_senate.jpg :p

J/k Mark. I think Kotter/Sybil already has this designation.

mlyonsd
08-19-2005, 05:03 PM
I was thinking more like

http://filebox.vt.edu/j/janeel/stuart_for_senate.jpg :p

J/k Mark. I think Kotter/Sybil already has this designation.

I'll kill whomever found and first posted my high school photo.

You're messing with the wrong guy here.

Logical
08-19-2005, 05:51 PM
You and Jim. It's a love/hate thing. :pWho you kidding, we know you just have trouble remembering peoples names.:p

ChiefsGirl
08-19-2005, 06:10 PM
this is b b boring, let's spice it up....if denise get's banned I'll go too...

Then noone could say we didn't have something in common...it coudl be win/win situation for both sides.

:hmmm:

Is there a way for me to change my vote?

stevieray
08-19-2005, 06:28 PM
Is there a way for me to change my vote?

:clap: you've got your work cut out for you...good luck!

Electric
08-19-2005, 07:54 PM
I seriously considered using iggy, but it won't let you do yourself.

Look, at least I tried!!!

chiefs4me
08-19-2005, 08:00 PM
Well this thread came later than usual this summer...

you guys had me worried. :p :)



Don't worry girlfriend....I got your back.ROFL




I can't believe some of you...do you not know what the freaking ignore button is for? :shake:

chiefs4me
08-19-2005, 08:02 PM
To put it simply, you've become (or perhaps always have been) a chiefs4me-like character with a few more IQ points.



bite me asshole....:harumph:

Donger
08-19-2005, 08:03 PM
bite me asshole....:harumph:

Bite you? Are you suggesting that what I wrote is inaccurate? If so, how?

chiefs4me
08-19-2005, 08:09 PM
Bite you? Are you suggesting that what I wrote is inaccurate? If so, how?


you made a comment, I made a reply, the end.

Donger
08-19-2005, 08:33 PM
you made a comment, I made a reply, the end.

I made a statement of fact, which your 'reply' proves by the way.

luv
08-19-2005, 09:21 PM
I also think it's a poor idea to put this in a subforum. Banning a member of the community in a public vote should not be done in a subforum. I don't care if that is where they have the majority of their posts. I'd hate to see someone banned because someone manipulated the system and put a banning poll in a forum where the entire community might not see it. Plus, personally IMO, in the main forum there's more people with the common sense to realize that the only thing she's done wrong is take unpopular political positions. I don't even agree with many of them, but she has her right to them.
I agree with this completely. I used to read references about her made in posts in the main forum and had no clue who she even was. At first, I thought it was something you maybe called chiefs4me to get under her skin or something. I just started posting/reading some of the things in DC a few weeks ago. I can say that I disagree with a lot of what she says too, but,if you really don't like her that much, I do believe there is an ignore option available. I have no clue if the mods can do this or not, but, if they could, they could decide to ban her after they see that so many people have her on ignore. But I don't know how all of that works.

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 09:24 PM
Only people who have no debating skill want DEnise banned.


I beg to differ....

Saulbadguy
08-19-2005, 09:29 PM
Why do people get so upset about things posted on this forum?

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 09:42 PM
Elaborate please. I'd be curious to see what, other than a perceived unpopular opinion, would be the 'bannable' offense I've allegedly done.


Gladly. It's called trolling. Sure, you may not fit the definition of the typical troll, but you are one none the less. You post contriversial things to stir shit just because you love the attention. That doesn't mean that you do not believe what you post (sadly, I believe you do), but the manner in which you post it usually is in a manner which riles people up. And you get off on it. Then after posting said inflamatory subject, you squiggle, spin, distort, forget, and distract from what you said when called on it.

Even in the rare instances when you post on the main forum you are usually tring to stir shit. Nachgate for instance, or ooohhh, one of my personal favorites, the Paul Hamm thread. That was a dandy. A supposed sports related topic with a political twist to it, and then you bitch and moan when it is moved to this forum. You knew that would happen, you posted it in the Lounge intentionally. You can deny all you want, but all of the old timers know you too well to believe you.

Furthermore, I do not believe in banning people soley on their political beliefs. However, you go to such an extreme that it is an embarrassment to the board. There are plenty of examples I could cite, but the most distasteful of those is the Todd Beamer thread. That was so bad that people who never supported banning you in the past changed their minds. It was disgusting. To try and find a moral victory for the terrorists is dispicable enough, but to try and do so at the expense of heroes is down right sickening. I wish that thread still existed so I could post a link here to those who never saw it. Completyely shamefull.

You bring nothing of value to the board, only angst and turmoil. The previous two Chiefs' boards that you have been associated with have gone by the way side. Coincidence? Perhaps, if you believe in them - I don't personally. Your posting is all about you, and that would not necessarily be such a bad thing, if you could it in a more positive fashion, like Endelt or Phil. But it is always in a negative manner, and that is neither good, nor healthy - for you or the board.


That's it in a nutshell.

luv
08-19-2005, 09:43 PM
Why do people get so upset about things posted on this forum?
lol...

From my experience, once you get people arguing about politics or religion, tempers always get flared. I think some people just may tend to take things a bit too personally, IMO.

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 09:50 PM
I also think it's a poor idea to put this in a subforum. Banning a member of the community in a public vote should not be done in a subforum. I don't care if that is where they have the majority of their posts. I'd hate to see someone banned because someone manipulated the system and put a banning poll in a forum where the entire community might not see it. Plus, personally IMO, in the main forum there's more people with the common sense to realize that the only thing she's done wrong is take unpopular political positions. I don't even agree with many of them, but she has her right to them.


Abso****inglutely not! Most everyone agrees that she is a nuisance at best, and a cancer at worst. Yet the majority seem unwilling to properly take care of the situation. They were so spineless on the matter that they pushed to have this subforum so that she would become more or less invisible in their Planet. Yet those of us who do enjoy the discussions that take place here are still stuck with her.

The main board wanted to sweep her under the rug. They have in essence washed their hands of the situation. I see no reason why they should be allowed to have any say in her future. If they frequent this side of the board than more power to them. If not, they have no dog in this fight and will only manipulate the vote.

I have stated that I want a clean and fair vote, to me, this is one of the best ways to ensure it is fair. Leave it to those who deal with her.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 09:52 PM
* * *
You bring nothing of value to the board. . .
* * * i don't think that's true...

hell, without meme, who would people get all worked up about?

taco?

jaz?

you guys would be lost if you didn't have meme to kick around...

she's your favorite poster to hate, you need her...

and, imo, she brings lots of things to the board...

spirited discussion, interesting points of view, and, most of all, someone to abuse and disparage without risking disapproval for what in any other context would be considered mean-spirited behavior...

you guys would be bored silly without duhneese to complain about...

stevieray
08-19-2005, 09:54 PM
i don't think that's true...

hell, without meme, who would people get all worked up about?

taco?

jaz?

you guys would be lost if you didn't have meme to kick around...

she's your favorite poster to hate, you need her...

and, imo, she brings lots of things to the board...

spirited discussion, interesting points of view, and, most of all, someone to abuse and disparage without risking disapproval for what in any other context would be considered mean-spirited behavior...

you guys would be bored silly without duhneese to complain about...

I disagree, after time, it would be like losing any other psoter.

Saulbadguy
08-19-2005, 09:55 PM
Heh. The only "ban this user!" threads i've seen so far have been Tom Cash, Chiefs4me, and Denise. The funny thing about Denise is, she thinks its funny, and enjoys it. The other 2 get bent out of shape about it.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 09:56 PM
Abso****inglutely not! Most everyone agrees that she is a nuisance at best, and a cancer at worst. Yet the majority seem unwilling to properly take care of the situation. They were so spineless on the matter that they pushed to have this subforum so that she would become more or less invisible in their Planet. Yet those of us who do enjoy the discussions that take place here are still stuck with her.

The main board wanted to sweep her under the rug. They have in essence washed their hands of the situation. I see no reason why they should be allowed to have any say in her future. If they frequent this side of the board than more power to them. If not, they have no dog in this fight and will only manipulate the vote.

I have stated that I want a clean and fair vote, to me, this is one of the best ways to ensure it is fair. Leave it to those who deal with her.well, i don't agree with the notion that running the ban her poll in the sub-froum is "fair", but...

even if you think it is appropriate for those who "deal" with her over here to decide her "fate", it would appear that there are only 8 of you who want her banned...

the polls in the main forum have always produced far more ban her votes than that...

Mr. Laz
08-19-2005, 09:56 PM
that they pushed to have this subforum so that she would become more or less invisible in their Planet.

The main board wanted to sweep her under the rug. .

what makes you think that it was her that cause the subforum?


i think of several more irritating political posters :fire:

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 09:57 PM
i don't think that's true...

hell, without meme, who would people get all worked up about?

taco?

jaz?

you guys would be lost if you didn't have meme to kick around...

she's your favorite poster to hate, you need her...

and, imo, she brings lots of things to the board...

spirited discussion, interesting points of view, and, most of all, someone to abuse and disparage without risking disapproval for what in any other context would be considered mean-spirited behavior...

you guys would be bored silly without duhneese to complain about...



I whole-heartedly disagree. Not just that we need her for those reasons, but that those are good reasons to have.

luv
08-19-2005, 09:58 PM
Heh. The only "ban this user!" threads i've seen so far have been Tom Cash, Chiefs4me, and Denise. The funny thing about Denise is, she thinks its funny, and enjoys it. The other 2 get bent out of shape about it.
Maybe she thinks it's funny because, after having asked about it time and time again, nothing has been done to her. She doesn't believe you will do it. My supervisor at work tends to do the same thing. She hounds people like crazy about certain things, and they smile that "yeah, right" smile behind her back knowing she's all bark about that particular thing.

Saulbadguy
08-19-2005, 09:58 PM
what makes you think that it was her that cause the subforum?


i think of several more irritating political posters :fire:
I can think of several posters that frequent only this board, and contribute virtually nothing to the main board. Oh well, I suppose I like it that way, having them stay here. I don't mind this board too much, sometimes it can be a good source of information, but lately its been the same ole shit.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 09:58 PM
Heh. The only "ban this user!" threads i've seen so far have been Tom Cash, Chiefs4me, and Denise. The funny thing about Denise is, she thinks its funny, and enjoys it. The other 2 get bent out of shape about it.hey, aren't you one of those pinko liberals?

you're not supposed to have an opinion, and if you do, you're not supposed to say it out loud...

do you wanna get banned too? :p :p :p

go bowe
08-19-2005, 10:02 PM
I whole-heartedly disagree. Not just that we need her for those reasons, but that those are good reasons to have.ain't america great? :D :D :D

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:02 PM
well, i don't agree with the notion that running the ban her poll in the sub-froum is "fair", but...

even if you think it is appropriate for those who "deal" with her over here to decide her "fate", it would appear that there are only 8 of you who want her banned...

the polls in the main forum have always produced far more ban her votes than that...

Nine of us, I haven't gotten around to voting yet, i've been to busy replying.

And naturally the main forum is going to bring about more votes, it has more participants. But they have not been exposed to some of the shit she has posted since the division, it has gotten worse as time has passed. And the Todd Beamer thread was the pinnacle of that. As previously stated, it changed more than one person's opinion on banning her.

The people who do not visit this forum are naturally going to vote to keep her, because they do not have to deal with her, so what do they care. That makes it an unfair vote to those who do post here.

Saulbadguy
08-19-2005, 10:04 PM
The people who do not visit this forum are naturally going to vote to keep her, because they do not have to deal with her, so what do they care. That makes it an unfair vote to those who do post here.
It's fairly simple to filter out those who don't come here often. I think even if you take out those who do not participate in this forum, the YES vote still wins.

luv
08-19-2005, 10:04 PM
I whole-heartedly disagree. Not just that we need her for those reasons, but that those are good reasons to have.
I disagree also, if people were not spending time discussing her, they could move on and post other stuff. I still don't see ban, but ignore rather. But I don't know her well enough to say one way or the other. Then again, even if you ignore someone, you can read what they say whenever others quote them. And you can still tell when others are getting tired.

I have no vote. I am undecided. I will stay out of it from now on and just continue reading opinions. I have a feeling I would think differently if I had read that thread that rh was talking about earlier, but I didn't.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 10:08 PM
Nine of us, I haven't gotten around to voting yet, i've been to busy replying.

And naturally the main forum is going to bring about more votes, it has more participants. But they have not been exposed to some of the shit she has posted since the division, it has gotten worse as time has passed. And the Todd Beamer thread was the pinnacle of that. As previously stated, it changed more than one person's opinion on banning her.

The people who do not visit this forum are naturally going to vote to keep her, because they do not have to deal with her, so what do they care. That makes it an unfair vote to those who do post here.ok then, it still looks like 25 people who obviously must lurk here at the least, don't agree that she has done anything to warrant banning...

and 9 (including you) think otherwise...

like i said, ain't america great? :D :D :D

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:09 PM
It's fairly simple to filter out those who don't come here often. I think even if you take out those who do not participate in this forum, the YES vote still wins.


Really? Even in this forum the yes vote is not winning. But it is early and going into the weekend, still lots more people to vote yet.

But even more importantly, if you are going to filter those people out, why even bother giving them the opportunity to vote in the first place? That is illogical.

go bowe
08-19-2005, 10:11 PM
I disagree also, if people were not spending time discussing her, they could move on and post other stuff. I still don't see ban, but ignore rather. But I don't know her well enough to say one way or the other. Then again, even if you ignore someone, you can read what they say whenever others quote them. And you can still tell when others are getting tired.

I have no vote. I am undecided. I will stay out of it from now on and just continue reading opinions. I have a feeling I would think differently if I had read that thread that rh was talking about earlier, but I didn't.jaimie's right, that todd beamer thread was deplorable and disgusting, but then there are no rules (that i'm aware of anyway) that make deplorable and disgusting bannable offenses...

that was a revolting thread though...

very revolting...

Saulbadguy
08-19-2005, 10:14 PM
Really? Even in this forum the yes vote is not winning. But it is early and going into the weekend, still lots more people to vote yet.

But even more importantly, if you are going to filter those people out, why even bother giving them the opportunity to vote in the first place? That is illogical.
My mistake...I meant the NO vote would win.

Sure, its illogical, but how else are you going to block them from voting? Tell them "please do not vote?" Also, how can you determine who is a regular member of this sub-forum? I don't post here that often, maybe a few times a week, would I get a say in the matter?

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:16 PM
I disagree also, if people were not spending time discussing her, they could move on and post other stuff. I still don't see ban, but ignore rather. But I don't know her well enough to say one way or the other. Then again, even if you ignore someone, you can read what they say whenever others quote them. And you can still tell when others are getting tired.

I have no vote. I am undecided. I will stay out of it from now on and just continue reading opinions. I have a feeling I would think differently if I had read that thread that rh was talking about earlier, but I didn't.


That is one of the biggest problems. That, and visitors to the board are do not automatically have her on ignore. Much of the tripe she posts is embarrassing to the board. The thread I keep mentioning, I do not recall one of her political allies here coming to her aid and defending her in that thread. THAT is how bad it was. Even the lefty whackos like jAZ, Can, Helen, and others stayed away from that bombshell. "We" wanted the politics off of the main board because "we" found it embarrassing to visitors, (as well as annoying to some of the regulars), yet with the subforum you can still see thread titles on the main page. If embarrassment is truly a reason, than she needs to go. Because she embodies a good deal of it here.

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:18 PM
My mistake...I meant the NO vote would win.

Sure, its illogical, but how else are you going to block them from voting? Tell them "please do not vote?" Also, how can you determine who is a regular member of this sub-forum? I don't post here that often, maybe a few times a week, would I get a say in the matter?


If you wander into this forum just often enough to find this poll during the three days it's up, you get a vote. That's how I see it.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 10:23 PM
the polls in the main forum have always produced far more ban her votes than that...
I don't want to trump up the vote or otherwise try to sway it with BS tactics.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 10:25 PM
and, imo, she brings lots of things to the board...

spirited discussion, interesting points of view, and, most of all, someone to abuse and disparage without risking disapproval for what in any other context would be considered mean-spirited behavior...

We have chiefs4me to beat up on. :)

Duhnese provides nothing that an automated app couldn't. I could write an app that scrapes a random thread from the DU, posts the first 15 lines here, then tags on any random line with the word "Bush" in it. You'd never know the difference.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 10:27 PM
I disagree also, if people were not spending time discussing her, they could move on and post other stuff. I still don't see ban, but ignore rather. But I don't know her well enough to say one way or the other. Then again, even if you ignore someone, you can read what they say whenever others quote them. And you can still tell when others are getting tired.
My issue with her is that she's a thread killer and she's driving people away. The moment she injects herself into a thread it goes from reasoned discussion to pointless Bush-bashing. Then everyone is gone.

luv
08-19-2005, 10:30 PM
We have chiefs4me to beat up on. :)

Duhnese provides nothing that an automated app couldn't. I could write an app that scrapes a random thread from the DU, posts the first 15 lines here, then tags on any random line with the word "Bush" in it. You'd never know the difference.
Okay, so I said I was just going to sit back and read opinions without posting. Sue me for being female and not being able to keep my mouth shut... :p

At least c4m posts in football threads. Not that I post in many, due to ignorance basically, but I do try. This is after all, a football BB, right? Or just a place for Chiefs fans to come and talk about anything really. But it still is tied together with football. I can't recall seeing memyselfI posting on any football threads. Does she get roused about this like I do at times? Is she only here for the political forum? And if so, why come to this site? Why not go to a political site?

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:36 PM
My issue with her is that she's a thread killer and she's driving people away. The moment she injects herself into a thread it goes from reasoned discussion to pointless Bush-bashing. Then everyone is gone.


I will have to disagree with this. Threads typically grow when she is involved. However as you point out it is in an ugly fashion. If you want to consider that thread killing, fine. But from a post count POV, it just ain't so.

Simplex3
08-19-2005, 10:37 PM
Okay, so I said I was just going to sit back and read opinions without posting. Sue me for being female and not being able to keep my mouth shut... :p

At least c4m posts in football threads. Not that I post in many, due to ignorance basically, but I do try. This is after all, a football BB, right? Or just a place for Chiefs fans to come and talk about anything really. But it still is tied together with football. I can't recall seeing memyselfI posting on any football threads. Does she get roused about this like I do at times? Is she only here for the political forum? And if so, why come to this site? Why not go to a political site?
Oh, she posts on football threads. She's a certified stalker of Rich Gannon. raiderhader puts it correctly, she's a s**t stirring attention whore. I can't think of a single post, much less a thread, where she wasn't stirring up s**t. She never has a point, she'll float around on an argument as you nail her points into oblivion. Basically her only concern is stroking her ego at any and all costs.

It's pointless and exhausting. She posts SOOOO much BS that it's impossible to enjoy the DC forum even with her on ignore.

Raiderhader
08-19-2005, 10:41 PM
Okay, so I said I was just going to sit back and read opinions without posting. Sue me for being female and not being able to keep my mouth shut... :p

At least c4m posts in football threads. Not that I post in many, due to ignorance basically, but I do try. This is after all, a football BB, right? Or just a place for Chiefs fans to come and talk about anything really. But it still is tied together with football. I can't recall seeing memyselfI posting on any football threads. Does she get roused about this like I do at times?

Heh, you'll love this. She went from a Chiefs' fan to a Raiders' fan simply because of Rich Gannon. That's right, she is obsessed with Richie boy. It would seem her old man ain't satisfying her. Anyway, she does stroll into football discussions from time to time (the tactic she discovered that will keep the mods from considering her a troll), but it usually is pretty disgusting in its own right.

Is she only here for the political forum? And if so, why come to this site? Why not go to a political site?

If I knew the answer to that, I could find a way to lure her away from here.

Electric
08-19-2005, 10:42 PM
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Saulbadguy
Heh. The only "ban this user!" threads i've seen so far have been Tom Cash, Chiefs4me, and Denise. The funny thing about Denise is, she thinks its funny, and enjoys it. The other 2 get bent out of shape about it. <HR SIZE=1>

You read very strange things into responses. Just because I reply in ways to stir you up don't think I'm bent out of shape. I don't usually give a rip.

But...if you want to feel like you can spin me up, go right ahead and vent your spleen, it will make for some good reading - - - at lease for those than can read your drivel.

Electric
08-19-2005, 10:57 PM
I will have to disagree with this. Threads typically grow when she is involved. However as you point out it is in an ugly fashion. If you want to consider that thread killing, fine. But from a post count POV, it just ain't so.

The post count does grow, but she is usually 50% of the posts counted, give or take.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 11:00 PM
Eh, even though I voted to ban her....the silver lining is, the First Amendment survives....even in cyber space. :hmmm:

Damn, pussies. ;)

Electric
08-19-2005, 11:06 PM
As for the poll, I decline to vote. Just as I did when the vote was up for me.

It doesn't take a vote to be banned, at least it wasn't like that in the past. All you had to do is something that one of the mods thought was wrong. Simple, duhmeme hasn't done them, take this from someone that has been banned more times than anyone here.

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:05 AM
Oh, she posts on football threads. She's a certified stalker of Rich Gannon. raiderhader puts it correctly, she's a s**t stirring attention whore. I can't think of a single post, much less a thread, where she wasn't stirring up s**t. She never has a point, she'll float around on an argument as you nail her points into oblivion. Basically her only concern is stroking her ego at any and all costs.

It's pointless and exhausting. She posts SOOOO much BS that it's impossible to enjoy the DC forum even with her on ignore.


Sorry but this is just not true. Here are a couple of Chief football related posts in the Lounge and I don't see no shit stirring going on.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2622064&postcount=500

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2622053&postcount=495

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:13 AM
Why can't I find this so called Todd Beamer thread, I just finished searching every forum?

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 12:22 AM
Why can't I find this so called Todd Beamer thread, I just finished searching every forum?


It has regrettably been deleted, or moved to a forum we cannot access, but I am guessing deleted since we were trying to clear up the DB awhile back. Do a search on threads Denise has started and see how far it goes back. I aside from one in the archives, it went to some time in '03. That spells deletions to me. And the thread had been locked, so it was probably a prime target. But many can confirm that it did exist, and the disgusting contents it held.

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:26 AM
It has regrettably been deleted, or moved to a forum we cannot access, but I am guessing deleted since we were trying to clear up the DB awhile back. Do a search on threads Denise has started and see how far it goes back. I aside from one in the archives, it went to some time in '03. That spells deletions to me. And the thread had been locked, so it was probably a prime target. But many can confirm that it did exist, and the disgusting contents it held.Jamie, don't get defensive. I just wanted to read it. I know that there are almost 2.5 full years of threads missing.

luv
08-20-2005, 12:28 AM
Jamie, don't get defensive. I just wanted to read it. I know that there are almost 2.5 full years of threads missing.
Not to get in the middle, but when you say "so called", I thought you didn't believe him myself.

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:40 AM
Not to get in the middle, but when you say "so called", I thought you didn't believe him myself.

Nope, it was a bad choice of words. I assumed it was supposed to be in the thread header and when my search yielded nothing I was trying to find out what the thread was named. Heck I did a search on Beamer in posts and there are only 2 entries in the entire data base. One in a story posted by Michael Michigan and the other not by DEnise.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 12:49 AM
Jamie, don't get defensive. I just wanted to read it. I know that there are almost 2.5 full years of threads missing.


Sorry, not my intention to come across as defensive. Just trying to explain what I figure happened to it and sharing the info I had available to show why I thought that the out come.

|Zach|
08-20-2005, 12:51 AM
Why can't I find this so called Todd Beamer thread, I just finished searching every forum?
I don't remember what she said in it...I just remember it was really contrversial. It was about one of the people who tried to stop the 9\11 terrorists mid flight...she said something that set people off...

I believe thats what the reference is.

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:58 AM
Sorry, not my intention to come across as defensive. Just trying to explain what I figure happened to it and sharing the info I had available to show why I thought that the out come.If I can give some advice, you might want to pick an example people can find to make your point. I of course know DEnise can thoughly piss people off, which is why it was weird I did not remember this particular example. I wanted to see what all the fuss was evidently about.

Logical
08-20-2005, 12:59 AM
I don't remember what she said in it...I just remember it was really contrversial. It was about one of the people who tried to stop the 9\11 terrorists mid flight...she said something that set people off...

I believe thats what the reference is.You are correct about what it is about, Todd Beamer and what he did was mentioned in that article Michael Michigan posted.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 01:11 AM
I don't remember what she said in it...I just remember it was really contrversial. It was about one of the people who tried to stop the 9\11 terrorists mid flight...she said something that set people off...

I believe thats what the reference is.


I do not recall what the report was that ignited it all, it might have been the 9/11 commision report... Anyway, part of it dealt with the flight that went down in Penn. (can't think of the flight number off the top of my head) and how they weren't sure that Todd Beamer and the others ever reached the cabin, implying that they were not the direct result of the plane not reaching its target, i.e they did not take the controls and force it to the ground.. Not only does Denise try to unabashedly turn this into a moral victory for the terrorists, but in the thread she even went after Beamer's wife. I do not recall the full details of that, something about her using her husband's "false hero image" for something or other. This crap went on for pages and pages and pages. She really stirred a hornet's nest with that doozy.

I came in on it later, and tried reading from the beggining, I don't think I was able to stomach even half of it. The first couple of pages had me reeling in righteous indignation, the next couple had me reeling with the feeling of throwing up. She fought like hell for that moral victory for our enemies. It showed just exactly which side she stands on, and it ain't one that will win her any patriotic points.....

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 01:19 AM
If I can give some advice, you might want to pick an example people can find to make your point. I of course know DEnise can thoughly piss people off, which is why it was weird I did not remember this particular example. I wanted to see what all the fuss was evidently about.


Taken under advisement. However, the people who were involved in it will remember it full well, and I want to remind them of it going into the vote.

Also, even though it is no longer available to view, it is so egregious that it is necessary to educate those who are unfamiliar with it. My description of it probably comes across rather weak. I am quite certain I did not fully capture just how revolting of a thread it was. So it may not stir the same emotions that it did for those involved, but it still must be pointed out. Nothing else she has posted has come close to that. It shows exactly how fringe she really is, and how badly we do not need her and her poison in our BB community.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 01:31 AM
I do not recall what the report was that ignited it all, it might have been the 9/11 commision report... Anyway, part of it dealt with the flight that went down in Penn. (can't think of the flight number off the top of my head) and how they weren't sure that Todd Beamer and the others ever reached the cabin, implying that they were not the direct result of the plane not reaching its target, i.e they did not take the controls and force it to the ground.. Not only does Denise try to unabashedly turn this into a moral victory for the terrorists, but in the thread she even went after Beamer's wife. I do not recall the full details of that, something about her using her husband's "false hero image" for something or other. This crap went on for pages and pages and pages. She really stirred a hornet's nest with that doozy.

I came in on it later, and tried reading from the beggining, I don't think I was able to stomach even half of it. The first couple of pages had me reeling in righteous indignation, the next couple had me reeling with the feeling of throwing up. She fought like hell for that moral victory for our enemies. It showed just exactly which side she stands on, and it ain't one that will win her any patriotic points.....

I found this on google:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 01:36 AM
I found this on google:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en


That's it. Clearly not ALL of it, but the start of it. It'll give people the basic gist anyway.

Thanks.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 01:40 AM
[/url]


That's it. Clearly not ALL of it, but the start of it. It'll give people the basic gist anyway.

Thanks.

Guess we'd need a mod to make the archives accessible for the rest of that beauty.....

Logical
08-20-2005, 01:48 AM
I found this on google:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:<A target=_blank href="http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en">www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en[/QUOTE)


Thanks I am not sure how you pulled that one out being as I cannot find it on the BB but it is cool. I actually posted 3 times in that thread, but I guess though I found DenisE's opinion objectionable, I do not see it as horrifying or even anywhere close to some of the stuff I found horrible in the past that she posted.

Logical
08-20-2005, 01:52 AM
Guess we'd need a mod to make the archives accessible for the rest of that beauty.....The Archives are accessible, yet I cannot find that thread.

luv
08-20-2005, 01:56 AM
I found this on google:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en
Wow. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 01:58 AM
The Archives are accessible, yet I cannot find that thread.

Try a search of JUST the archives; they are NOT accessible....for me, anyway.

Course, I could be brain-dead.

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:03 AM
Try a search of JUST the archives; they are NOT accessible....for me, anyway.

Course, I could be brain-dead.

I can show you the Archives are available go to this page and check it out. Now as to why you cannot access them I have no idea.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=82961

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:04 AM
Thanks I am not sure how you pulled that one out being as I cannot find it on the BB but it is cool...

With the right search parameters, Google is really pretty amazing....heh.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:05 AM
I can show you the Archives are available go to this page and check it out. Now as to why you cannot access them I have no idea.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=82961

Ah-ha....you have to GO there to access them; I wonder if it's the same to "search" them.... :hmmm:

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 02:10 AM
Guess we'd need a mod to make the archives accessible for the rest of that beauty.....


You know, it may all be there. I have read quite a bit so far and am only half way through the first page.....

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:11 AM
Ah-ha....you have to GO there to access them; I wonder if it's the same to "search" them.... :hmmm:

Nope. You notice if you pull up a "Search" and you specify.....the forum, the last FOUR (Archives, Gilbert Brown, Romper Room, and Royals Lounge) are WHITE, whereas the others are grey. I suspect those forums are archived on a separate server that isn't readily accessible?

But I don't know; I'm not a computer whiz/geek. :shrug:

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 02:12 AM
"Baghdad Rose" ROFL

Earthling
08-20-2005, 02:12 AM
Sorry to see Henry was banned...He was older than me.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:14 AM
Sorry to see Henry was banned...He was older than me.

WHY was he banned? :hmmm:

Link?

luv
08-20-2005, 02:14 AM
How does the banning process work exactly? Do you have to vote to ask a mod? Can't you just go to the mod of this forum and aske them? Then they could watch her and judge for themselves? I mean, they would see the same types of things you're claiming. Does it take a majority vote or something?

luv
08-20-2005, 02:16 AM
Sorry to see Henry was banned...He was older than me.
See. I didn't see a vote on him? That must've just happened.

Earthling
08-20-2005, 02:17 AM
In this very thread it was stated that he was banned for not participating in the general discussion threads. Did I read this wrong?

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:19 AM
WHY was he banned? :hmmm:

Link?

Here is Phil's explanation.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2634558&postcount=42

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:22 AM
In this very thread it was stated that he was banned for not participating in the general discussion threads. Did I read this wrong?

More specifically he does not post on football threads, which is one of the requirements of the BB established quite specifically a couple of years ago. After the policy was established the poster originally known as Thomas was given a couple of warnings and still ignored it and was finally banned. Funny thing is Thomas goes way back and actually does know football, I have no idea why he was being so stubborn. Anyway he helped set the precedent.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:22 AM
Reading some of Duhnise's posts there.....pathetic. I mean, jaw-dropping pathetic. :shake:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en

I don't care who you are, there is tremendous irony in how she portrayed Lisa Beamer THEN, versus her portrayal of Cindy Sheehan now.

Unadulterated hypocrisy. Pure and simple. :shake:

luv
08-20-2005, 02:25 AM
How does the banning process work exactly? Do you have to vote to ask a mod? Can't you just go to the mod of this forum and ask them? Then they could watch her and judge for themselves? I mean, they would see the same types of things you're claiming. Does it take a majority vote or something?
Would I be able to find the answers to these questions in the FAQ section? Guess I could go look. :doh!:

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:25 AM
Reading some of Duhnise's posts there.....pathetic. I mean, jaw-dropping pathetic. :shake:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:<A target=_blank href="http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en</a>">www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en (http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:[url]www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en)

I don't care who you are, there is tremendous irony in how she portrayed Lisa Beamer THEN, versus her portrayal of Cindy Sheehan now.

Unadulterated hypocrisy. Pure and simple. :shake:You know I seem to recall DEnise once saying that hypocrisy did not concern her if the reason she was being hypocritical was for the morally right cause. I am not 100% sure it was she that said that, but I believe it was.

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:26 AM
Would I be able to find the answers to these questions in the FAQ section? Guess I could go look. :doh!:LOL I had no idea we had a FAQ section and I have been here forever.

Earthling
08-20-2005, 02:27 AM
More specifically he does not post on football threads, which is one of the requirements of the BB established quite specifically a couple of years ago. After the policy was established the poster originally known as Thomas was given a couple of warnings and still ignored it and was finally banned. Funny thing is Thomas goes way back and actually does know football, I have no idea why he was being so stubborn. Anyway he helped set the precedent.

Well we might have just pissed away a chance to recruit a new Chiefs fan...I actually hate to see anyone get banned. As has been pointed out, its easy to ignore someone.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 02:27 AM
You know I seem to recall DEnise once saying that hypocrisy did not concern her if the reason she was being hypocritical was for the morally right cause. I am not 100% sure it was she that said that, but I believe it was.

This would be a PERFECT example of that: her demonization of Lisa Beamer, versus her celebration of Cindy Sheehan. Wow. :shake:

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 02:37 AM
My reason for making the Beamer thread an issue in this vote -

I gotta agree with raiderhader... this thread is the epitome of troll behavior.

Damn shame there's such a history with Dense. Prevents me from just pushing the ban button without hesitation.

Tho, if I were the sort to start a poll on such a topic, I would definitely include a link to this thread as an example of troll behavior that warrants banning.

Not that I'm encouraging such an action, of course

I took this as sound advice, and have intended to follow it when the opportunity arose.

I should have started a poll during that time, but I tried to be super smart and went another route. Thought it was gonna play out ok, but she is still here today. A huge miscalculation on my behalf.

Logical
08-20-2005, 02:38 AM
I think Kotter asked for this, anyway here is the specific exchange that led to the Henry banning. In case anyone does not know it Phobia is one of the two owners of this BB website.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 02:42 AM
How does the banning process work exactly? Do you have to vote to ask a mod? Can't you just go to the mod of this forum and aske them? Then they could watch her and judge for themselves? I mean, they would see the same types of things you're claiming. Does it take a majority vote or something?

Mods can ban anyone they feel deserves it. This is a privately owned board, the owners generally allow us the opportunity to make changes as we see fit (see the creation of this forum, or banning people). If the community decides someone is of no value to the board via a vote, the mods will ban said person.

luv
08-20-2005, 02:51 AM
Mods can ban anyone they feel deserves it. This is a privately owned board, the owners generally allow us the opportunity to make changes as we see fit (see the creation of this forum, or banning people). If the community decides someone is of no value to the board via a vote, the mods will ban said person.
I see. Makes sense to me. Thanks for the info. G'night all. Pleasure.

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 07:04 AM
Gladly. It's called trolling. Sure, you may not fit the definition of the typical troll, but you are one none the less. You post contriversial things to stir shit just because you love the attention. That doesn't mean that you do not believe what you post (sadly, I believe you do), but the manner in which you post it usually is in a manner which riles people up. And you get off on it. Then after posting said inflamatory subject, you squiggle, spin, distort, forget, and distract from what you said when called on it.

Even in the rare instances when you post on the main forum you are usually tring to stir shit. Nachgate for instance, or ooohhh, one of my personal favorites, the Paul Hamm thread. That was a dandy. A supposed sports related topic with a political twist to it, and then you bitch and moan when it is moved to this forum. You knew that would happen, you posted it in the Lounge intentionally. You can deny all you want, but all of the old timers know you too well to believe you.

Furthermore, I do not believe in banning people soley on their political beliefs. However, you go to such an extreme that it is an embarrassment to the board. There are plenty of examples I could cite, but the most distasteful of those is the Todd Beamer thread. That was so bad that people who never supported banning you in the past changed their minds. It was disgusting. To try and find a moral victory for the terrorists is dispicable enough, but to try and do so at the expense of heroes is down right sickening. I wish that thread still existed so I could post a link here to those who never saw it. Completyely shamefull.

You bring nothing of value to the board, only angst and turmoil. The previous two Chiefs' boards that you have been associated with have gone by the way side. Coincidence? Perhaps, if you believe in them - I don't personally. Your posting is all about you, and that would not necessarily be such a bad thing, if you could it in a more positive fashion, like Endelt or Phil. But it is always in a negative manner, and that is neither good, nor healthy - for you or the board.


That's it in a nutshell.


Still don't see anything of bannable behavior. Your opinion of bannable behavior, yes. If people cannot help but get their panties in a twist then they are CHOOSING to be upset. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head FORCING them to get upset.

And for the record and to correct your false spin, the previous two Chiefs boards were folded because one was sold by the Newspaper's Corporation to a different Corporation (and I wasn't in the boardroom at the time) which proceeded to shut down the board until the sell was complete and then started with a new crappy board.

The other because the guy who ran it was not going to fund it and he wasn't going to ask for 'donations' or place ads on like this board does in order to fund it. Did the acrimony on the board hurt the board, yes. But in the end that was not what killed the board. The guy who ran it had a life he wanted to attend to and did not want to his spend time or money to host it.

I'm not about to reargue the entire Todd Beamer thread. I will say there are far worse opinions out there regarding this story. If I had posted something like this post then you can claim major outrage but in the end the myth that surrounded her story was no less than that of Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman and that was my point. The exception is that thusfar Pat Tillman's family has not made a dime off of the myth created surrounding his death.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/316532.shtml

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 07:13 AM
This would be a PERFECT example of that: her demonization of Lisa Beamer, versus her celebration of Cindy Sheehan. Wow. :shake:

Please show me where Cindy Sheehan is making money off of Casey's death. If she trademarks 'Camp Casey' then you have a point. If she starts a foundation which begins selling 'Camp Casey' jewelry then you have a point.

Show me where that has happened and then we'll talk about her materially benefiting from her son's death.

Brock
08-20-2005, 08:11 AM
Does anything ever happen on this board that isn't a freaking rerun?

mlyonsd
08-20-2005, 08:15 AM
Does anything ever happen on this board that isn't a freaking rerun?

There are only two things I can think of that would send the Planet into unchartered territory.

Chiefs win a playoff game....
Chiefs make it to the SB.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 08:18 AM
Please show me where Cindy Sheehan is making money off of Casey's death. If she trademarks 'Camp Casey' then you have a point. If she starts a foundation which begins selling 'Camp Casey' jewelry then you have a point.

Show me where that has happened and then we'll talk about her materially benefiting from her son's death.

The book and movie, along with yet unknown "profit motive" are sure to come--if they haven't yet...you watch.

Wanna bet? :)

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 08:19 AM
There are only two things I can think of that would send the Planet into unchartered territory.

Chiefs win a playoff game....
Chiefs make it to the SB.


Touche'
ROFL.

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 08:33 AM
Reading some of Duhnise's posts there.....pathetic. I mean, jaw-dropping pathetic. :shake:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en

I don't care who you are, there is tremendous irony in how she portrayed Lisa Beamer THEN, versus her portrayal of Cindy Sheehan now.

Unadulterated hypocrisy. Pure and simple. :shake:
Yeah, ok. I just read parts of the thread. Simply put, I "disagree" with things Denise posts. Why does everyone have to make it a ****ing crusade for their own political views when they highly disagree with someone over the internet? Who the **** cares if she wants to post things that most of you find "disgusting"? Its her god damned right to. Just because most of you disagree with her and her way of doing things does not give you the right to run her off.

The fact that many of you say you'd assault her if you saw her in public is just downright retarded, and it makes YOU a bigger intolerant than she is. Folks, its the ****ing Internet. Denise isn't a terrorist. You guys aren't patriots defending the country by converting those who do not agree with you. How about practicing some god damn self control?

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 08:42 AM
...

Its her god damned right to. Just because most of you disagree with her and does not give you the right to run her off.



This is a privately owned BB, not public schools.....her "rights" are defined by whatever the board and its owners decide.

Saul, you know damn well it's not WHAT she says; it's HOW she says it....as you seem to implicitly understandthat, in your own words (that I have bolded.)

Reasonable people may disagree; but unreasonable people poison the atmosphere and ability to have meaningful and sincere differences of opinion.

And, no, "iggy" as it is currrently configured....does not solve the problem.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 08:43 AM
...

Its her god damned right to. Just because most of you disagree with her and her way of doing things does not give you the right to run her off.



This is a privately owned BB, not public schools.....her "rights" are defined by whatever the board and its owners decide. Apparently, she's not going anywhere. What about Mr. Blond, Cochise, LVNHack.....and others though? Maybe she had nothing to do with their "vacations" or "leaving", but I wouldn't bet against it.

Saul, you know damn well it's not WHAT she says; it's HOW she says it....as you seem to implicitly understandthat, in your own words (that I have bolded.) And people tend to respond in kind, myself included; and the level of discourse in the entire forum tends to deteriorate.

Reasonable people may disagree; but unreasonable people poison the atmosphere and ability to have meaningful and sincere differences of opinion.

And, no, "iggy" as it is currrently configured....does not solve the problem.

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 08:45 AM
And, no, "iggy" as it is currrently configured....does not solve the problem.
So, most of you lack the self control to just sit back and say "Boy, she is off her rocker!", chuckle about it, and move on. Thats what I read in to this.

It still doesn't matter what she says, and how she says its. They are only words. Words on a freaking internet BB. Step back, and ask yourself why should those upset you in any way shape or form?

WilliamTheIrish
08-20-2005, 08:47 AM
Whew..... That Beamer thread...

That really was bad.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 08:48 AM
So, most of you lack the self control to just sit back and say "Boy, she is off her rocker!", chuckle about it, and move on. Thats what I read in to this.

It still doesn't matter what she says, and how she says its. They are only words. Words on a freaking internet BB. Step back, and ask yourself why should those upset you in any way shape or form?

Spout the "self-control" thing all you want. If you want civility and decency in DC, allowing her type of behavior does not foster that.....IMHO.

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 08:51 AM
Spout the "self-control" thing all you want. If you want civility and decency in DC, allowing her type of behavior does not foster that.....IMHO.
When did the DC forum promote civility and decency?

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 08:55 AM
When did the DC forum promote civility and decency?

Perhaps never; but don't be surprised, then, when what could be a great place for discourse.....becomes a deserted cesspool of rude and obnoxious ideological zealots. And, yes, I can be rude and obnoxious--but contrary to popular belief, I don't prefer it.


Personally, I'm disappointed by the deterioration. Guess I may need to vote with my feet (in the DC forum, that is; didn't mean to get anyone's hopes up...heh.)

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 09:03 AM
Well we might have just pissed away a chance to recruit a new Chiefs fan...I actually hate to see anyone get banned. As has been pointed out, its easy to ignore someone.

First I am never of the mind to ban someone just because their opinions don't agree with mine....even when they are reprehensibly off-base.

But quite frankly the "ignore" function doesn't work to the extent that I would love to see it. You see, the less-well-intended seagull posters who will fly by, drop about 30 useless threads onto the front page of DC and disappear. IMO, and i am pretty sure it's not possible, once you put that person on ignore, you shouldn't have to see that thread until someone posts something to that thread.

So....ignoring them isn't completely possible...you still have to see their trash in the thread header.

And i doubt that he would have been recruited to be a Chief's fan anyway..... :) you do know that Democrats can't be Chief's fans... :) we're all Red State Republicans....(humor intended)

mmaddog
*******

stevieray
08-20-2005, 09:03 AM
You know I seem to recall DEnise once saying that hypocrisy did not concern her if the reason she was being hypocritical was for the morally right cause. I am not 100% sure it was she that said that, but I believe it was.

Camelot....Camelot....!

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 09:07 AM
So, most of you lack the self control to just sit back and say "Boy, she is off her rocker!", chuckle about it, and move on. Thats what I read in to this.

It still doesn't matter what she says, and how she says its. They are only words. Words on a freaking internet BB. Step back, and ask yourself why should those upset you in any way shape or form?

You do realize that it is words....simple words on parchments that have started the greatest of wars.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another....."

mmaddog
*******

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 09:17 AM
Perhaps never; but don't be surprised, then, when what could be a great place for discourse.....becomes a deserted cesspool of rude and obnoxious ideological zealots. And, yes, I can be rude and obnoxious--but contrary to popular belief, I don't prefer it.


Personally, I'm disappointed by the deterioration. Guess I may need to vote with my feet (in the DC forum, that is; didn't mean to get anyone's hopes up...heh.)
Find one political board that promotes decency and civility, and isn't full of rude and obnoxious ideological zealots.

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 09:18 AM
You do realize that it is words....simple words on parchments that have started the greatest of wars.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another....."

mmaddog
*******
What is that supposed to mean, really?

I can guarantee you no wars have been started on the freaking INTERNET, though.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 09:18 AM
Find one political board that promotes decency and civility, and isn't full of rude and obnoxious ideological zealots.

Eh....point taken. :banghead:

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 09:19 AM
What is that supposed to mean, really?

I can guarantee you no wars have been started on the freaking INTERNET, though.

Really? :hmmm:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/08/schuster.column/

Heh. :p

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 09:20 AM
Eh....point taken. :banghead:
If you can, i'll shut up about this whole thing. That is the nature of the beast. Discussing politics on the internet gets UGLY, because people know there is little to no recourse for what they type.

stevieray
08-20-2005, 09:22 AM
Find one political board that promotes decency and civility, and isn't full of rude and obnoxious ideological zealots.

Like you using the Lord's name in vain?

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 09:23 AM
If you can, i'll shut up about this whole thing. That is the nature of the beast. Discussing politics on the internet gets UGLY, because people know there is little to no recourse for what they type.

Yeah, yeah....sorry, but... "I have a dream, that one day little liberal children can play nice with little conservative children; I have a dream that one day, you will be judged not by the "pwned" and flaming nature of one's rhetoric, but the content of your posts; I have a dream....."

heh.

Saulbadguy
08-20-2005, 09:25 AM
Yeah, yeah....sorry, but... "I have a dream, that one day little liberal children can play nice with little conservative children; I have a dream that one day, you will be judged not by the "pwned" and flaming nature of one's rhetoric, but the content of your posts; I have a dream....."

heh.
:D

Keep dreaming.

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 09:27 AM
I, like Jamie, keep going back to that thread as a perfect example of what I hate seeing here....

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:xZBr_L8btQYJ:www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/archive/index.php/t-93705+memyselfi+Beamer&hl=en

Un-friggin-believable. :shake:

:mad:

StcChief
08-20-2005, 09:29 AM
Everyone is entitle to their opinion.
Have the rules broken???
Then we are done

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 10:01 AM
Still don't see anything of bannable behavior. Your opinion of bannable behavior, yes. If people cannot help but get their panties in a twist then they are CHOOSING to be upset. I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head FORCING them to get upset.

Not just my opinion, but the opinion of a mod as well -

Just have to post intentionally inflammatory stuff and bring absolutely nothing else to the table.

And for the record and to correct your false spin, the previous two Chiefs boards were folded because one was sold by the Newspaper's Corporation to a different Corporation (and I wasn't in the boardroom at the time) which proceeded to shut down the board until the sell was complete and then started with a new crappy board.

The other because the guy who ran it was not going to fund it and he wasn't going to ask for 'donations' or place ads on like this board does in order to fund it. Did the acrimony on the board hurt the board, yes. But in the end that was not what killed the board. The guy who ran it had a life he wanted to attend to and did not want to his spend time or money to host it.

Ha! False spin? Yeah, it's in the two paragraphs just above this line. The Star Board went into decline after the exodus, the exodus occurred due to mod abuse which you were in full favor of. You may not have been the sole reason, but you were certainly part of the problem.

Now to address the real spin: Pigskin was all but dead when Jaws gave it up. It had been in decline for months. You make it sound like it no longer exists simply because he no longer wanted to run it. It was dead long before that point, and you had a major hand in it.

I'm not about to reargue the entire Todd Beamer thread. I will say there are far worse opinions out there regarding this story. If I had posted something like this post then you can claim major outrage but in the end the myth that surrounded her story was no less than that of Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman and that was my point. The exception is that thusfar Pat Tillman's family has not made a dime off of the myth created surrounding his death.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/316532.shtml

"See, I am not the nuttiest person in the world!" Yeah, that a greeeat defense. :rolleyes:

Face it Denise, not ONE SINGLE person agreed with you in that thread. And every single person who took the to post in it found it disgusting. And few even changed their stances on banning you. If you fail to look at all of that and comprehend just how far over the line you were/are on that, then there probably is no hope for you. You are so far out, you lost sight of left field miles ago.


Here is an idea for you, in attempts to defend yourself against all these charges, why don't you address the one of bringing nothing of value to the board? Tell us, Denise, just what valuable assets do you bring to this community?

StcChief
08-20-2005, 10:19 AM
Everyone is entitle to their opinion.
Have the rules broken???
Then we are done

I want to retract my statement and vote after carefully reading the thread about 'Lets Roll' I truely believe this is offensive.

These type's of posts show the character of people in this country that are wrecking it.

Ban her, go post on someone else board. not the CP Washington DC. section.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2005, 10:58 AM
No One should be banned because of ideology.

If you want a Moonbat or Wingnut Echo Chamber, try the Gay Moonbats over at Americablog or the Repressed Wingnuts over at Little Green Fascists.

trndobrd
08-20-2005, 10:58 AM
As much as I think mememe is a self-indulgent attention whore, and a generally poor excuse for a human being, I have not voted to ban her.

As far as her s**t stirring topics, none of them are as bad as Talking Can's recent intentional altering quotes in an article, I wouldn't vote to ban him either.

Fortunately for both, being a liar and/or jackass is not a banable offense.

|Zach|
08-20-2005, 11:01 AM
No One should be banned becasue of ideology.

If you want a Moonbat or Wingnut Echo Chamber, try the Gay Moonbats over at Americablog or the Repressed Wingnuts over at Little Green Fascists.
ROFL

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 11:05 AM
No One should be banned becasue of ideology.

If you want a Moonbat or Wingnut Echo Chamber, try the Gay Moonbats over at Americablog or the Repressed Wingnuts over at Little Green Fascists.

As much as some of you would like for this discussion center around ideology, it is not the case. If that were so, I'd pushing to ban jAZ, Can, You, and many others. But that is not happening, because that is not what this is about.

It is about being a disruptive force on a site that we enjoy and even love.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2005, 11:14 AM
As much as some of you would like for this discussion center around ideology, it is not the case. If that were so, I'd pushing to ban jAZ, Can, You, and many others. But that is not happening, because that is not what this is about.

It is about being a disruptive force on a site that we enjoy and even love.


A disruptive force? Hmmm. The only "disruption" I see is that she posts things you disagree with (as I do as well. I just ignore her, I don't call for her to be banned). Guess what, you have two wonderful options here:

1) Put her on "ignore", and be troubled no more.
2) Don't open the damn thread in the first place.

I can see how you might have trouble with something so simple. There are apparently thousands out there that don't understand they can also control what appears on their TV.

As for banning me because of my ideology? Why? Because I laugh at both the RW and LW NJ's? How dare I be reasonable, and believe that both sides have something to contribute to the national discourse. Oh my goodness, ban me because I don't see Liberalism/Conservatism as a zero-sum game.

I see, someone is only not disruptive if they agree with you, and turn Washington DC at the Planet into the Moonbat/Wingnut echo chamber I described already.

How quaint.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 11:46 AM
A disruptive force? Hmmm. The only "disruption" I see is that she posts things you disagree with (as I do as well. I just ignore her, I don't call for her to be banned).

Once again, it because of the way she posts her opinions. It is nothing more than an attempt to stir shit for the sake of gratifying herself. That is called TROLLING. many others have been banned for the same damn thing.

Guess what, you have two wonderful options here:

1) Put her on "ignore", and be troubled no more.
2) Don't open the damn thread in the first place.

I can see how you might have trouble with something so simple. There are apparently thousands out there that don't understand they can also control what appears on their TV.

Guess what, option 1 is not as complete of an answer as you make it sound. If it were, we probably would not be having this discussion.

As for option 2, rarely do I open a thread she has started. Infact, I rarely open a thread that I see she has posted in. I typically try to avoid as much as possible. But what am I to do when she enters a thread I am already posting on? Ignore doesn't work, I can still see her drivel when people quote her. Hell, even if I couldn't, the thread would still spiral into a mess from the people who choose to engage her. The threads ultimately become about her. Even a fully functional ignore option cannot hide this.

As for banning me because of my ideology? Why? Because I laugh at both the RW and LW NJ's? How dare I be reasonable, and believe that both sides have something to contribute to the national discourse. Oh my goodness, ban me because I don't see Liberalism/Conservatism as a zero-sum game.

Why? because cleary you have ideas that do not agree with mine. Infact, if this really were about ideology as you suggest, I'd be trying to have everyone banned that did not agree with me on 100% of the issues. But that clearly is not the case. This ideology argument is nothing more than bullshit, so drop it already

I see, someone is only not disruptive if they agree with you, and turn Washington DC at the Planet into the Moonbat/Wingnut echo chamber I described already.

How quaint.

Try using your head for something more than an ass plug.

htismaqe
08-20-2005, 12:00 PM
Thomas/ClearVision/burn@stake was banned because he refused to participate in football discussions of any kind.

Based on my own perception, the frequent times this has been discussed amongst the mods, and the preliminary results of this poll, Denise isn't going anywhere.

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 12:09 PM
Not just my opinion, but the opinion of a mod as well -




"See, I am not the nuttiest person in the world!" Yeah, that a greeeat defense. :rolleyes:

Face it Denise, not ONE SINGLE person agreed with you in that thread. And every single person who took the to post in it found it disgusting. And few even changed their stances on banning you. If you fail to look at all of that and comprehend just how far over the line you were/are on that, then there probably is no hope for you. You are so far out, you lost sight of left field miles ago.


Here is an idea for you, in attempts to defend yourself against all these charges, why don't you address the one of bringing nothing of value to the board? Tell us, Denise, just what valuable assets do you bring to this community?


Blah, blah, blah. Aside from whining about me and trying to encourage others to do the same exactly what do YOU bring to this community.

So what if Endelt thinks I should be banned and he's a mod. Luzcrap thought that way too. Fortunately though, there have been others who saw that their personal biases should not be clouding their judgement.

As far as the bolded, early on 'NO ONE HERE' had the 'same opinion' as me on the WOT and the Iraq war but guess what many now do. My views of the situation haven't become different but rather the realization OF the situation has. Thus, what was once a deeply unpopular opinion is not now.

Trust me, I might be the only person on a board that feels something but the lack of having others to validate my opinion doesn't bother me one iota. Because many times those unpopular and controversial opinions end up looking not so absurd after time plays out and situations evolve.

For instance, my initial suspicion about the entire Jessica Lynch story. I caught flack for that. I caught flack for Pat Tillman too. I caught flack for the Beamer thread. All of these were threads that were deemed 'moonbat' or some how insulting but yet each of them ended up with a bigger story that did not resemble that which we were originally told...

So I shall remain skeptical, alone if necessary. Your options are to ignore me or continue to read and :deevee:. I'm almost at the point of ignoring you but then I'd be missing out on your lies and spin and I think that could be a problem. Thus, I'll keep reading but not responding.

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 12:11 PM
Thomas/ClearVision/burn@stake was banned because he refused to participate in football discussions of any kind.

Based on my own perception, the frequent times this has been discussed amongst the mods, and the preliminary results of this poll, Denise isn't going anywhere.

And I promise to start posting more about football once we start getting more serious about the subject. Right now discussing Collins injury, the various arrests, and CP seems rather uninspiring.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2005, 12:31 PM
Once again, it because of the way she posts her opinions. It is nothing more than an attempt to stir shit for the sake of gratifying herself. That is called TROLLING. many others have been banned for the same damn thing.

You may have noticed, Trolling (even when shouted), like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Guess what, option 1 is not as complete of an answer as you make it sound. If it were, we probably would not be having this discussion.

As for option 2, rarely do I open a thread she has started. Infact, I rarely open a thread that I see she has posted in. I typically try to avoid as much as possible. But what am I to do when she enters a thread I am already posting on? Ignore doesn't work, I can still see her drivel when people quote her. Hell, even if I couldn't, the thread would still spiral into a mess from the people who choose to engage her. The threads ultimately become about her. Even a fully functional ignore option cannot hide this.

There is always option 3) Be a grown-up about it, and accept that people have opinions that differ from yours, that might be presented in a way you don't personally care for. The internet does not exist to solely to please you.

Why? because cleary you have ideas that do not agree with mine. Infact, if this really were about ideology as you suggest, I'd be trying to have everyone banned that did not agree with me on 100% of the issues. But that clearly is not the case. This ideology argument is nothing more than bullshit, so drop it already.

Wow. You must be really fun to debate a subject with. Your main tactic is to silence opposition with banning? What a wonderfully open mind you have there.

Try using your head for something more than an ass plug.


What a truly brilliant riposte. Perhaps I should bow to your allegedly superior Cognitive and Language skills? ROFL Sorry, I bow to nothing. Nor do I posess a cranial-rectal interface. Have a lovely day. :clap:

Boyceofsummer
08-20-2005, 12:33 PM
C'mon! Without the 'tit for tat' that makes my blood boil occasionally on this section this place would be very boring. Imagine: YEAH! I AGREE WITH YOU!

If some of you don't disagree with me................I'll JUMP! I"LL DO IT!
I WILL!

Dammit.

htismaqe
08-20-2005, 12:47 PM
And I promise to start posting more about football once we start getting more serious about the subject. Right now discussing Collins injury, the various arrests, and CP seems rather uninspiring.

Please stop. Every time I defend you, I have to go take a shower. :D

mlyonsd
08-20-2005, 12:56 PM
And I promise to start posting more about football once we start getting more serious about the subject. Right now discussing Collins injury, the various arrests, and CP seems rather uninspiring.

The mean ugly troll was, once again, chased back under the treacherous forbidden bridge by the villagers.

And there was much rejoicing.

:p

Adept Havelock
08-20-2005, 01:02 PM
The mean ugly troll was, once again, chased back under the treacherous forbidden bridge by the villagers.

And there was much rejoicing.

:p


For they were forced to eat Robin's minstrels.

Yeeeeaaaaaaa!

mlyonsd
08-20-2005, 01:10 PM
For they were forced to eat Robin's minstrels.

Yeeeeaaaaaaa!

Funniest movie ever made....IMHO.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 01:43 PM
Blah, blah, blah. Aside from whining about me and trying to encourage others to do the same exactly what do YOU bring to this community.

Deflection. What's the matter, got no response?

So what if Endelt thinks I should be banned and he's a mod. Luzcrap thought that way too. Fortunately though, there have been others who saw that their personal biases should not be clouding their judgement.

It was the definition of a troll I was pointing out, not what Delt thinks should be done with you.

As far as the bolded, early on 'NO ONE HERE' had the 'same opinion' as me on the WOT and the Iraq war but guess what many now do. My views of the situation haven't become different but rather the realization OF the situation has. Thus, what was once a deeply unpopular opinion is not now.

Trust me, I might be the only person on a board that feels something but the lack of having others to validate my opinion doesn't bother me one iota. Because many times those unpopular and controversial opinions end up looking not so absurd after time plays out and situations evolve.

For instance, my initial suspicion about the entire Jessica Lynch story. I caught flack for that. I caught flack for Pat Tillman too. I caught flack for the Beamer thread. All of these were threads that were deemed 'moonbat' or some how insulting but yet each of them ended up with a bigger story that did not resemble that which we were originally told...

Whatever, inspite of your "bigger story" people still find that revolting. Because no matter how try to spin it, your motives were not pure. It was disgusting and everyone up to this point has said so.

So I shall remain skeptical, alone if necessary. Your options are to ignore me or continue to read and :deevee:. I'm almost at the point of ignoring you but then I'd be missing out on your lies and spin and I think that could be a problem. Thus, I'll keep reading but not responding.

ROFL Lies and spin? This from you? The master of lies and spin? How ironic, oh squiggler.

Raiderhader
08-20-2005, 01:48 PM
You may have noticed, Trolling (even when shouted), like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

You may not have noticed, but the board has a set definition of trolls. And speaking of shouting (not what I was doing BTW), what is with the all bold response?

There is always option 3) Be a grown-up about it, and accept that people have opinions that differ from yours, that might be presented in a way you don't personally care for. The internet does not exist to solely to please you.

You mean like I do with everyone else? Your attempts to paint this as me wanting her banned simply because I disagree with her is making you look like a dumbass.

Wow. You must be really fun to debate a subject with. Your main tactic is to silence opposition with banning? What a wonderfully open mind you have there.

Yes, that is exactly what I said, isn't? Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?


What a truly brilliant riposte. Perhaps I should bow to your allegedly superior Cognitive and Language skills? ROFL Sorry, I bow to nothing. Nor do I posess a cranial-rectal interface. Have a lovely day. :clap:

It seemed appropriate given what it was in response.

go bowe
08-20-2005, 02:12 PM
* * *
As for option 2, rarely do I open a thread she has started. Infact, I rarely open a thread that I see she has posted in. I typically try to avoid as much as possible. But what am I to do when she enters a thread I am already posting on? Ignore doesn't work, I can still see her drivel when people quote her. Hell, even if I couldn't, the thread would still spiral into a mess from the people who choose to engage her. The threads ultimately become about her. Even a fully functional ignore option cannot hide this.
* * * people who choose to engage her?

you mean like how her threads usually generate a lot of posts and lots of people post on them?

obviously, there are lots of people who do like to "engage" her (was that a freudian slip, jaimie"?) and banning her would affect them unfairly...

it looks like the ban her (burn her?) crowd is in the minority, once again...

gee, where's kotter when you need him to to explain majority rule?

Boyceofsummer
08-20-2005, 02:38 PM
And I promise to start posting more about football once we start getting more serious about the subject. Right now discussing Collins injury, the various arrests, and CP seems rather uninspiring.


have been uninspiring since Saint Vermiel arrived. If not for Holmes and the monster offensive line, we would be the second coming of _______ .
I was wrong about Vermiel. Or maybe it's just 'the curse.'

Adept Havelock
08-20-2005, 02:38 PM
You may not have noticed, but the board has a set definition of trolls. And speaking of shouting (not what I was doing BTW), what is with the all bold response?

Well, as the Internet Standard for many years has been that all caps equals shouting, and you printed in all caps, it's exactly what you were doing. You are simply annoyed you were called on it. As for printing in bold type, I thought it an effective way to quickly discern between the quote and the reponse. I am unaware of any internet or Planet custom that states printing in bold is rude, but as it appears to injure your feelings, I will gladly refrain.

You mean like I do with everyone else? Your attempts to paint this as me wanting her banned simply because I disagree with her is making you look like a dumbass.

If you are unable to treat her as you do others, that's still not our problem. It's yours. As for your perjorative, before casting aspersions at the mote in my eye, remove the beam from your own.

Yes, that is exactly what I said, isn't? Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

Upon rereading, you are correct. I apologize. You did not state that you wanted these people banned. You said that if this was over ideology then you would want everyone who slightly disagreed with you banned. That said, it's a logical progression from that view to my statement, IMO. My reading comprehension is fine. Last time it was tested (8th grade...way too damn many years ago) it was at 16th year, 6th month. (College senior). When I took a speed reading test on a lark about a decade or so ago, it was approx. 1,200 wpm at 97% retention/comprehension. How about you? Want to compare brainpans/accomplishments? I doubt it.

It seemed appropriate given what it was in response.

Ahhh. Aside from the poor english(I believe that you meant to append the word "to" at the end of the statement. If your running short, borrow one from my post),we reach the perjoratives and personal attacks. These are the last refuge of those Shakespeare spoke of:


a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Again, have a lovely day.:clap:

go bowe
08-20-2005, 03:24 PM
Well, as the Internet Standard for many years has been that all caps equals shouting...you know, when gochiefs does that it makes my ears hurt... :(

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 03:26 PM
...gee, where's kotter when you need him to to explain majority rule?


I've conceded; we are a minority, apparently. :shrug:

FTR, this is the first time I've voted to ban her; the Beamer thread is one example, along with the continuing deterioration of discourse over here (FWIW, I am not innocent in that trend.)

I am absolutely convinced though that DC could become an engaging, entertaining, and enjoyable place again....with either, improved self-control or the absences of a couple or three posters in particular. Those few posters create such animosity and dischord, that it tends to bring out the worse in otherwise decent and rational people--me included (how's that for those that doubted my Democratic roots, heh.)

If the downward spiral continues, I'll just do what some others have--and basically leave the DC forum to the Nut Jobs and Moon Bats. Lurking and seagull posting would be the extent of my involvement in such a future, assuming I have the self-control to do that.

go bowe
08-20-2005, 03:31 PM
no way...

the fray is too alluring for you, young jedi...

go bowe
08-20-2005, 03:35 PM
I've conceded; we are a minority, apparently. :shrug:

FTR, this is the first time I've voted to ban her; the Beamer thread is one example, along with the continuing deterioration of discourse over here (FWIW, I am not innocent in that trend.)

I am absolutely convinced though that DC could become an engaging, entertaining, and enjoyable place again....with either, improved self-control or the absences of a couple or three posters in particular. Those few posters create such animosity and dischord, that it tends to bring out the worse in otherwise decent and rational people--me included (how's that for those that doubted my Democratic roots, heh.)

If the downward spiral continues, I'll just do what some others have--and basically leave the DC forum to the Nut Jobs and Moon Bats. Lurking and seagull posting would be the extent of my involvement in such a future, assuming I have the self-control to do that.now hold on...

are you suggesting that republicans are "otherwise decent and rational people"?

i thought bush was the debil...

this is all sooooo confusing... :( :( :(

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 03:40 PM
now hold on...

are you suggesting that republicans are "otherwise decent and rational people"?

i thought bush was the debil...

this is all sooooo confusing... :( :( :(

I've met plenty of very decent people, from both sides of the isle. :)

It's those psycho radical third party crusaders you gotta be leary of, heh. ;)

Logical
08-20-2005, 03:42 PM
Yeah, ok. I just read parts of the thread. Simply put, I "disagree" with things Denise posts. Why does everyone have to make it a ****ing crusade for their own political views when they highly disagree with someone over the internet? Who the **** cares if she wants to post things that most of you find "disgusting"? Its her god damned right to. Just because most of you disagree with her and her way of doing things does not give you the right to run her off.

The fact that many of you say you'd assault her if you saw her in public is just downright retarded, and it makes YOU a bigger intolerant than she is. Folks, its the ****ing Internet. Denise isn't a terrorist. You guys aren't patriots defending the country by converting those who do not agree with you. How about practicing some god damn self control?:clap::clap::clap:

Logical
08-20-2005, 03:52 PM
Camelot....Camelot....!Stevie what does this mean, I swear you are becoming more like the Evil Twin of Thomas every day with all the indecipharable short burst posts, that seemingly have no meaning.

Pitt Gorilla
08-20-2005, 03:55 PM
I've conceded; we are a minority, apparently. :shrug:

FTR, this is the first time I've voted to ban her; the Beamer thread is one example, along with the continuing deterioration of discourse over here (FWIW, I am not innocent in that trend.)

I am absolutely convinced though that DC could become an engaging, entertaining, and enjoyable place again....with either, improved self-control or the absences of a couple or three posters in particular. Those few posters create such animosity and dischord, that it tends to bring out the worse in otherwise decent and rational people--me included (how's that for those that doubted my Democratic roots, heh.)

If the downward spiral continues, I'll just do what some others have--and basically leave the DC forum to the Nut Jobs and Moon Bats. Lurking and seagull posting would be the extent of my involvement in such a future, assuming I have the self-control to do that.
It seems that you are suggesting your own removal.

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 03:55 PM
What is that supposed to mean, really?

I can guarantee you no wars have been started on the freaking INTERNET, though.

Before you get yourself all tied up in a knot, I was just making a general observation about what your typed...let me help refresh your memory:

They are only words. Words on a freaking internet BB. Step back, and ask yourself why should those upset you in any way shape or form?

While reading those words you typed I was reminded of what one of my more astute college Professors said to a student who seemed to have trouble grasping the concept of correctly phrasing his words...the student retorted with "they're just words, you know what i am trying to say"......to which the Professor replied:

"You do realize that it is words....simple words on parchments that have started the greatest of wars...." and quoted the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

I was just making an observation....not saying that the Internet would be the cause of the next war. Although one recent scholar made the observation that the Internet is the equivalent to the written paper these days.

mmaddog
*******

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 03:56 PM
It seems that you are suggesting your own removal.

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired then....

Logical
08-20-2005, 03:58 PM
As much as I think mememe is a self-indulgent attention whore, and a generally poor excuse for a human being, I have not voted to ban her.

....

:hmmm: That sounds familiar

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 04:02 PM
:hmmm: That sounds familiar

It should, Jim....it should, heh. ROFL

Logical
08-20-2005, 04:39 PM
people who choose to engage her?

you mean like how her threads usually generate a lot of posts and lots of people post on them?

obviously, there are lots of people who do like to "engage" her (was that a freudian slip, jaimie"?) and banning her would affect them unfairly...

it looks like the ban her (burn her?) crowd is in the minority, once again...

gee, where's kotter when you need him to to explain majority rule?

By the way, you may be proud (or not) to know that this post inspired today's Christianity thread.:evil:

go bowe
08-20-2005, 04:45 PM
By the way, you may be proud (or not) to know that this post inspired today's Christianity thread.:evil:oh shit, now you've done it...

they'll be looking to burn me alongside meme...

BigOlChiefsfan
08-20-2005, 05:11 PM
"This one time, at banned camp..."

chiefs4me
08-20-2005, 05:22 PM
wow....still going I see, a bunch of freaking pansies sitting around crying over what someone wrote, crying for them to be banned, you all act like someone took your toy truck....Grow the **** up, and if you can't handle it, do what you all told me, and take a freaking break from here....

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 05:45 PM
wow....still going I see, a bunch of freaking pansies sitting around crying over what someone wrote, crying for them to be banned, you all act like someone took your toy truck....Grow the **** up, and if you can't handle it, do what you all told me, and take a freaking break from here....

c4me:

While you and I have no history, I feel moved to comment on the above...

You coming in here chastising people expressing their opinion is kinda ironic....especially the part where you tell everyone the "grow the **** up".....

mmaddog
*******

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 06:21 PM
FWIW, I'll abstain from voting unless I end up being the deciding vote...

I'm doing my best Dick(head) Cheney impersonation. :p :)

memyselfI
08-20-2005, 06:23 PM
It seems that you are suggesting your own removal.

No doubt!!! Sybil seems to be arguing with each other again... :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
08-20-2005, 06:31 PM
No doubt!!! Sybil seems to be arguing with each other again... :hmmm:

Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as Gerry's, then.

Not that I didn't already know that. :)

chiefs4me
08-20-2005, 08:37 PM
c4me:

While you and I have no history, I feel moved to comment on the above...

You coming in here chastising people expressing their opinion is kinda ironic....especially the part where you tell everyone the "grow the **** up".....

mmaddog
*******




you have your 2 cents and I have mine...this is not expressing an opinion, some want her banned....why, because they don't like what she says...:rolleyes:

yea, grow up...too many little boys on here, playing with peoples words, playing with peoples accounts, wanting to ban people.....I have never started a thread about banning, and I always say everyone has their own opinions.....the problem is, my opinion doesn't always follow the norm, and so instead of just ignoring me or her....you get your panties in a wad and want her/me whoever banned.....if they don't agree with certain posters, then those posters are calling for heads....my post count has dwindled some and I am hardly ever here in the daytime anymore....but anyday you want, do a random search of my name, and I am sure to pop up in 4 to 5 threads that I have never looked at, or posted in. I have moved on...wish some could do the same.

Not trying to get into a pissing match with you....just stating my 2 cents....:p

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 09:19 PM
you have your 2 cents and I have mine...this is not expressing an opinion, some want her banned....why, because they don't like what she says...:rolleyes:

yea, grow up...too many little boys on here, playing with peoples words, playing with peoples accounts, wanting to ban people.....I have never started a thread about banning, and I always say everyone has their own opinions.....the problem is, my opinion doesn't always follow the norm, and so instead of just ignoring me or her....you get your panties in a wad and want her/me whoever banned.....if they don't agree with certain posters, then those posters are calling for heads....my post count has dwindled some and I am hardly ever here in the daytime anymore....but anyday you want, do a random search of my name, and I am sure to pop up in 4 to 5 threads that I have never looked at, or posted in. I have moved on...wish some could do the same.

Not trying to get into a pissing match with you....just stating my 2 cents....:p

Sorry...you haven't heard my $.02, but you will now.

While i am not at all in favor of banning anyone, I will tell you that it is in no way a reflection of my true feelings towards Denise and the flavor of her posts. I have seen some pretty sad things that she has posted, most notably the Lisa Beamer posts, and I find myself staying away from her posts. Sad thing too, because every once in a Halley's Comet she actually shows that she has a heart.

And please, until you have been here longer, don't start chastising "the boys" about "playing with people's words"....no one has played more loose with what people have said than Denise.....nor has any one person "squiggled" on what they have said than Denise....

I have the longest history of posters in this place (Chief's Planet & The old Star Board where we all started) and I speak with pretty good understanding of Denise and her mentality. I doubt seriously that she really believes everything she states on here, i think a great deal of it is for attention and just trying to get under everyone's skin.

And if you really have paid attention to the history of this place, the "Ban (fill in the blank)" threads rarely go anywhere, and are nothing more than a good outlet for letting loose of pent-up frustrations.

mmaddog
*******

Logical
08-20-2005, 10:08 PM
....

I have the longest history of posters in this place (Chief's Planet & The old Star Board where we all started) and I speak with pretty good understanding of Denise and her mentality. I doubt seriously that she really believes everything she states on here, i think a great deal of it is for attention and just trying to get under everyone's skin.
...mmaddog
*******Curious when you started, I started back in 95 and you and DEnise were both already there. Hard to believe so many of us have been posting back and forth for more than 10 years now.

cowboy_big_rich
08-20-2005, 10:21 PM
I don't post in the DC forum, my daddy taught me never to argue religion and politics with friends and family. I do read it quite often to take the pulse of those that post

That being said:

Banning is childs play

Getting steamed up over old posts is not worth the blood pressure and I think the posts that would be likely to drive people away would be those degrading other posters for their opinions.


but hey, its only my opinion

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 10:43 PM
Curious when you started, I started back in 95 and you and DEnise were both already there. Hard to believe so many of us have been posting back and forth for more than 10 years now.

I believe it was in early 1995.....was on several other Chief's boards before (all so archaic by todays standards) before being told about the old Star Board.

I am not sure I was there all that long before you, because the people there were still mistaking me for the other Maddog that had his own board.

It is kinda odd that there are a few of us who have been around that long...reminds me of just how old I am.

mmaddog
*******

Saul Good
08-20-2005, 10:46 PM
I've never agreed with anything she's ever posted as far as I can tell, but I don't see a reason to ban her.

Logical
08-20-2005, 10:48 PM
I believe it was in early 1995.....was on several other Chief's boards before (all so archaic by todays standards) before being told about the old Star Board.

I am not sure I was there all that long before you, because the people there were still mistaking me for the other Maddog that had his own board.

It is kinda odd that there are a few of us who have been around that long...reminds me of just how old I am.

mmaddog
*******So who else was around in 95 that is still on here now, I believe Bob Dole was, possibly Phil, some of the people that founded 37 Forever. I am having a hard time remembering. So anyone on that BB all pipe in. Hey I think I will make this a thread on the main BB.

Mosbonian
08-20-2005, 11:07 PM
So who else was around in 95 that is still on here now, I believe Bob Dole was, possibly Phil, some of the people that founded 37 Forever. I am having a hard time remembering. So anyone on that BB all pipe in. Hey I think I will make this a thread on the main BB.

As best I can recall....

You
Me
DEnise
Phil
Bob Dole
Russ

After that I can't be real sure.....some people have changed names. It would be good to see what people respond...

mmaddog
*******

Logical
08-20-2005, 11:09 PM
As best I can recall....

You
Me
DEnise
Phil
Bob Dole
Russ

After that I can't be real sure.....some people have changed names. It would be good to see what people respond...

mmaddog
*******I agree on those and think we can add Luzap

go bowe
08-20-2005, 11:26 PM
okay, now i'm really confused...

i thought saul good was an alter ego of raiderhader, but saul good voted not to ban meme while rh is leading the charge to try to get her banned...

so, who the hell is saul good, then?

Logical
08-20-2005, 11:29 PM
okay, now i'm really confused...

i thought saul good was an alter ego of raiderhader, but saul good voted not to ban meme while rh is leading the charge to try to get her banned...

so, who the hell is saul good, then?Nope he is not Jamie. I asked him about it in a PM and he got all pissy and said he was nobody from before.:shrug:

go bowe
08-20-2005, 11:43 PM
then jaimie was pulling my leg that night, because he said it was him...

but it sure doesn't look that way now...

MOhillbilly
08-21-2005, 09:13 AM
Adept Havelock (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5299), alanm (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=49), Ash (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=967), BoseWolf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3217), Bowser (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3527), Boyceofsummer (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=674), Braincase (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=812), Chieficus (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=257), chiefs4me (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4153), ChiefsGirl (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5401), cowboy_big_rich (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5198), DanT (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=266), Dave Lane (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=147), dirk digler (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2597), Donger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3166), go bo (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2285), htismaqe (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=18), jAZ (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=549), jiveturkey (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=920), Joe Seahawk (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=102), KC Jones (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=56), kchiefsqt (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4066), Laz (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=450), MGRS13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2185), mlyonsd (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=68), NewChief (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=826), nm_dbf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3153), Old Codger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=585), Phobia (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=33), Pitt Gorilla (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=240), Saul Good (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5874), Saulbadguy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3168), the Talking Can (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=756), tk13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1035), Vlad Logicslav (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=42), ZachKC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1754)


Are all Commies.:harumph:

StcChief
08-21-2005, 09:40 AM
Adept Havelock (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5299), alanm (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=49), Ash (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=967), BoseWolf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3217), Bowser (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3527), Boyceofsummer (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=674), Braincase (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=812), Chieficus (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=257), chiefs4me (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4153), ChiefsGirl (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5401), cowboy_big_rich (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5198), DanT (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=266), Dave Lane (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=147), dirk digler (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2597), Donger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3166), go bo (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2285), htismaqe (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=18), jAZ (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=549), jiveturkey (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=920), Joe Seahawk (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=102), KC Jones (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=56), kchiefsqt (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4066), Laz (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=450), MGRS13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2185), mlyonsd (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=68), NewChief (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=826), nm_dbf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3153), Old Codger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=585), Phobia (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=33), Pitt Gorilla (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=240), Saul Good (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5874), Saulbadguy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3168), the Talking Can (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=756), tk13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1035), Vlad Logicslav (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=42), ZachKC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1754)


Are all Commies.:harumph:

Are all Commies I resent that remark.

I expressed to retract my vote.

I say Ban them.

If that doesn't happen, they should take it as being on watch for posts.

NewChief
08-21-2005, 09:50 AM
Adept Havelock (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5299), alanm (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=49), Ash (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=967), BoseWolf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3217), Bowser (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3527), Boyceofsummer (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=674), Braincase (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=812), Chieficus (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=257), chiefs4me (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4153), ChiefsGirl (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5401), cowboy_big_rich (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5198), DanT (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=266), Dave Lane (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=147), dirk digler (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2597), Donger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3166), go bo (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2285), htismaqe (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=18), jAZ (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=549), jiveturkey (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=920), Joe Seahawk (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=102), KC Jones (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=56), kchiefsqt (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=4066), Laz (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=450), MGRS13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=2185), mlyonsd (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=68), NewChief (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=826), nm_dbf (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3153), Old Codger (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=585), Phobia (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=33), Pitt Gorilla (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=240), Saul Good (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=5874), Saulbadguy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=3168), the Talking Can (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=756), tk13 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1035), Vlad Logicslav (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=42), ZachKC (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=1754)


Are all Commies.:harumph:

Interesting list. Evidently us commies have some members who are deep undercover infiltrating the conservative scene, heh.

mlyonsd
08-21-2005, 09:52 AM
Are all Commies I resent that remark.

I expressed to retract my vote.

I say Ban them.

If that doesn't happen, they should take it as being on watch for posts.

Oh come on, haven't you ever had a scab you couldn't resist picking at?

Baby Lee
08-21-2005, 09:56 AM
Interesting list. Evidently us commies have some members who are deep undercover infiltrating the conservative scene, heh.
Haven't paid a lot of attention to this, until now. But it looks like this list is the confluence of MHB's earlier proclamation that anyone who votes 'no' is a commie, and the list of those who voted 'no.'

So in this case, the term 'commie' has been adapted to mean 'those who don't want Dense banned.'

NewChief
08-21-2005, 09:58 AM
Haven't paid a lot of attention to this, until now. But it looks like this list is the confluence of MHB's earlier proclamation that anyone who votes 'no' is a commie, and the list of those who voted 'no.'

So in this case, the term 'commie' has been adapted to mean 'those who don't want Dense banned.'

Yeah, I finally figured it out. A little dense this morning. I guess I should post up the users who voted for banning her and lump them into some group with an appropriate label like...."Whiny Gashes"

StcChief
08-21-2005, 09:59 AM
yeah. I just don't like being thought of as a communist.

It flies in the face of the american way.

It may fit the PC, liberal, socialists way of some on the board. not me.

I don't want to be associated with the likes of commies.

Yeah. I get the intent of MO to poke fun at the 'NO' list.

While where joking. The automatic vote button changed my vote on... It's an election fraud....

Baby Lee
08-21-2005, 10:21 AM
Yeah, I finally figured it out. A little dense this morning. I guess I should post up the users who voted for banning her and lump them into some group with an appropriate label like...."Whiny Gashes"
Whiny Gash = Corduroy Pants?

ROFL ROFL

memyselfI
08-21-2005, 01:33 PM
Interesting list. Evidently us commies have some members who are deep undercover infiltrating the conservative scene, heh.


Likewise, this collection of Christocrats would make James Dobson thank the Lord. :p

BigOlChiefsfan, Buster's Dad, Chico Diablo, ChiefsCountry, KCHawg, Lattimer, luv2rite, MOhillbilly, Mr. Kotter, Patriot 21, raiderhader, redbrian, Simplex3, Slim_Shady, Tribal Warfare

Interestingly, I don't see many infiltrators in this group...which furthers my long time held belief that this is a partisan based ailment. :hmmm:

luv
08-21-2005, 01:56 PM
Likewise, this collection of Christocrats would make James Dobson thank the Lord. :p

BigOlChiefsfan, Buster's Dad, Chico Diablo, ChiefsCountry, KCHawg, Lattimer, luv2rite, MOhillbilly, Mr. Kotter, Patriot 21, raiderhader, redbrian, Simplex3, Slim_Shady, Tribal Warfare

Interestingly, I don't see many infiltrators in this group...which furthers my long time held belief that this is a partisan based ailment. :hmmm:
Since you're associating Christocrats with James Dobson... James Dobson was supporting the genderless bible. Please don't associate me with him. Thank you. And just because I'm a Christian makes me a Christcrat? How so?

memyselfI
08-21-2005, 01:59 PM
Since you're associating Christocrats with James Dobson... James Dobson was supporting the genderless bible. Please don't associate me with him. Thank you. And just because I'm a Christian makes me a Christcrat? How so?

In all honesty, perhaps I should not have lumped you in with those folks since I know little about you. But if you are a supporter/follower of James Dobson then you could be a Christocrat.

go bowe
08-21-2005, 02:00 PM
it's Christocrat...

toe...

try to keep up, you rwnj...

(i know you're a rwnj because meme told me so... :p :p :p)

luv
08-21-2005, 02:02 PM
In all honesty, perhaps I should not have lumped you in with those folks since I know little about you. But if you are a supporter/follower of James Dobson then you could be a Christocrat.
Ummm, I do believe I asked to NOT be associated with him. He's as wishy-washy, go with the socially acceptable, contradictory person as they come. Where in my post did you get that I followed him?

go bowe
08-21-2005, 02:03 PM
In all honesty, perhaps I should not have lumped you in with those folks since I know little about you. But if you are a supporter/follower of James Dobson then you could be a Christocrat.i'm pretty sure she didn't say that she is a supporter of that fool dobson...

to the contrary, it sounded like she didn't want to be associated with him at all...

btw, luv2rite is good people...

memyselfI
08-21-2005, 02:03 PM
it's Christocrat...

toe...

try to keep up, you rwnj...

(i know you're a rwnj because meme told me so... :p :p :p)

If you own or have read a book by James Dobson, Phyllis Schaffley, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson you could be a Christocrat. :p

I could get this whole Jeff Foxworthy gig goin on here.

luv
08-21-2005, 02:06 PM
If you own or have read a book by James Dobson, Phyllis Schaffley, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson you could be a Christocrat. :p

I could get this whole Jeff Foxworthy gig goin on here.
It sounds like you think Christians are STUPID! The people who follow any of those people are insane, IMO.

go bowe
08-21-2005, 02:07 PM
If you own or have read a book by James Dobson, Phyllis Schaffley, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson you could be a Christocrat. :p

I could get this whole Jeff Foxworthy gig goin on here.whew, i was afraid for a moment there that i could be a Christocrat...

go bowe
08-21-2005, 02:09 PM
It sounds like you think Christians are STUPID! The people who follow any of those people are insane, IMO.no, that would be vlad who thinks organized religions (not just Christianity) are evil...

iirc, depsite popular opinion, meme is a Christian herself...

luv
08-21-2005, 02:11 PM
no, that would be vlad who thinks organized religions (not just Christianity) are evil...

iirc, depsite popular opinion, meme is a Christian herself...
I believe in the CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS thread, she said she was a muslim. At least that's what I got out of it. If she were a Christian, I don't believe should would be so quick to refer to everyone who disagrees with her as being Christocrats.

memyselfI
08-21-2005, 02:13 PM
no, that would be vlad who thinks organized religions (not just Christianity) are evil...

iirc, depsite popular opinion, meme is a Christian herself...

I go to a liberal Christian church and was actually baptised there a number of years ago. But, I don't consider myself any particular religion anymore. I find too many good things in each of them to limit myself to any particular one. And, I don't like any of them enough to limit myself to one either.

memyselfI
08-21-2005, 02:14 PM
I believe in the CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS thread, she said she was a muslim. At least that's what I got out of it. If she were a Christian, I don't believe should would be so quick to refer to everyone who disagrees with her as being Christocrats.


You believe incorrectly. MOF, people mistakenly claim I am but I am not. I find both Christianity and Islam to be equally full of wisdom and crap.

Saul Good
08-21-2005, 05:05 PM
If you own or have read a book by James Dobson, Phyllis Schaffley, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson you could be a Christocrat. :p

I could get this whole Jeff Foxworthy gig goin on here.

Phyllis Schaffley is one of the most brilliant political minds in history...and I'm not a Christocrat.