It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than trying to solely profit

[scott]

And with that, you have worn out your welcome here for the last time. Goodbye Robert. You are permanently banned from the forum.

[ovyyus]

The loss is incalculably small.

[AgingYoung]

Robert,

You made several valid points. Although you can't read this as rks1878 you might come back and read it. The one point I saw was that if someone is quick to jump to conclusions they might have a tendency to over look the very possibility that might be the answer.

The best point you made I'm sure you had no idea you were making. I would never have guessed that the rules would change if you hurt someone's feelings. Now that's some very serious processed chicken feed. Go easy on me ladies; I'm just a man speaking my mind. It's not the dress that makes you look fat. It's the fact that you eat like a pig that does it.

Gene

[scott]

Just to make sure there is no confusion, absolutely no rules have changed. In paragraph 2 of the Terms of Use it says (and has always said):

You agree not to post any abusive ... or hateful ... material ... Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned

I have been somewhat lax on this in the past but those days are over. I am tired of people making abusive and hateful posts here. In the past I have tried to confront people about it in an effort to get them to mend their ways. From now on when I see that pattern developing I will take swift action.

-Scott

[ken_behrendt]

Wow! I must have missed something on this thread. I assume that Robert got banned because of some additional posts I haven't seen here that were deleted since my last visit.

So, I have to assume that he would not have been banned unless he had posted some really abusive posts. Well, this time I can not come to his defence because I do not know the exact reasons for the decision to ban him. But, I just do trust that Scott did not make the decision lightly.


ken

P.S. I was unaware of the site administrator for a day (April 1st) gag at the time because I usually go to the Forum Index page and then immediately click on a particular forum without reading who else is visiting. Actually, I guess it was a good gag and did not do any harm (unless someone tried to use his temporary status to modify the Discussion Board, but I'm sure steps were taken to prevent that possibility).

[Michael]

Gene I really don't understand your point. Lately all Robert has seem to have done is slander racial groups who don't fit his religious profile, make derogatory comments to others who didn't deserve it out of what seemed like his own fustration, but who knows what was really on his mind. The time for childish pot stirring should be over kudos to Scott.

[scott]

exaulted, moral crustaceans
...
what a chickenshit, self-righteous bunch of boneheads this is.
...
You all are not qualified to find PM.

Wow! I must have missed something

No Ken, you didn't miss anything. Robert's last post was just the last straw in a long series of transgressions. And for what, an April Fools joke? I've had enough. And yes he is now an example to others who might think they can continue to get away with similar behavior.

Plus, in addition to being abusive (yet again) he effectively rescinded his confession and apology for the "torque seeker" affair, which was all that had kept him from being banned a few months ago anyway.

-Scott

[AgingYoung]

Gene I really don't understand your point.

Yes, it was a rather obscure and subtle one. This might help. A lot of people ignored the possibility that two different people could have the same ip address. For instance the one I have is shared by road runner customers all over the north side of Houston. Also, my wife could join the forum and we'd have identical addresses.

I agree with Robert's point. People that think they're never wrong or can't stand to be questioned ignore the fact that a common human condition is that anyone can be wrong. To support that point Dah Vinci said, 'the sun doesn't move.' You might want to explain again what he really meant but those are his precise words. He might have said exactly what he meant. As it stands he was wrong. Happens.

The other point of what's 'hateful or abusive' is too subjective. When you said, 'Lately all Robert has seem to have done is slander racial groups who don't fit his religious profile' you're coming to a conclusion that you can't really know. You're speculating but stating it as a matter of fact. That's what I read when I read between the lines. You can tell a lot about some one by the way they write. A 'hateful' expression is a function of the listener. The person making it is out of the loop. If you perceive someone made a 'hateful' statement then it is a 'hateful' one. At times the truth seems abusive. One very good point that is being overlooked is you're the one that decides what you read. No one is forcing you to read something much less take it in a way that it wasn't intended.

Insulting someone that's not in a position to defend themselves is the height of classlessness. In a word cowardly.

Gene

ps: As the chill of all this settles in I'd like to say, 'You're right, honey. I was wrong. Please don't Bork me!'

[ovyyus]

So Michael, now you know - the next time someone smacks you up the side of the head it's probably a "function of the listener" in misperceiving their actions as hateful or abusive when in fact they were just trying to be truthful - LMAO

[Patrick]

Hi Gene;
I think there are two significant points
1) Robert first admitted posting under a different name and then denied it; either he was lying initially or afterwards. Either way, he had to have been lying in one instance since they contradict (mutually exclusive).
2) The quotes of Robert that Scott quoted are hateful by definition, objectively speaking. If they are deemed to be okay by a subjective interpretation (yours) then I would challenge that interpretation as being false/wrong.
--just my two cents, no offense intended.

ps: I don't know what you mean about Bork.

[AgingYoung]

You make a fine point, ovie boy; you can't tell the difference between physical contact and words you can choose to read or ignore. Very fine point. There's no need to explain what you mean. I know precisely what you mean. I'm more qualified to know what you mean than you are.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Hello Patrick,

The quotes of Robert that Scott quoted are hateful by definition, objectively speaking.

I think it's more of a liberal or chick understanding. I'm not really in a position to comment on the definition but if you could point me to a link I'll read up on it.

Gene

Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism.

Bork was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988, and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1987.

Within an hour of Bork's nomination to the Court, Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of it. Kennedy declared, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government."

[Patrick]

Hi Gene;

what a chickenshit, self-righteous bunch of boneheads this is

Just curious, you need a dictionary to look up a description for this? What would you call it? How would you describe it?

[ovyyus]

You're frothing agian Gene.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, my username isn't "ovie boy". Now I don't want to misinterpret you (RE your home-baked "function of the listener" syndrome) so could you please confirm if your intended meaning is,

a) a term of endearment and you're trying to be friendly.

b) intended as a sign of disrespect.

c) you just posted anything without thinking.

d) a typographical error.

e) other - please explain.

Also, you said, "I'm more qualified to know what you mean than you are." Is that the case for everyone Gene, or is it some special ability you think you might have just with me? Perhaps your strange fascination with me is starting to get out of hand again? Let's hope not.

[AgingYoung]

Hello Patrick,

Glad you asked. For starters you took that expression out of context. I'll quote the entire context.

Lighten the mood was what we were trying to do with Torque Seeker! Remember Torque Seeker? This was the screen name my friend was using, but then ovyyus saw that it was coming from the same ip address as rks1878, and immediately accused me of fraud, when really Torkie was somebody else. Seeing this faux paux, a bell rang, we looked at each other and thought we could have some fun with it by playing along.
Well, all sorts of exaulted, moral crustaceans came out from everywhere, yelling VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE, Fraud, etc, etc, and so we looked at each other again and thought what a chickenshit, self-righteous bunch of boneheads this is. Imagine being so SURE of their RIGHTNESS.

So you asked, 'how would I describe it?' Very good question. Here is my sense. Robert did have a friend that logged on the board as Torque Seeker. Some dunderhead noticed that the ip's were the same so he accused Robert of being one in the same. Robert did admit that he was also Torque Seeker but I suspect that was a sarcastic admission. I could sort thru the board and find you a similar example of sarcastic admission by the afore mentioned dunderhead if you like.

So to the expression that you quoted. The idea of 'chicken shit' gets its meaning from 'chicken feed'; meaning little or insignificant. 'Chicken feed' is even more insignificant when it's turned into feces by the chicken. 'Chicken shit' is the superlative of 'chicken feed'. 'Chicken shit' is Robert's honest opinion of the people that accused him. He thinks they're 'little minded and petty'.

Now on to 'bone head'. 'Bone head' means that you have no grey matter between your ears. It's all bone. No thought process what so ever. You couldn't even figure out that two different people using the same computer would have the same ip address. How 'bone headed' is that?

So now we're to 'self righteous' which I think is pretty self explanatory. You can't even admit you could be wrong.

In conclusion I'd like to take the liberty to translate Robert's conclusion:

what a chickenshit, self-righteous bunch of boneheads this is

Put in a more lady like fashion that should be more tolerable to certain members of the forum:

Some members on the forum weren't thinking very well when they concluded that Torque Seeker and I were the same person rather than two different people using the same computer. Further more you couldn't even admit you were wrong. I think that's pretty petty of you.

I hope that helps. I'd like to apologize for the odor but it wasn't me. I'm sure I smell a fart.

Gene