|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Have you paid taxes on your winnings this year? | |||
| I paid. |
   
|
5 | 20.00% |
| I opted not to pay. |
  
|
9 | 36.00% |
| I didn't win enough to pay taxes. |
  
|
11 | 44.00% |
| Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
11-10-2005, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
OK, more correct would be after he was threatened with a banning and asked to appologize. Better?
|
|
#34
11-10-2005, 02:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
The timeline is correct.
It went: Paul criticizes Dynasty and UBB. Mason tells Paul either apologize privately and public or you're gone. Paul pees on 2+2 with the Hitler comment, officially sealing the deal. |
|
#35
11-10-2005, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
[ QUOTE ]
They didnt take place after the banning, he was supposed to apologize, and instead turned it into a hitler comment. If he just told mason that he wasn't going to apologize, i doubt he'd had been banned, and he could go on being his angry/arrogant self. [/ QUOTE ] "Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum." that was the de facto banning. apologize, privately AND publicly, or we will ban you. obviously paulp wasn't going to apologize for anything, given that all he had done was make a simple factual observation in saying dynasty poured fuel on the fire by boasting about banning people. so mason's pm was, in effect, the ban. paulp's hitler youth comment was just a "screw you and good riddance" on his way out. |
|
#36
11-10-2005, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
[ QUOTE ]
The timeline is correct. It went: Paul criticizes Dynasty and UBB. Mason tells Paul either apologize privately and public or you're gone. Paul pees on 2+2 with the Hitler comment, officially sealing the deal. [/ QUOTE ] Your timeline seems to be correct, but his wasn't. All I was saying is that it's obviously not possible to make a post/comment from an account that has already been banned. |
|
#38
11-10-2005, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
[ QUOTE ]
mikech: [ QUOTE ] so mason's pm was, in effect, the ban [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] yes. mason's absurd ultimatum was for him to apologize for a non-existent offense, or be banned. the first option is an impossibility, so the second option is a fait accompli. |
|
#39
11-10-2005, 02:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
if the moderators can't take a little hate mail now and then, they shouldn't be moderators. It comes with the territory.
But like Paul, I'm fed up with the majority of the mods treating their various forums like their own personal fiefdoms. Or however you spell that! my advice to all of the moderators is simple: calm the [censored] down. The forums are for US, not you. Your presence, like a good offensive lineman, should not be noticed. So knock it off - I'd hate to have to leave 2+2 behind. |
|
#40
11-10-2005, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Reason and Phillips Poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] mikech: [ QUOTE ] so mason's pm was, in effect, the ban [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] yes. mason's absurd ultimatum was for him to apologize for a non-existent offense, or be banned. the first option is an impossibility, so the second option is a fait accompli. [/ QUOTE ] I deleted that part of my post because it's not something I want to argue about. If that's how you see things, there is little that can be said to change your mind. Just so it's clear, though, I believe a ban is when one of the moderators or admins actually bans a user from the site with the admin tools. It's more or less just about our differing opinion on what a ban really is, so it's pretty pointless to have a long argument about it. |
|
|
|
Linear Mode
