Stang, I'm working on...

Originally posted by sasquatch672
your next ban. It's regrettable that I and others have to spend our time policing an otherwise excellent chess site, but I'm going to do it. I'm one of the people working toward your next ban. I want you to go rent "A Bronx Tale". When you do get banned, I'm going to send you this message: "Look at me. LOOK AT ME! Look at my face. I did this to you!"

Look at him, Gnats, he has the can of gnat spray in his hand! You are about to be fogged again.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I think this could be coined 'extensible ingnorance'.
Very American of you Sasquatch, if you don't understand
it, blow it up.

"'extensible ingnorance'"

ingnorance?

Originally posted by Delmer
"'extensible ingnorance'"

ingnorance?

\Rance\, n. [Etymol. uncertain.] 1. A prop or shore. [Scot.]

2. A round between the legs of a chair.

In-go-rance :-)

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
\Rance\, n. [Etymol. uncertain.] 1. A prop or shore. [Scot.]

2. A round between the legs of a chair.

In-go-rance :-)

That's definitely interesting and enlightening, but what about "ingnorance"? Maybe a gnome between the legs of a chair?

Originally posted by Delmer
That's definitely interesting and enlightening, but what about "ingnorance"? Maybe a gnome between the legs of a chair?

I suspect it's more likely to be Sasquatch's 'voluntary forces' truncheon.

edit.
'It's regrettable that I and others have to spend our [x] policing an otherwise excellent [y], but I'm going to do it. I'm one of the people working toward your next [zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...].'

Originally posted by sasquatch672
your next ban. It's regrettable that I and others have to spend our time policing an otherwise excellent chess site, but I'm going to do it. I'm one of the people working toward your next ban. I want you to go rent "A Bronx Tale". When you do get banned, I'm going to send you this message: "Look at me. LOOK AT ME! Look at my face. I did this to you!"

Good. What STANG has to realise is that he is not being (repeatedly) banned because of his politics or his passion.

He is being banned because he spams the forums, continually posts the same thing, ignores site rules, initiates "debates" but then refuses to answer relevant questions, and posts misleading URLs.

You could almost forgive him - except when he does get banned he hints it is somehow politically motivated. Then when he comes back he does exactly the same thing.

I'm sure he annoys right-wingers. But he also annoys others - anyone, in fact, who cares about reasoned debate and appreciates the complexity of issues. And anyone, moreover, who considers basic nettiquete to be important.

Bye. Don't hurry back - I'm sure there is a voluntary group in Iraq or Afghanistan you could go and work for to make a REAL difference to those people's lives.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
your next ban. It's regrettable that I and others have to spend our time policing an otherwise excellent chess site, but I'm going to do it. I'm one of the people working toward your next ban. I want you to go rent "A Bronx Tale". When you do get banned, I'm going to send you this message: "Look at me. LOOK AT ME! Look at my face. I did this to you!"

Sasquatuch672. You disgust me.

What sort of fascist practise is this? Trying to get someone banned? Just because you dislike his views, methods or whatever.

I've alerted your post, because I really, really think it is truly disgusting.

If you have a problem with Stang, PM him about it. TALK to him about it. Argue that his methods are doing him no favour.
But to try to get him banned, and gloat about it???

You really disappoint me there man.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Sasquatuch672. You disgust me.

What sort of fascist practise is this? Trying to get someone banned? Just because you dislike his views, methods or whatever.

I've alerted your post, because I really, really think it is truly disgusting.

If you have a problem with Stang, PM him about it. TALK to him about it. Argue that his methods are doing him ...[text shortened]... r.
But to try to get him banned, and gloat about it???

You really disappoint me there man.

Your contempt is unwarranted my friend.

I agree with you that there are a myriad of far more preferable and cordial ways to deal with an individual who offends, but I believe such options have been exhausted with STANG. I agree, it is far better to simply talk with an individual. Therein lies the fallacy though. 'talking' to STANG is an asinine endeavor, attempted only by the foolish or the naive.

The man quite simply is incapable (or unwilling) of it. Conversation is a two way street. I, and many others, have driven down that road in search of dialogue. Without exception, we find STANG sitting on his end, reving his engine as loud as he can but ultimately not going anywhere. The man is the king of spam, and yet devoid of any sort of conversation. Example: If you search the forums for post by STANG from Jan.20 to Jan.21 (one whole day) you will see he posted the following link no less than 19 times.
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/50/2707/400/RHP61.jpg

I appreciate anyone who wishes to get their opinion out there, no matter how converse it is to my own. STANG, however, is nothing more than a propagandist. He spams these forums (as well as other sites I believe) for no purpose other than to proselytize. Further more, I can personally attest to not only his refusal to engage in civil and/or intelligent discussion about the multitude of statements he makes, but he needlessly has insulted me on many occasions, including unsolicited pms concerning my faith, as well as misrepresentation, quoting, and mocking of my statements within the forums, for no apparent (i.e. logical) purpose.

Disappointed you may be sir. I share your sentiment, but none the less must concur with Sasquatch. I would be overjoyed if our friend STANG would refrain from the spamming and engage in civil dialogue about his views. Alas, any attempts at this never have worked. When all other options are exhausted, we have but this singular recourse. I am in agreement with Sasquatch that STANG is fully deserving of a ban. He has broken multiple portions of the TOS, not to mention simplistic etiquette and common courtesy. I personally have abstained from the forums as I find myself incapable of discussing a matter of interest to me without the matter becoming soured by his incessant and unfounded drivel.

I truly wish the person no ill will. I admit I have become rather agitated by him at times, but my personal feelings have nothing to do with my position. I have spoken out in like manner about individuals who share in my views, but whose methods are likewise unacceptable. The point is moot if the messenger can not conduct them selves in an appropriate manner. I believe STANG has some very good intentions, very good. These are paralleled only by his gross inability to behave himself in a manner even loosely tolerable.

I you wish to express disgust and disappointment with a person who has had enough with this propagandist overruning the forums and refusing the engage in anything of import and wishes to see something done about the matter, you may add me to your list of disgust and disappointment as well sir.

Shav, you and I don't always see eye to eye. Heck, it may be seldom that we do for that matter. Despite that, I've never had beef with you and you've never had beef with me. I find some of your posts disturbing and callous, as I am sure you find many of mine to be naive and proselytizing. So what? You, me, and most of the other people here all have a point of view to tell and discuss. We all have our own ways of telling it, and our own ways of processing what we take in. That's what the forums are about, and that's what gives them value. The difference between us and STANG is blatently apparent. He is naught more than a forum troll out to flame and spam. He brings no value, he takes no value, he only brings the place down. I see no reason why we should have to tolerate his selfish, malicious endeavors.

That said, I hope you appreciate where I am coming from. I do appreciate where you are coming from in this, as I have said, I wish the methods you outlined could be implemented and produce positive/constructive results. I really do mean it when I say I wish STANG would modify his behaviour. Sadly, you and I both know that is incredibly unlikely given his behaviour pattern, past and present. Think ill of me if you must, but untill I see some normative and unintrusive behaviour from this person, I will continue to request his ban as well.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

Originally posted by Omnislash
STANG, however, is nothing more than a propagandist. I believe STANG has some very good intentions, very good.

I don't have access to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bush used to spread his propaganda and buy votes. I also don't have much time to debate. I am a critic who believes that critics should be persistent.

Originally posted by STANG
I don't have access to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Bush used to spread his propaganda and buy votes. I also don't have much time to debate. I am a critic who believes that critics should be persistent.

I have no dillusions that you would have access to such funds my friend. I assume you are fiscally on a like field with myself, and likewise limited in your ability to advertise your position. I can appreciate that you may not have much time to devote to debate, and I can appreciate your desire to speak out about something you feely strongly about. Quite frankly, despite my goading I am in agreement with you in a great many political things, in a general sort of way.

None the less, you disrespect me and a great many other peoples, attempt at intelligent discussion with your excessive posting of the same rhetoric repeatedly. I can not express to you enough that you would serve your cause far better by speaking about a matter in depth than to make the same generic comment repititiously. For the most part, this site is full of highly intelligent individuals. We can see, plainly, what is occuring that you are speaking of.

I am of firm belief that much of the problem with our current situations in this world is a lack of intelligent discussion. Everyone just wants to propagate their position without any offer of intelligent discussion and Q & A. I see vast amounts of mindless proselytizing, and very little unbiased discussion on the matter. This is getting off topic, but I think you see where I'm coming from.

Further more, I fail to see how your desire to get your point across to a broad audience requires you to insult the intelligent reader who would like to discuss the matter. Further more, I fail to see how Bush's campaign coffers have anything to do with your declarations of religion, and questions like "Did Jesus have wet dreams?". Quite frankly, I fail to see what message you are getting across at all. All I can see in that arena, is a desire on your part to offend as many Christians as possible. Why, I have no idea. Perhaps you have issues with how the organized religion has affected you, or perhaps their priniples. Regardless, I am at a loss to discern a positive and/or logical premise behind your campaign to offend all the believers of that theology with such comments. Surely, you must understand that when you purposefully make inflammatory remarks about the very philosophy and belief system of a person, at the very least they might like to discuss the matter with you. Additionally, I fail to understand why you spend so much time making these inflammatory remarks about Christianity if you are so time constrained in your endeavors to criticize the US government.

Truly my friend, you have offended and frustrated me greatly, and needlessly. Despite that, I still hold an olive branch for you any time you wish to be a participant of these forums as opposed to abusing them for your own personal endeavors.

Best Regards,

Omnislash