Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm a volunteer fire fighter.
Nothing. That is why we are destroying them. My son Joshua has recently supervised the official recording of the 'two millionth' chemical weapon to be destroyed at the Tooele Storage Depot. We had 90% of the (US arsenal) Chemical weapons here in Utah. We are very proud that we have burned all but 10% of them. Ninety percent of the US chemical weapons ...[text shortened]... e to put themselves on the line for good. What have you destroyed Stan? What good have you done?
Originally posted by STANGyou were not suspended from the forums because of your views, you were suspended because the way you expressed them was selfish and detrimental to the forums, and you refused to stop despite being asked repeatedly. Why detrimental?
Why is it OK to expose other nations and their children to the real life images of death and injury of their loved ones and fellow citizens, and/or experience their own death or injury, but necessary to censor pictures of them and ban their author ???
1) flooding - you were opening multiple threads on the same topic, often with the same content. Flooding unnaturally skews the forums to what one user thinks is important at the exclusion of others, making the forums less appealing to most.
2)spamming - you were repeatedly posting your message in totally unrelated threads, which has the effect of disrupting these threads and often grinding them to a halt with people asking you to stop. Again, this reduces everyone elses enjoyment of the forums.
3) posting a deceptive link - your repeated advertising of a link that claimed to show RHP ratings but was really a political statement was not welcome. Just as if the owner of "RHP faces" changed the link to show aborted foetus' to support his anti abortion feelings this is not welcome. If you had been up front about the sites content (including changing the deceptive URL) and had not spammed by posted it repeatedly there would have been no issue.
These are the reasons you were banned from the forums before. They still stand and if you persist you will be banned again.
Regards
Jon
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakYour public comments are defamatory.
you were not suspended from the forums because of your views, you were suspended because the way you expressed them was selfish and detrimental to the forums, and you refused to stop despite being asked repeatedly. Why detrimental?
...[text shortened]... stand and if you persist you will be banned again.
Regards
Jon
1) flooding. I don't recall opening multiple threads on the same topic. You've got the wrong person.
2) spamming. As I've said before, my 'spamming' climaxed around X-Mas and New Year when I became disgusted by celebrations while Iraq children are dying and suffering. It seemed appropriate to remind people of this and to do it in such a way that they may remind others. I do not apologise though I don't plan to do it again.
By the way, I've been banned twice since I stopped doing that.
3) posting a deceptive link - the link was to a graph of RHP ratings based on real data supplied to me by RHP. I had something akin to the product placement that Americans do in movies. I included a picture of a dead girl as many children in Iraq would see in person or experience themselves. Again, I do not apologise though I don't plan to do it again. By the way, it was RHP that introduced an automatic filter to prevent posts with the URL rather than communicate with me about it first.
I have a suggestion, if there comes a time when you chose to ban me again, how about making a post where we can debate it publically first. Maybe one of us would come around to seeing it from the other person's way, or a bit of both, or we could let RECS decide whether you ban me or not.
I started a thread with the following post. It focusses on the question with the additions of clarifications and is specifically directed towards the moderators. However, belgianfreak seemed to miss the difference, claimed to have answered the question and closed that thread. Doesn't seem to be moderate for a moderator.
Dear RHP moderators such as belgianfreak (Jon),
My past behaviour aside for a moment,
Why is it OK to expose other nations and their children to the real life images of death and injury of their loved ones and fellow citizens, and/or experience their own death or injury, but necessary to censor pictures of them and ban the author ... or would you accept these being presented to the diverse range of intellectuals on RHP in some way (other than in my own user profile) ???
Thanks, in advance.
Kind Regards,
STANG
Originally posted by STANGTo return to the original question:
Why is it OK to expose other nations and their children to the real life images of death and injury of their loved ones and fellow citizens, and/or experience their own death or injury, but necessary to censor pictures of them and ban their author ???
Your first example (if I understand you correctly) is not something under the control of anyone associated with RHP. Your second example is obviously referring to you and this site.
I would dearly love to NOT expose any child to the sight of their family members being killed. But funnily enough I'm not God and I can't persuade everyone on the planet to stop behaving like an idiot with my current resources.
And neither can you.
I'm not saying there isn't a place here for debate about these topics, and raising people's awareness. But this is a chess site, there's got to be some limit. I'm quite sure you can find other sites where the issues you want to raise are the primary purpose of the site, and then by all means go for it.
On the other issue that's been raised: your tactics around Christmas and New Year are still relevant, because you have created a reputation for yourself. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the mods are harder on you than the average person, because you have made yourself a "person of interest".
I might share some of your views to be honest, but most of the time now I completely ignore what you're saying because I have previously been so irritated by the way you go about saying it.
Originally posted by STANGI can hardly wait until they ban you again.
I started a thread with the following post. It focusses on the question with the additions of clarifications and is specifically directed towards the moderators. However, belgianfreak seemed to miss the difference, claimed to have answered the question and closed that thread. Doesn't seem to be moderate for a moderator.
Dear RHP moderators such as belgianf ...[text shortened]... way (other than in my own user profile) ???
Thanks, in advance.
Kind Regards,
STANG
