Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
#72097 06/07/02 11:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
R
stranger
Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 20
Gee, ewein, since Angel was one of those who told mg to leave the board, why don't you ask her how she feels about mg's return?



Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
keiva, you have made a point (a virtual palisade) that "hurtful" or "nasty" comments should not be permitted to stand unchallanged. of course, you seem to also have decided that you are the arbitrator of what is, and isn't hurtful and nasty.

personally, i find a rather lot of your posts nasty. i keep looking, but i don't find your apologies.. why?
Here is an example of you stating your standards: cut in its entirety, only blank lines have been removed.(empty space)

**************************************************************
Re: interesting -- restart at 99
Posted by Keiva (Pooh-Bah)
Posted on Thu Apr 11 17:51:56 2002
rkay, much as I would like to agree with you:
This latest round began with the following comments (not directed at me), from a senior person to a much-junior one:
--This is ... totally inappropriate for this board.
--knock it off. ... I'll be happy to help you find an appropriate internet chat room.
and I understand there were PM's of the same tenor.

When hurtful comments are made about my behavior or that of others, they and I are entitled to respond (temperately,
of course). To avoid such response, one need only refrain from the comment that prompts it -- or say a simple "I'm sorry."
************************************************************
more of your words
Spammer?
Posted by Keiva (veteran)
Posted on Fri Feb 15 19:56:41 2002
I suggest someone is spamming us.
In the past few days there are posts under five new names which are anagrams of each other, and a sixth near-anagram:
--RumShotGiles
--MrSoHugeList
--GimletsHours
--Egotism_Hurls
--MisterGhouls
--GizmoHustler
The first three names were registered in a 6-minute span on Feb. 5: the other three in a 7-minutes span yesterday.
Many of them post with the phrase “Humorless Git” – still another anagram.

I suggest the spammer is an experienced board member, not a newbie. His/her posts show familiarity with colors
and fonts, and consistently take part in pending disputes on the board.

Could the spammer be identified?
--I note that most of those posts take subtle potshots at dr. bill of at me.
--I note the style of those potshots, which to me seems much like that of a particular board member.
--I note that two of them end with the bracketed initials [E.A.]
--I note that all 11 posts in these names were made at times near when ASp was posting.
--I note that one uses praps to mean “probably”, which use has been made once before in the board’s history –
and that use was by ASp.
***********************************************************************
and
interesting
Posted by Keiva (Pooh-Bah)
Posted on Mon Apr 8 20:22:15 2002
Just now received, and copied verbatim. You crude, bullying children should be ashamed of yourselves.
(the rest of this post was not Keiva text)
*************************************************************
NB text below is not from the original post, and might have been edited (but Keiva did not comment it was, or that words were taken out to change the tenor of the post,at the time, but to be fair-- i do not know if it has been edited
Keiva: Interesting point about [EA] and [E.A.], tsuwm, which would fit well in spammer thread, whether those terms were noted.

A LIU reveals that the only names under which either of those phrases have ever been posted are gymkana, caradea and bridget96.
**************************************************************
(see NB above)
keiva: to tsuwm and faldage: do you now agree that we have a poltergiest, and are merely questioning who it may be?

And please note that as a careful lawyer I listed facts but took pains not to "accuse" -- yet. It would of course be premature to conclude until all had opportunity to review, critique and/or supplement the evidence presented. It would be good to see all facts that can best identify the culprit(s).

Have you any other facts to point to?
************************************************************
My comments will continue in Blue
Where sir is your apology to Asp?-- since you accuse her of spamming and taking potshots (Your very word) at you and dr bill
and when both Faldage and tsuwm made comment, you replied, you
pains not to "accuse" --so suble potshot are nasty, but your accusitory tone, (even if you didn't quite accuse either AnnaStrophic or Caradea) isn't? I guess I or AnnaStrophic or Caradea wouldn't have a case to sue, but this isn't a court of law. this is about what is happening here. Here, it sounded very mucy like an accusation. i have no doubt with you fine legal training, you can prove why it isn't. but can you prove that its not nasty or hurtful?

well maybe by your standards, and maybe your wife standards, (you remember how ewein, chimed in and said i love keiva and he's been wonderful, and everyone is picking on him when he did no wrong, all the while lying through her teeth about not knowing you, and having formed this opinion on the basis of reading all you wonderful posts)
but many here do hold the opinion your posts were nasty and hurtful , as nasty and as hurtful as anything you were objecting to. and we have never see you apologies for them.

and when did you ever apologies for the phrase "you crude, bullying children...?"

or do think that comment of yours is not nasty, or hurtful, too? You might hold a grudge against Sparteye, but you didn't address the comments to Sparteye. i personaly find your words nasty, offensive and uncalled for.

i also think it is dishonest of you, as keiva and as AphonicRants (an anagram of AnnaStrophics on-line name, something that is, if not nasty, certainly not nice behavior. It is prohibited on most moderated boards as being nasty) to continue to address people who post here by their given names, addressing post to them as if you were a personal friend. You are not my friend, nor are you friend to many here, but reading your posts, any one can see you frequently used personal names, not on-lines names, and by doing so, you might lead others to think differently. I think that is very nasty to intentionaly behave in a way that misleads. Is it out and out lying? no, but it is nasty.


#72099 06/08/02 12:15 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 688
A
addict
Offline
addict
A
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 688
Speaking of Raw Nerve, why don't you ask me yourself? I have already sent modest goddess a PM welcoming her back to the board.



Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74
In spite of my denials regarding PM usage, I've received several, asking as to my identity and which side I'm on (what?). So I'll say this publicly, speaking for myself only: I'm mad as hell about the loss of some of my favorite posters (relating to words!): Bingley, NicholasW, Faldage, MaxQ (what's happened to Max's FAQ pages?) and I'm forgetting several others. If you're new and you've been reading the recycled threads you'll recognize the names. My only agenda is to make those people I alluded to earlier feel some level of guilt, and maybe to wrench some words of apology from them for what they've done here. But it's evident that's not going to happen, and I see that some of you are trying to divert the posting back onto more fruitful ground, so I'm going to return to the wainscot[t]ing from whence I came.

By the way, I must confess to making one exception in the PM department. (Hi Bill! Good to see you posting again.)

(And tsuwm, I didn't actually[R] forget you; I wanted to single you out for bringing this site to my attention in the first place, through your site. At least I have the daily WWFTD, if not your presence here.)

snoot


The Lone Haranguer
#72101 06/09/02 12:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 33
newbie
Offline
newbie
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 33
Silk Muse, tell us please, what recourse did keiva/aphonicrants/keivacarpal etc. leave us by threatening Anu Garg, the founder and funder of this site, with a legal battle, however frivolous, that could only cost him his time and more money? After keiva stole our innocence, forced us to instigate rules and thumbed his nose at everyone by contiuing to post after he had been banned, were we to continue here as if nothing had ever threatened the board? Just wondering. Your post title fits mine as well.


#72103 06/09/02 06:30 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
what makes you think That threat does not seem to exist now, underhanded though it was. If everyone still felt as threatened I doubt they'd be returning to the board. ?

it's a nice thought, but i don't have any reason for holding with it. can you explain why you think that your statement is true?

by the way, only about 5 of 35 "regulars" have returned. not "everyone", no where near everyone. and about 5 never left.




Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
M
old hand
Offline
old hand
M
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
I find it interesting, the kind of emotive language that's being tossed around here - keiva stole our innocence, for example - and how quickly people revert to seeing things in black and white (Keiva bad, MaxQ good). I haven't gone back through all the threads to see who was making rules and who wasn't; I don't have a memory of Keiva doing so but no doubt he did. I disliked how the "oldtimers" jumped all over "newbies" at times, instead of going in for a more gentle initiation. On the subject of rules, I remember oldtimers breaking them too - somehow they cut each other slack for that, but not newbies. Nobody's perfect, nobody's right. It's all shades of GREY, actually. Just because the oldtimers "broke" the "rules" doesn't mean they didn't have anything worthwhile to say. Ditto the newbies. Be nice if we could all let bygones be bygones, cut each other some slack, etc. I really like it here - mostly because of Geoff and milum, the two most positive posting people I know! (big smooches and squeezes to you both!)


Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 435 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5