Page 1 of 2
Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:29 am
by GENERAL STONEHAM
Why is it that Timminz and Mpjh can stalk, harrass and bait others and not get a ban? The political correctness of General Discussion, has taken an ugly turn. Where those who profess their hatred to FLAME WARS are allowed to FLAME posters who want a civil discussion of the revival of FLAME WARS.
Are Timminz and Mpjh, administrators dressed as regular posters? To bait and ban those who's thinking differ from them?
I find it utterly wrong to ban those who's infractions are simply a differing of views. FLAMING is ok, if you tow the line of the administrators of C.C.
Back from my THIRD ban
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:43 am
by FredVIII
cc has cut down on flames, its time for the trolls to go too.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:47 am
by Timminz
FredVIII wrote:cc has cut down on flames, its time for the trolls to go too.
I can't say I'll miss them.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:58 am
by jbrettlip
502 posts and 3 bans??? Maybe you should look at yourself before pointing fingers. FW is gone, people need to just deal with it, move on, find a new forum if you want to flame. CC obviously is no longer allowing it, and disagreeing with your opinion is not flaming. TImminz and mpjh are hardly CC thugs.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:16 am
by GENERAL STONEHAM
jbrettlip wrote:502 posts and 3 bans??? Maybe you should look at yourself before pointing fingers. FW is gone, people need to just deal with it, move on, find a new forum if you want to flame. CC obviously is no longer allowing it, and disagreeing with your opinion is not flaming. TImminz and mpjh are hardly CC thugs.
Yes, we heard that same tired argument from posters like yourself. STOP and get over it!
If mentioning the term FLAME WARS is ban worthy, then I guess any disagreement or debate can be considered FLAMING.
Amazing how posters who are so strongly against the "discussion" of FLAME WARS, come out of the woodwork to stalk, harrass and intimidate others with differing views. Nobody forces you to go to a FLAME WAR's thread, but it bothers you? Are you same guys and gals, also asking for a prohibition on alcohol, cause you find that repulsive too? How about pornography?
The political correctness at this site is what should be banned.
Back from my THIRD banning
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:59 am
by barterer2002
Obviously the owner of any business has the ability to set the policies for that place of business. As such the CC admin clearly can decide that flaming is no longer a part of the business that they want to encourage. When they do that there will clearly be some customers, such as yourself, who will dislike the changes and others who will approve. However, there are no free speech issues involved here and consistently yelling that there are just shows an ignorance of what you're talking about.
In response to the topic at hand, the difference between the posts of Timminz and Mpjh and those that you make is one of tone and style. In general, Mpjh and Timminz make their points without having to resort to name calling and insults. This is not political correctness but rather good manners. I would suspect that, contrary to your claims to the contrary, that you are not banned for advocating that flame wars be returned as there are others who have made similar pleas without being banned, but rather the method and obnoxious shrillness of your campaign.
When a child throws a temper tantrum on the floor of a store, the manager is well within the rights to have such a child removed from the store until such time as the tantrum has ended.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:21 am
by jbrettlip
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:jbrettlip wrote:502 posts and 3 bans??? Maybe you should look at yourself before pointing fingers. FW is gone, people need to just deal with it, move on, find a new forum if you want to flame. CC obviously is no longer allowing it, and disagreeing with your opinion is not flaming. TImminz and mpjh are hardly CC thugs.
Yes, we heard that same tired argument from posters like yourself. STOP and get over it!
If mentioning the term FLAME WARS is ban worthy, then I guess any disagreement or debate can be considered FLAMING.
Amazing how posters who are so strongly against the "discussion" of FLAME WARS, come out of the woodwork to stalk, harrass and intimidate others with differing views. Nobody forces you to go to a FLAME WAR's thread, but it bothers you? Are you same guys and gals, also asking for a prohibition on alcohol, cause you find that repulsive too? How about pornography?
The political correctness at this site is what should be banned.
Back from my THIRD banning
It doesn't bother me at all. I used to go in there to read, never participated. My point is that it is gone. It wasn't my decision, it wasn't a community decision, it was the decision of the people that own/run this website. I can't go into McDonalds and demand a lobster dinner, because McD's management decided long ago to NOT SERVE LOBSTER DINNERS!
Go to suggs and bugs, come up with an idea for another FW, and see if you can get it reinstated in a new form. However, I really think they are trying to sanitize these forums. I woudln't be surprised to see some other changes regarding profanity etc coming soon.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:21 am
by TheProwler
I agree with GS about mpjh. He constantly baits and flames.
Making analogies about child throwing temper tantrums is just detracting from the point of this thread. Isn't that considered trolling?
The focus is on mpjh and Timminz. If you don't like it, don't post in this thread.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:36 am
by GENERAL STONEHAM
barterer2002 wrote: I would suspect that, contrary to your claims to the contrary, that you are not banned for advocating that flame wars be returned as there are others who have made similar pleas without being banned, but rather the method and obnoxious shrillness of your campaign.
When a child throws a temper tantrum on the floor of a store, the manager is well within the rights to have such a child removed from the store until such time as the tantrum has ended.
Here's another fine example of name-calling used by these so-called purists of the English language.
If, that ain't FLAMING, then what is?
Yes, we have constantly heard that we are children and having tantrums. Fine argument and the same old, same old. Grow up, childish, give it up and other drivel.
Why don't we do this, anyone calling anyone names, besides their screen name will receive a 72 hour ban. This way we can a civil discussion on NOTHING. Yes, from now on, we'll have discussions on NOTHING, about NOTHING. Sounds great, then nobody's feeling will get hurt.
Now that's what I call political correctness.
Back from my THIRD banning
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:49 am
by Timminz
TheProwler wrote:Making analogies about child throwing temper tantrums is just detracting from the point of this thread. Isn't that considered trolling?
I would disagree. The tantrum analogy is not even that much of an analogy. He's throwing a tantrum. That's causing some of us to tell him to stop acting like a spoiled child. He started this thread in response to being told to stop acting like a child. I think it's clear that his tantrum is a completely valid point to bring up in this thread, as it is a large part of the root cause for it.
Then again, I might be a little biased.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:00 pm
by TheProwler
Timminz wrote:Then again, I might be a little biased.
Maybe you are. Because in the opening post, I don't see any indication of a temper tantrum. Judge the post on its own merits, not what you know or think about GS in other threads and forums. He presents clear ideas. In my opinion, he is definitely right about some of them.
He isn't arguing against the policies of CC. He is stating that he thinks the CC mods (and maybe admin) are going off-course in their enforcement of the policies.
Why is mpjh being allowed to flame other users so regularly?
I could name a few others, too. They very infrequently visited Flame Wars when it was around, but now that it is gone, they open up with flames in other forums. Are you arguing that this should be allowed?
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:19 pm
by Timminz
TheProwler wrote:I could name a few others, too. They very infrequently visited Flame Wars when it was around, but now that it is gone, they open up with flames in other forums. Are you arguing that this should be allowed?
No. I don't think this should be allowed. I think it's childish.
I just don't agree with GS (and others who have behaved similarly in recent days), when they act in a ridiculous fashion, and then accuse anyone who calls them on it, of flaming, bating, trolling, sucking-up, and whatever else. I don't have any way to know what goes on behind-the-scenes here, nor do I have any way to know what is being allowed. Based on the number of people receiving vacations, and warnings, I would wager that most everyone who has been reported for flaming, has been told to stop.
And I guess I can understand where you're coming from with not seeing the tantrum in the OP of this thread. If you haven't been following the other threads, where he has been continuously ranting about the same things over, and over again, this thread might be seen as a legitimate issue.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:29 pm
by xelabale
[quote="Timminz"]I don't have any way to know what goes on behind-the-scenes here, nor do I have any way to know what is being allowed. quote]
Don't you think that is sad? if i don't know what is allowed how do i know if i'm doing it? Why can't we have openness and clarity? if McDs pulled quarterpounders tomorrow without warning despite selling them for several years then didn't respond for 5 days would McDs customers be pissed off? i guess what mpjh and timminz and owenshooter do is allowed so i will follow their most excellent example.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:29 pm
by GENERAL STONEHAM
Yes Timminz, we know you think discussing the issue on FLAME WARS is childish, but you continue trolling those who want to discuss it.
How fitting, it's childish, but WAAAAH, I want to participate in these discussions, so I can call of you children, WAAAAAH!
Well done Timminz, obviously you're trying to bait us into being banned by the administrators.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:02 pm
by jbrettlip
xelabale wrote:Timminz wrote:I don't have any way to know what goes on behind-the-scenes here, nor do I have any way to know what is being allowed. quote]
Don't you think that is sad? if i don't know what is allowed how do i know if i'm doing it? Why can't we have openness and clarity? if McDs pulled quarterpounders tomorrow without warning despite selling them for several years then didn't respond for 5 days would McDs customers be pissed off? i guess what mpjh and timminz and owenshooter do is allowed so i will follow their most excellent example.
They do exactly that with the McRib...go into your local McD's and demand a McRib. Let me know how that goes.
And I hope GS doesn't get banned. That is an awesome avatar.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:12 pm
by GENERAL STONEHAM
jbrettlip wrote:xelabale wrote:Timminz wrote:I don't have any way to know what goes on behind-the-scenes here, nor do I have any way to know what is being allowed. quote]
Don't you think that is sad? if i don't know what is allowed how do i know if i'm doing it? Why can't we have openness and clarity? if McDs pulled quarterpounders tomorrow without warning despite selling them for several years then didn't respond for 5 days would McDs customers be pissed off? i guess what mpjh and timminz and owenshooter do is allowed so i will follow their most excellent example.
They do exactly that with the McRib...go into your local McD's and demand a McRib. Let me know how that goes.
And I hope GS doesn't get banned. That is an awesome avatar.
Being banned again for what? Sticking to the subject? For NOT calling others childish for disagreeing?
Oh and thanks for the avatar compliment.
Back from my THIRD banning and hopefully for the last time.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:17 pm
by owenshooter
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Back from my THIRD banning and hopefully for the last time.
yeah, we understood that the first 34 times you posted it... nice to have you back...-0
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:23 pm
by GENERAL STONEHAM
owenshooter wrote:GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Back from my THIRD banning and hopefully for the last time.
yeah, we understood that the first 34 times you posted it... nice to have you back...-0
Thanks for such kind words of encouragement, with-out posters like you, I'd be crying and blowing my nose on my sleeves....whimper, sniff, BLAAAH!
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:46 pm
by KLOBBER
xelabale wrote:Why can't we have openness and clarity?
Animals don't respond well to openness and clarity -- their behavior requires one to outsmart them and use whatever means is necessary to keep them under control, as they have no self-control, like human beings have.
Similarly, the CC Administrators knew the mentality of the Flame Wars types, and so they knew that they had to use their obviously superior intelligence in order to handle this situation with the least possible trouble from that crowd.
They came up with a brilliant method, in my opinion, of handling these unfortunates.
Couching the removal within an April Fool's joke, and then simply allowing the offending forum to remain nonexistent when the joke was over was a devastatingly intelligent strategy that effectively kept these unfortunate individuals in check. Peace and Love was used as a buffer for their hatred and immaturity, and it worked like a charm.
This was definitely the smartest move I've ever seen the CC Administrators make.
Bravo, guys!
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:49 pm
by GENERAL STONEHAM
KLOBBER wrote:xelabale wrote:Why can't we have openness and clarity?
Animals don't respond well to openness and clarity -- their behavior requires one to outsmart them and use whatever means is necessary to keep them under control, as they have no self-control, like human beings have.
Similarly, the CC Administrators knew the mentality of the Flame Wars types, and so they knew that they had to use their obviously superior intelligence in order to handle this situation with the least possible trouble from that crowd.
They came up with a brilliant method, in my opinion, of handling these unfortunates.
Couching the removal within an April Fool's joke, and then simply allowing the offending forum to remain nonexistent when the joke was over was a devastatingly intelligent strategy that effectively kept these unfortunate individuals in check. Peace and Love was used as a buffer for their hatred and immaturity, and it worked like a charm.
This was definitely the smartest move I've ever seen the CC Administrators make.
Bravo, guys!
Here's another fine example of abusive behaviour and name-callling. It's allowed, since they are now the mouth pieces of the administrators.
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:50 pm
by KLOBBER
barterer2002 wrote:When a child throws a temper tantrum on the floor of a store, the manager is well within the rights to have such a child removed from the store until such time as the tantrum has ended.
Well said!
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:52 pm
by KLOBBER
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Here's another fine example of abusive behaviour and name-callling. It's allowed, since they are now the mouth pieces of the administrators.
Dude, I haven't said anything "abusive." Try to get a grip -- Flamer Wars is gone for good!
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:03 pm
by jiminski
KLOBBER wrote:
Animals don't respond well to openness and clarity -- their behavior requires one to outsmart them and use whatever means is necessary to keep them under control, as they have no self-control, like human beings have.
Similarly, the CC Administrators knew the mentality of the Flame Wars types, and so they knew that they had to use their obviously superior intelligence in order to handle this situation with the least possible trouble from that crowd.
They came up with a brilliant method, in my opinion, of handling these unfortunates.
Couching the removal within an April Fool's joke, and then simply allowing the offending forum to remain nonexistent when the joke was over was a devastatingly intelligent strategy that effectively kept these unfortunate individuals in check. Peace and Love was used as a buffer for their hatred and immaturity, and it worked like a charm.
This was definitely the smartest move I've ever seen the CC Administrators make.
Bravo, guys!
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:26 pm
by TheProwler
GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Why is it that Timminz and Mpjh can stalk, harrass and bait others and not get a ban? The political correctness of General Discussion, has taken an ugly turn. Where those who profess their hatred to FLAME WARS are allowed to FLAME posters who want a civil discussion of the revival of FLAME WARS.
Are Timminz and Mpjh, administrators dressed as regular posters? To bait and ban those who's thinking differ from them?
I find it utterly wrong to ban those who's infractions are simply a differing of views. FLAMING is ok, if you tow the line of the administrators of C.C.
Why is this thread being hijacked? It is not about how Flame Wars was ended. Can the trolls please show some self control?
Here are the questions posed in this thread that most people are trying to ignore:
Why is it that Timminz and Mpjh can stalk, harrass and bait others and not get a ban?
Are Timminz and Mpjh, administrators dressed as regular posters? To bait and ban those who's thinking differ from them?
I don't think mpjh is an administrator. But I do think he gets special treatment. He does a lot of flaming and baiting and apparently doesn't get disciplined for it. Why is this?
He tried his hand in Flame Wars a few months ago and couldn't handle it. Is this the reason that he continues to hold a grudge against the people in Flame Wars? Is it possible that the mods empathize with him because they went through similar experiences? Do the mods feel pity for mpjh? Does misery love company?
Will mpjh ever feel satisfied with his flames now that Flame Wars is gone? Won't he feel, deep down, like a coward who wouldn't engage his enemies in a proper arena for combat? Won't he realize that he is being protected by the mods and admins of this site and that he will never achieve a real or just victory? How long will it take for mpjh to realize that the day Flame Wars was removed was the day he lost his ability to exact proper revenge?
Re: Timminz and Mpjh, thugs for C.C.?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:50 pm
by Artimis
TheProwler wrote:Are Timminz and Mpjh, administrators dressed as regular posters?
I'm fine with Timmiz being an admin, administering a site of this size is an unenviably boring and tedious task, requiring similarly unenviably boring people to to perform them. The same goes for accountancy, you need a high tolerance for repetitive and tedious work, everything must be meticulously worked out.
However I would not be comfortable with Mpjh as an admin, IMHO he seems to lack the worldly-wise experience of Timmiz to make the sound judgement calls that such a position would require.