Canadian_Watcher's Ban Decision Poll

[compared2what?]

Thanks for those. I can find examples like that from everyone who has contributed to this thread. And I agree with the second quote, above, although maybe the f word hurts some people's sensibilities, so I might have left that out. That post wasn't directed at anyone at all was it? I can't see that it was.

But I am not going to argue this. My point is and has been that I cannot watch this one sided witch hunt without speaking up. The poster you are banning has spoken for me, more or less, as I've sat silently reading. My turn has come.

The posters here aren't banning anyone, and can't.

And If this is a one-sided witch hunt, I'd be curious to know:

(a) what your idea of a two-sided argument is; and
(b) what unfair, untrue, or trumped-up accusations make it a witch hunt.

rollingstone a.k.a. Canadian_Watcher why don't you just speak your peace now so we all don't have to play pretend?

brekin, cut it out. Respond to conduct/content, ffs.

[compared2what?]

I would greatly prefer it if nobody did that, thank you for asking.

Well, let me know when the phony respectful mourning period ends, will you?

That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.

I wasn't bluffing, Not-Canadian_watcher.

You too.

Jeebus. It's like you guys don't even need any opposition. You can invalidate your arguments all by yourselves.

[Wombaticus Rex]

That's right on. I began using the anonymizers after I was roundly accused of sockpuppetry on my first or second post by more than one user. I knew they were bluffing, but it did get me to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to keep my location hidden.

Well, it was a reasonable concern. Your first 2 posts were from the following:

xxxxx (50.101.33.xxx) [ 2 Posts ]

CW has posted 97 times from the following:

xxxx (50.101.34.xxx) [ 97 Posts ]

I'm perfectly willing to believe you, though.

I would only suggest that if you miss CW, you could get her contact info from Jerky and have coffee sometime.

[barracuda]

Yeah, because apparently you guys live about a block apart.

This is a conspiracy forum, isn't it?

Jeebus. It's like you guys don't even need any opposition. You can invalidate your arguments all by yourselves.

'Kay, Mom. From the thread rollingstone listed as exemplifying Canadian_watcher's fine self-control:

You can't tell because all you know is that I think you are a repulsive, manipulative, vindictive, self-aggrandizing liar so you can't imagine that I might be able to care for people who aren't like that. But I do. I deeply, deeply do care.

so yeah, since we're allowed to say fuck you and point video guns at people for the moment, consider yourself aimed at and fucked. Lover.

Lovely. Just for instance.

[compared2what?]

Yeah, because apparently you guys live about a block apart.

This is a conspiracy forum, isn't it?

You'd be wrong even if you were right. You know that.

Jeebus. It's like you guys don't even need any opposition. You can invalidate your arguments all by yourselves.

'Kay, Mom.

...
Curse you. Seriously.

So I guess goodbye Canadian_Watcher!
And a welcome to rollingstone!

Seconded. Welcome, rollingstone.

[DrEvil]

Dr Evil:

And of course, not a single sentence regarding the actual topic of the discussion.

That was the topic of the discussion. it's the OP. If you'd care to link to the post you're referring to everyone else could see that as well.

c'est toute

Yeah, my bad. I got it confused with the Icke thread. She started a whole new thread just to accuse people of those things (because of the Icke thread, mind you). Here's the link:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=36734&p=512811#p512811

[compared2what?]

From the thread rollingstone listed as exemplifying Canadian_watcher's fine self-control:

You can't tell because all you know is that I think you are a repulsive, manipulative, vindictive, self-aggrandizing liar so you can't imagine that I might be able to care for people who aren't like that. But I do. I deeply, deeply do care.

so yeah, since we're allowed to say fuck you and point video guns at people for the moment, consider yourself aimed at and fucked. Lover.

Lovely. Just for instance.

Really? Well, maybe you have a point.

But maybe not.

Because when I was skimming the thread, from a partial reading I assumed both of those were you. The search function doesn't always make it clear. And it's not really farther than you go, which I don't think is farther than allowable limits.

Goose/gander.

[barracuda]

Right, and agree. But I'm not putting that thread on my resume as an even-temperedness exemplar, right?

[compared2what?]

Right, and agree. But I'm not putting that thread on my resume as an even-temperedness exemplar, right?

I'm just cranky because I was looking forward to a response from rollingstone, tbh. Self is a curse.

But let me ask you something hypothetical.

Would you agree with or like me less if I could prove I was also Canadian_watcher?

Because even though I'm not, you don't know really know that. So just for the sake of argument, how would that change your feelings about what I posted as me?

_____________

ON EDIT: ^^More or less why I say socks are unfairly stigmatized. No reason to assume it increases bad not good.

[barracuda]

Oh, I don't really care if Canadian_watcher has a new sock-nickname. I actually think that's not a bad compromise towards her remaining on the board in some fashion. I'm just not gonna pretend I'm not suspicious here. We're all here because it's all about being suspicious here.

And if the mods are good with it, then so am I. As I've said several times, Canadian_watcher is by nature incapable of acting within the boundaries of acceptable behavior on the forum. And since a rose is a rose is a rose, I expect any new incarnation would follow suit. So the only way you could prove to me you were Canadian_watcher would be by getting suspended over and over.

And over.

And over and over and over.

Then banned. Or something very much like that.

[brekin]

brekin wrote:rollingstone a.k.a. Canadian_Watcher why don't you just speak your peace now so we all don't have to play pretend?

compared2what wrote:

brekin, cut it out. Respond to conduct/content, ffs.

compared2what you spent a lot of time composing your reasons why your exchanges weren't fruitful, hurtful and exasperating for you with CW. If you want to have the same type of exchanges with rollingstone then that is your prerogative. A reincarnated CW is still CW though and this shows to me that CW still doesn't understand that her comments were wrong and doesn't feel she has to take any responsibility for her behavior. If this was a one time thing I'd shrug it off, (and we ALL have shrugged off CW comments before, the board has been nothing but tolerant.) But shes done this time and time again collecting bans like merit badges and this last one was most foul.

Now we are in a situation where she is still causing drama by her absence and her proxy presence. Here's the back catalogue of CW's comments.
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=1147&start=15
I don't want to replay that with rollingstone. You can change your name but the song remains the same.

[rollingstone]

Wombat,

I am appalled.

THIS might be the over the top, stop the presses EMERGENCY that Brekin was concerned about.

JEFF: I would like that information removed but more fairly, I would like the most commonly used IP and its real world location for ALL OF THE POSTERS on this board to be published. I am out.

I cannot believe that just happened.

[barracuda]

Ban this person again. I warned you.

[Project Willow]

Post deleted. Not cool to out actual poster identities here against their will, rollingstone, you're on a break.

[barracuda]

On a break??

PLEASE BAN. CANADIAN WATCHER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO POST HERE.