Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

I apologize for not bowing to the Grand Inquisitor for the Altar of Alfred, for I fear that in doing so my posterior may be positioned in an upright manner and Slitherine may take that as evidence of "presenting", or, at the very least, of "posing".

Surely their standards apply equally to both sexes.

Besides, at a military veteran I am much too busy drawing pictures of dicks on walls.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

Given all of the above, it's little surprise that two factions formed and divided this community and the toxicity still remains with this picture mess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

quote:

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

quote:

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

We've just established that Alfred was clear about the question being asked was stupid. Tanaka converted this into the notion that Alfred was calling him stupid. The facts, in this case, Alfred's post, are quite clear that the comment was directed at the question.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.

warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.

warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.

That should not take you too long to search since Tanaka only started posting questions about WITP:AE recently. Remember, don't ask someone to do something if you are unwilling to do so. But if you really want a listing of all of the questions that Tanaka has asked, maybe you should start a thread . . .

Alfred was banned by Eric in an admitted violation of the rules . . .

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

It’s quite ironic after 5 pages and 133 post that the subject of this thread shows the civility (or lack there of) of our niche within the niche community.

I still say it’s time to move on life us too short and most of us know how to be civil and respectful towards one another most of us are over 50 for Pete’s sake.

Alfred is gone. Let him RIP and let’s find a new knowledgeable leader to follow and move on.

And we all must follow the new rules, like it or not, Erik owns the site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.

Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

warspite1

Not what I asked.

Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.

warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.

That should not take you too long to search since Tanaka only started posting questions about WITP:AE recently. Remember, don't ask someone to do something if you are unwilling to do so. But if you really want a listing of all of the questions that Tanaka has asked, maybe you should start a thread . . .

Alfred was banned by Eric in an admitted violation of the rules . . .

warspite1

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.

The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.

I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .

warspite1

The Guildford Four - a famous mis-carriage of justice case in the UK.

Alfred being banned without a warning having been given, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to come back.

It's not that deep.

Perspective.

quote:


Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......