Why a moderator should be allowed to abuse one of the "patrons"

[Kevin Bonham]

You and I both know what you have done with the post.

What are you talking about? The only one of your posts I have modded since returning from Mt Buller is the post that read "Looks like the Control freak is having another mental breakdown." I moved that post out of the thread it was in and then merged it with this thread (it is #4 above) - I did not delete it. If you are missing another post I am happy to help suggest some places you might look for it, but I had nothing to do with it. Please explain.

I have made the claim that you split the threads because you want to abuse people, and somehow in your mind , you think that that splitting the threads gives you a chance to vent your feelings in an even more abusive pattern then you normally do.

Already refuted.

Moreover, you never once censored Bill for his abuse of people with the wording cretin and moron,- this is probably because you enjoy being derogatory to people in the same sort of vein.

Or it could be because they are not against the forum rules. Now, if you think I have censored you, what did I delete? You really must explain this point, because it looks like you are frothing about something that did not happen.

[firegoat7]

I read the state of mind comment as Australian colloquialism, but hey, feel free to interpret it any way you want, I can understand from your narrative what you were thinking.

Cheers FG7

[firegoat7]

having fun with your post game?

[Kevin Bonham]

firegoat, at the moment I think you're having trouble understanding that the thing in front of you is a computer screen and not a vicious doberman mauling your head with a big green tongue every thirty seconds. Your posts tonight, written almost instantly when I respond and making no sense whatsoever, make me wonder if you are drunk or otherwise intoxicated. (Nothing wrong with that but if so you shouldn't be online for your own sake.) Now, once again, what was this post I am supposed to have deleted?

[firegoat7]

Do you actually understand what your saying?

[Kevin Bonham]

Yes, firegoat, and I think last night that made one of us.

[firegoat7]

Yes, firegoat, and I think last night that made one of us.

Good, now we wont have any excuses about your agenda. Now lets look empirically at what you said last night.
Let us start from post 8

I ... had said just as harsh things about those offenders who deserved it - which you clearly do and have pretty much throughout your unnprovokedly aggressive and largely worthless career on these BBs.

Your normal positive self I see, surely encouraging behaviour for anybody to parcticipate on this BB.

you seem too idiotic to notice is that ....

abuse

No bozo, I didn't delete it - I moved it to this thread (#4).

abuse

You have done neither and are motivated solely by the hatred (and I know how personally you are stupid enough to take it) you developed for someone you have never met based on an exposure of your own inadequacies.

abuse

you should put it in perspective and stop attempting to apply standards of imagined proprietry more appropriate to a communist monkey court

abuse
[

shows what a melodramatic idiot you are

you get the pattern yet

it looks like you are frothing about something that did not happen.

more abuse

make me wonder if you are drunk or otherwise intoxicated. (Nothing wrong with that but if so you shouldn't be online for your own sake.)

complete character assasination, wrong and patronising

All this from a moderator who sets what example? That abusing people is ok? That anything goes so long as he thinks its legitimate.

Talk about self appointed double standards, does it even occur to you how nauseating your abusive righteous pragmitism sounds?- It wasn't me abusing you last night Bonham, was it?. Moreover you never went to any length to genuinely understand what I was complaining about, before putting on your headkickers on.

But just for the record. I posted my post after the thread was split not before. You have no right to move it,since it wasn't posted on the new thread, and I won't even bother going on about when it appeared on the new thread either.

Morover, why don't you split this thread now and give it the heading - why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!

Cheers FG7
P.S sorry about the abuse in the quotes but hey, I bit my tongue last night!

[Kevin Bonham]

Your normal positive self I see, surely encouraging behaviour for anybody to parcticipate on this BB.

I've always encouraged anybody to smack down the sort of rubbish frequently posted here by a minority of fact-averse hotheads. Your point is?

abuse
abuse
abuse
abuse
[ you get the pattern yet
more abuse

The pattern is that you deserved it all and shouldn't go whining when you bring it on yourself. Actually I would argue that "standards of imagined proprietry more appropriate to a communist monkey court" is not abuse but rather criticism of your numbskull politics (albeit sarcastically phrased).

complete character assasination, wrong and patronising

It is impossible to patronise you. However if you say that you were not intoxicated I shall take your word for it and revert to the only alternative explanation: overwhelming stupidity. How else do you explain why you continually asserted that I had deleted a post when I had not?

All this from a moderator who sets what example?

For the bazillionth time, bozo - please tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids so I will be saved the necessity of billing you should I need to repeat it again:

I do not moderate my own posts. Any complaints concerning my posts should be directed to another moderator. Otherwise, shut up.

That abusing people is ok? That anything goes so long as he thinks its legitimate.

This is all completely ineffective - you've tried it many times before and got nowhere. The only example I care about setting is to try to stay within the rules.

Talk about self appointed double standards,

Non sequitur - no evidence provided.

does it even occur to you how nauseating your abusive righteous pragmitism sounds?

I would hope that it nauseated you so that you spent so much time vomiting that you only had time left over to post something sensible on here instead of wasting time with this rubbish.

- It wasn't me abusing you last night Bonham, was it?. Moreover you never went to any length to genuinely understand what I was complaining about, before putting on your headkickers on.

Amusing that you say that when nothing that you said made much sense - especially not your false and still unretracted claim that I deleted a post, or your false claim that I split the thread so I could start insulting people (when actually I split it after).

But just for the record. I posted my post after the thread was split not before. You have no right to move it,since it wasn't posted on the new thread, and I won't even bother going on about when it appeared on the new thread either.

I had already split the thread at that stage and posted a notice saying that off-topic material was being moved. Furthermore you had already made a similar post (the one either above or below it) on this thread. Finally I have the right to move any post I like; if you disagree with this sing sweet songs of your deep emotional wounding to somebody who actually cares.

Morover, why don't you split this thread now and give it the heading - why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!

Thank you for your kind suggestion, which has considerable merit, but I feel a few minor editorial changes would improve it considerably.

(Be careful what you wish for.)

P.S sorry about the abuse in the quotes but hey, I bit my tongue last night!

Try biting your fingers off instead, it would save you a lot of embarrassment.

[Alan Shore]

I do not moderate my own posts. Any complaints concerning my posts should be directed to another moderator. Otherwise, shut up.

If we were sad enough to care I'm sure we would. It's simply more amusing to let you parade around your own self-righteous pompous garbage as a signpost for all to see. FG7 has brought out the nasty character flaw in you even more. Is there some kind of misdirected subconscious anger you feel necessary to dish out to strangers online in a vain attempt at winning a futile waste of time in the arena of a few bytes of ASCII text? (Before you try to attack that, know I have a degree in psychology - I know human behaviour better than you, even if you know much more than me about the behaviour of snails).

Come on Kevin, I had hoped you were better than that. Let's just stick to the topics that arise without the ridiculous arrogance and ad hominem that accompanies it.

[Kaitlin]

mmm where do i start...

the first one 'firegoat' 14-01-2005, 12:44 PM says: 'sub heading' - thread split from Godwin's Law at firegoat's request.

the second one 'firagoat' 14-01-2005, 01:02 PM says: Only a control freak would split this thread, others might understand the connections- recognising that it never strayed. Maybe your act of splitting this one is an unconscious act ,or, even worse, maybe you are conscious of the act.

mmm - is this about this being split into a new thread or bit of the post being quoated ..cause it says split at firegoat's request and then firegoat says only a control freak would do that which implyes firegoats a control freak! . But I dont think that is what he ment but why let the truth get in way of the facts mmm maybe I should be a lawyer, wait school suxed ... mmm it not what was cause i read some more up "firegoaT" again ..I present some evidence to the jury of your a-social rhetoric and controlling behaviour.

Ive ran out of effort to type what i was gona... but I just thought of sumt'n... maybe there should be a thread that had the title 'dribble' or 'gibberish' in which dribble and gibberish can just menader whereever it goes and if something interisting developes it could be split into a new thread.

Read some more of the post.. and came back to the reason i clickered on this thread ( so I read page one I will read page two in a minute ) .. "Why a moderator should be allowed to abuse one of the "patrons" - I know what a moderator is but had to ask what a patrons is... my Uncle says it is a man who goes to the same pub all the time and my Mum says it is someone it is someone who gave lots of money to the bowling Club to get it started in the first place. With either of them I dont think a moderator should be allowed to abuse a patron but also I dont think a patron should think they have special privalages (apart from being respected for being a regular customer or for what they have done in the past) above and beyond those of other members given that a moderators job (and which we should appreciate them doing ) is to make sure the site is for the enjoyment of everyone. That doesnt mean that people shouldnt be allowed to argue..cause most conversation in my house are arugment..but after a while if people continue talk which I hope most do here argument are actually are like the glue which you can think back on ( it more turer than it reads I used to hate my Mum but not now) .. but apart from that - that doesnt mean you should set out to white ant anyone or try to form alliences... base all your agrument on the facts ..... mmm and not like me at the start of this post on what you read or what people say, oh and even if ya are angry.. think twice..even a spelling mistake can be taken the wrong way.

Mmm maybe I shoud be in the dribble thread

Thats my Angel post for the year

[firegoat7]

mmm where do i start...

the first one 'firegoat' 14-01-2005, 12:44 PM says: 'sub heading' - thread split from Godwin's Law at firegoat's request.

the second one 'firagoat' 14-01-2005, 01:02 PM says: Only a control freak would split this thread, others might understand the connections- recognising that it never strayed. Maybe your act of splitting this one is an unconscious act ,or, even worse, maybe you are conscious of the act.

Confusing isn't it Kaitlin.
See what has happenend is that Mr Bonham in his infinite wisdom has now split the thread three times (see the tournament refund thread for the beginning of the saga). He has also transposed posts from one thread to the other, despite them being posted on seperate threads (as if it wasn't confusing already). It should be noted that rather then just give one post for a new beginning, we now get an innaccurate scenario of revised history, that is completely out of context. Hence my sympathy is extended towards you, in your efforts to understand why this thread is so confusing.

Cheers FG7

Cheers FG7

[firegoat7]

I've always encouraged anybody to smack down the sort of rubbish frequently posted here by a minority of fact-averse hotheads. Your point is?

abuse

The pattern is that you deserved it all and shouldn't go whining when you bring it on yourself.

more abuse

It is impossible to patronise you. However if you say that you were not intoxicated I shall take your word for it and revert to the only alternative explanation: overwhelming stupidity.

more abuse

For the bazillionth time, bozo - please tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids so I will be saved the necessity of billing you should I need to repeat it again

more abuse

I would hope that it nauseated you so that you spent so much time vomiting that you only had time left over to post something sensible on here instead of wasting time with this rubbish.

continued abuse

your false claim that I split the thread so I could start insulting people (when actually I split it after).

I think we have clearly established that you enjoy abusing/insulting people.

Thank you for your kind suggestion, which has considerable merit, but I feel a few minor editorial changes would improve it considerably.

I didn't think you would do it so I will give you a clap for guts, nevertheless see my rejoinder to Kaitlin for an opinion on whether this works or not.

cheers FG7

[firegoat7]

why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!

By the way in case anybody missed it here is what I actually dared him to split, which of course is a bit different to what our esteemed moderator Kevin Bonham placed on the board as the thread heading.

This just goes to show you how personal his motives are when splitting a thread and transposing posts- which of course is what I was complaining about at the beginning

Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort. This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

[ursogr8]

By the way in case anybody missed it here is what I actually dared him to split, which of course is a bit different to what our esteemed moderator Kevin Bonham placed on the board as the thread heading.

hi fg7
Yes, I for one did see you original 'invite'.
And yes, this title is a bit different.
Is the difference important?
> If your debate with KB ended with a conclusion that it was OK to 'abuse' one patron, then presumably it would apply to more than one, and hence would be the equivalent of your title?
>> Or, is your point that he should take your title without alteration, period?
>>> Or, if he can alter your suggested title, is the alteration not to contain any personal motive?

This just goes to show you how personal his motives are when splitting a thread and transposing posts- which of course is what I was complaining about at the beginning

Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort. This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

The validity of disgraceful might depend on which of >,>>,>>>.

regards
starter

[Kevin Bonham]

If we were sad enough to care I'm sure we would. It's simply more amusing to let you parade around your own self-righteous pompous garbage as a signpost for all to see.

I think you are frequently slightly more pompous than me, and the most pompous person here apart from Goughfather, who has the fortune of getting away with it because when he is pompous he generally argues his case well and is frequently right. (In fact I was surprised to learn how young he was - I had expected a middle-aged academic from the way he posted). I'm sure this will be another bombastic load of swill from you, in what is basically just a split continuation of the same discussion where you said "Since we've all but stopped addressing the original issue itself, I don't think I'll waste any more time." I bet your resolve won't last very much longer here.

FG7 has brought out the nasty character flaw in you even more.

Impatience with wantonly poor arguments and boringly bad trolling, you mean? That one? Terrible, simply terrible. Do you think that joining a hippy commune for a decade or so would be sufficient to get rid of this telling flaw?

Is there some kind of misdirected subconscious anger you feel necessary to dish out to strangers online in a vain attempt at winning a futile waste of time in the arena of a few bytes of ASCII text?

firegoat is not a stranger to me - I have met him, although I do not know him well. He was perfectly amiable when I met him, which made it surprising that when he first showed up on the bulletin boards he mounted ridiculous attacks on people who had done nothing to deserve them, refused to accept that these actions were unreasonable, and has since carried out an on-and-off and rather deranged online vendetta against the person who had the temerity to repeatedly call him on it. You're the psychology graduate - how about you explain it.

(Before you try to attack that, know I have a degree in psychology - I know human behaviour better than you, even if you know much more than me about the behaviour of snails).

That doesn't put you above trolling - if you want your credentials to carry any special weight I'll be expecting you to back your statements with evidence or references. (Modern scientificaly rigorous sources too please, theoretical babble recycled from Freud, Jung et al may simply be laughed at.) Vacuous arguments from the rather limited authority of a single degree will be not merely ignored but also viewed with contempt.

Come on Kevin, I had hoped you were better than that. Let's just stick to the topics that arise without the ridiculous arrogance and ad hominem that accompanies it.

You were the one who wanted to get trashy on the original "byes" thread which this came out of (pointless Nazi references, nerd/geek calls, other mindless drivel) so I cordially invite you to contemplate both your navel and your inconsistency. Don't dish trash, or defend it, if you can't take it. Simple. And don't expect me to lift my game while yours is wallowing around your ankles.