Huh?

---

Quote: Frankly, I'm enjoying not having to walk on eggshells. Agreed. He is the only reason I stopped coming here

"...with his inability to stop arguing."It takes two to argue. (Though we may stop by Steve's and he may prove me wrong.) More accurately, I think, the problem that most seem to have with Steve was his inability to yield to another's reason or lack there of, that he believed misinformed or mislead.Regardless of how clinical, sober and forthright the discussion about Steve was in the mod forum, I personally will always have my doubts and think the decision rather dubious. For myself, I have to often in life found clinical decision making to only be a guise for the personal agenda's of those with power. As some great Greek thinker once said, "It is the great failing of democracy that rulers, even elected, cannot separate themselves from their own prejudices." ...or something like that.I think Steve fell victim to his own belief that was so eloquently stated in his sig, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" Martin Luther King. The things Steve argued about where important and mattered to him, at least it seems that way to me. What he failed to realize, or perhaps knew and pressed forth anyway, was that often there is a personal price to pay for not being silent in the face of the disagreeing preponderant.________________________________________________________________Since Bob brought it up and it hasn't been answered or addressed by a mod, at least in this thread or to my knowledge, what was the reason for deleting Bob's thread about Steve?

was the reason for deleting Bob's thread about Steve? I never saw that thread, but it was probably deleted to avoid a "who,why,what" debate over a path taken.

Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Quote:

Frankly, I'm enjoying not having to walk on eggshells

And who exactly forced you to reply or even engage in conversations with Steve?

I agree with you Mr. U. :grin:

Originally Posted By: sdp was the reason for deleting Bob's thread about Steve? I never saw that thread, but it was probably deleted to avoid a "who,why,what" debate over a path taken. Well the odd thing is that it had nothing to do with him being banned or anything, it was an April Fool's joke about Steve actually being Rev. Ted Haggard. I only found out that Steve was gone after I questioned it's disappearance.

It was almost the perfect hit. Steve got whacked and nobody even knew it.It wasn't until your questioning of the deletion of an apparently unrelated thread that the organization and what had been done was revealed. So many layers, all full of secrecy. Now if you can get them to stumble into revealing who the capos are and who the consiglierie is and who ordered the hit, you'll be doing something.I wounder who "made their bones" on Steve.

I can't wait to find out where he was buried!

well, if the murder took place in Miami, then we can expect Officer Obvious a.k.a. Huratio Caine to put on his sunglasses, purse his lips and say something earth shattering like "you're right... DEAD right" (cue Roger Daltry screaming)

CSI fantacies aside, I don't think it's a mystery who the judge, jury and executioner is

Maybe we should make our own A2A Cluedo game...And how about Converse22, was he banned? Not fucking likely!!

I am just opposed to censorship in all forms
Peddling race hate, porn to kids, personal vilification etc are a few exceptions
If someone talks a load of crap I think I should be able call them a moron
Steve was a bit of a pill at times. but he could be quite helpful to some and obviosly quite dedicated

I hope A2A doesn't go the way of Yahoo Australia
Moderators here delete you if they disagree with your political leanings

Quote:Moderators here delete you if they disagree with your political leaningsNothing could be further from the truth and every member can tell you that.

i think he may have been talking about the moderators in "Yahoo australia" not here although i could be wrong

Sorry, I meant Yahoo Australia
'here' as in Australia

Quote:

And who exactly forced you to reply or even engage in conversations with Steve?

You didnt have to engage into conversation with him.. he would get right up on you about your opinion and how to exactly prove you wrong.. or make you feel like an idiot or a bad person for having that opinion

I hate censorship too, buzzie. Steve's problem was not his views, but his inability to let matters drop, ever. Mods and admins have a responsibility to keep the board running effectively, and when the constant arguments that he instigated and maintained were driving people away, we had to act.

It has happened on other boards, too, where an individual who is not malevolent, who indeed has only the best intentions, nevertheless makes the board ineffective and has to go for the good of the board.

Since Steve has seemed throughout totally unaware of what was wrong, even when it was pointed out to him in the clearest terms, and has seemed incapable of change, there seems no point in reversing what was an unhappy, but right, decision.

"...his inability to let matters drop, ever"In other words, be silent, when told by the power that be and let someone else have the last word on a matter he felt strongly about.>>>"...were driving people away..."I'm just curious, as I've heard this for a year and a half now, who are all these "people"? Is there a list? How do we know they didn't just get board with the site and leave as most do? How is this know? It's gotta be more than pink or damien because their both right here in this thread. This sounds far more like justification than reason.What method was used in determining that it was Steve, surely it was more than just, he pissed me off, ergo he must piss them off and if they don't come back that's why. That's not sound logic or reason.>>>"...makes the board ineffective..."How did this board become ineffective? When or were? Steve's rants where rather well confined to the community forum, something not even viewable by non-members, with of course the exception of his strong held beliefs on circumcision. Furthermore, Steve's rants were generally about religion and politics which by their very nature are opinionated divisive issues that many members here use to pass the time between the repetitive "is my penis big enough" posts. As I said before it take two to argue. Again this sounds a lot like justification.One of the things that bothers me about this is how it was handled. Every other longstanding member, hell some that aren't even that longstanding, that have been banned, it's been, at least to a degree public, open, everyone knew when and why it happened. Remember Unforgetto, White Lines, the international pop recording skater chick, least of all Purple and his many personalities. Yet with Steve it was quick, quiet and almost under the rug.From the outside, it seems this had far more to do with an insulted mod and maybe Jesus seeking vengeance through his followers hands than it did with Steve. Perhaps I'm wrong in my suspicions but the circumstances and the way it was handled, as apposed to other well known banned members, it certainly lends itself to the perception of impropriety.

I'm not defending Steve one I-otta (sp), I am questioning the actions of the administration, here.Granted I don't understand people all that well but the idea that anyone can make me leave by an argumentative nature is absolutely foreign to me. It's something I simply can't fathom. If you say that's the case I take you at your word, you would know better than I. I guess I just need to reappraise my beliefs about peoples and their strengths and convictions. I guess they're weaker than I gave them credit for.As for my previous post, it is meant to, and I think does, reflect how the actions of the mods of this board appear outside the mod forum, it seems highly questionable. That's how it appears to me, and others I'm sure, for good or for ill that's what you have to contend with.As for contacting Steve - No thanks. The number of times he and I exchanged PMs could be counted on one had with fingers left over. As far as that goes the number of times we talked on the board could probably be counted on both hands with fingers left over. We were not close, nor do I care to be. There are only three or so people I give a shit about on this board and two of them seem to be, for the most part, gone.It was said, "Life's too short to sweat the why, who, what, when, where of Steve's disappearance." Believe it or not, I really don't care that much about Steve's disappearance, what I care about is the next guys disappearance, and what Steve's disappearance implies about that. Who's the next to get axed for taking Christianity to task or for, as Mr. U put it, going toe to toe with a mod. As I said a couple of times now, maybe that wasn't the case, maybe it was all done out of good conscience but the timing and how it was done will always leave a little doubt in my mind. I'll always wonder was it because Steve was a pain in the ass or was it because he was pain in the ass to a mod, while taking to task a least a couple other mods religious convictions. Sometimes appearances and protocols matter.That's all I have to say about this... most likely. As is obvious, I disagree with the decision as it was made and how it was handled at least as it appears from the outside.

The trouble is, any time Steve was finally banned (and remember, this was after a lot of warnings) it would look like it was the result of some argument, because he was always involved in one.

Who said his banning had anything to do with his views on Christianity or whether or not he had a spat with a moderator? That's making some rather large assumptions. I personally liked the man but I didn't always agree with him, as many here can admit to (whether you're a mod or not) and I have to confess that he could give some great advice... but giving spectacular advice does not excuse him from picking fights or belittling someone for their personal thoughts and convictions.