Graceseeker was banned -- need I give a reason?
1. She wasn't a good fit for this forum.
She's arguably "not a good fit
" for any forum
. It wasn't all that rare for me to update the indexes of most recent posts, whether on the CathInfo
main page or certain other subforums, and see her member-id on 8--10 of the dozen most recent, showing posting intervals of 3--5 minutes (more-or-less), or see her member-id on a comparable sequence of original postings
. I'm surprised that C.I.
stats show her posting rate being as low
per day. With a few original postings
needlessly placed in the "anonymous
" forum fitting right into her chronological sequence. I call that behavior practically spammy
, altho' that word might not be technically accurate.
Considering her apparently typical 1-liner
or few-lines postings, twitter
is where she really belongs.
Her upvote/downvote ratio was something like 1:3
's member-stats show her as even worse off than that: slightly better than 1:31/2
. Altho' that's no record; there's a C.I.
member who's very nearly 1:4.
Her e-mail address included the phrase "confusedchick". That, at least, had a lot of truth to it.
" indeed, given this reply after 1300 postings on C.I.
from someone so obsessed with U.S. politics:
I am not exactly sure what a neo con is [....]
4. Her last post was, "I Tend to Believe Fox, not the anti-Semites at this site"
Ah, yes; what is Fox
if not the voice of the neo cons
, as founded by the foreign owner of tabloid
newspapers? The neo cons
are no more likely to call themselves that, than the mainstream Democrats are to rename themselves "Socialists