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 as
41/2 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
CathInfo'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.
A "
confusedchick" 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 αnтι-ѕємιтєs 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".
Topic: Graceseeker banned (Read 3253 times)