Author Topic: Matthews reason for banning Lua (Read 2706 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **on:** June 17, 2011, 04:51:40 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

A man being attracted to a beautiful young woman is NOT perverted or against nature.

Since this has been pointed out to you, and yet you continue to ignore it, I have to do something about it.

I had to reread the now-locked thread about PMing, which exploded yesterday like an exponential mushroom, but I eventually found the above words on page 18 or so.

Matthew's reason is clear, but I had not seen it with my own eyes until now. I believe he posted it while I was away from the computer during dinner. C'est la vie.

On that note, I must withdraw my comment about being "certain" that Lua's membership was taken away without sufficient reason (which call is never really any of my business anyway). At least it is now clear to me why Matthew acted as he did.

Jaynek · « **Reply #1 on:** June 17, 2011, 05:02:52 PM »

I used to post on Usenet newsgroups. For those who don't know, that is a sort of ancestor of forums. I've participated in unmoderated groups there and the experience left me with an enormous appreciation of moderators. I actually reacted to seeing the subject of this thread with feelings of dread - "He's not going to criticize the moderator, is he?" I was so relieved when I read the actual post.

I suppose this thing I have about moderators comes across a sycophantic, but I can't help it. I was traumatized by Usenet. :)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** June 17, 2011, 05:18:37 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

I actually reacted to seeing the subject of this thread with feelings of dread - "He's not going to criticize the moderator, is he?" I was so relieved when I read the actual post.

LOL!

Sorry to have caused confusion with the title :)

I have been through far too much with Matthew to doubt his decisions and, although we are all fallible, his decisions about running his own forum are none of my business. However, I had not read HIS words on the matter (despite having asked others to point them out to me). No biggie.

It is very easy in this medium to reply to others while presuming they have read what they might not have. I have done this myself, but, far too often, others have not yet read this or that post or thread and do not know what we think they do or should know. C'est la vie...

Raoul76 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 17, 2011, 06:40:52 PM »

Gladius, why do you care so much about a quasi-feminist Fisheaters visitor who was here for less than two days being banned? Please don't tell me it's your thirst for justice, because I have seen sedes kicked off this site and you didn't raise a peep. Not just myself -- but sede females! Why didn't they receive the knight-in-shining-armor treatment?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:08:29 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Gladius, why do you care so much about a quasi-feminist Fisheaters visitor who was here for less than two days being banned?

You seem to presume this post is about her -- it is not.

It is about the fact that I said something in a now-locked thread that I now know was incorrect -- i.e., Matthew had, in fact, given a clear reason, etc. Having read something I had not yet seen while going through the now-closed thread (for another reason), I felt bound to retract my comment about the banning. Nothing more.

If I could have handled it within the thread where I had said it, I would have. That being no longer possible, I did it this way.

wallflower · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:20:53 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

It is very easy in this medium to reply to others while presuming they have read what they might not have. I have done this myself, but, far too often, others have not yet read this or that post or thread and do not know what we think they do or should know. C'est la vie...

There's a quote that fits quite well here but I am holding back. I don't want Tele to be mad at me!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Please don't tell me it's your thirst for justice, because I have seen sedes kicked off this site and you didn't raise a peep. Not just myself -- but sede females!

Do you feel I should have stood up for you at that time (not that I even recall how or when it all went down), just because you are sede? Is that how it works?

What is a bit odd is no one seems to be willing to admit the obvious (simply because they fear/know that Tele will go utterly ape at the drop of a hat): the Private Messages thread was NOT turned into a fracas by Lua, but by Tele. CI's 'eternal victim' was on the attack from the start. Go reread the first page. He crashes the party, so to speak, and goes completely ape without ANY provocation. Then, go reread the other now-locked thread. His uncontrolled rage is palpable, well before Lua or some of the others arrived. Whatever victim status he may have enjoyed at one time, that time is long past -- and his endless sh*t is way beyond old. He unjustly and maniacally runs over all kinds of people while he blindly pursues justice for himself, the attainment of which would not even do him a bit of good where finding peace is concerned.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:47:47 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

What is a bit odd is no one seems to be willing to admit the obvious (simply because they fear/know that Tele will go utterly ape at the drop of a hat): the Private Messages thread was NOT turned into a fracas by Lua, but by Tele.

His uncontrolled rage is palpable, well before Lua or some of the others arrived. Whatever victim status he may have enjoyed at one time, that time is long past -- and his endless sh*t is way beyond old. He unjustly and maniacally runs over all kinds of people while he blindly pursues justice for himself, the attainment of which would not even do him a bit of good where finding peace is concerned.

Is Telesphorus the ONLY poster here who has had long and passionate battles?

Is he?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:50:12 PM »

Of course not. Did I say or imply he was? If so, I beg his and your pardon.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:52:35 PM »

Good point Elizabeth.

GV,

Shouldn't you have read Matthew's reasoning before stating your opinion that her ban was unjustified?

The pm thread was a carry over from the other thread. She attacked Tele in the same way, persistently on both.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Shouldn't you have read Matthew's reasoning before stating your opinion that her ban was unjustified?

In a perfect world, sure. However, it was buried in a thread that exploded like wildfire. When I asked about it, no one was able to tell me what he actually said. I only found it by accident, if you will.

Quote

The pm thread was a carry over from the other thread. She attacked Tele in the same way, persistently on both.

To say that asking about PMs was a "carry over" is completely ridiculous. Tele was the aggressor in that thread and any other version is total nonsense. If it became a carry over, it was not due to Lua's or my aggression -- the initiation was ALL Tele. Go reread the first page, stevie.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:00:40 PM »

Raoul raises good points. Lua was here briefly and went at a variety of CI posters via personal attacks, as did her fellow FE trolls. The lashing out at Tele in her defense doesn't make much sense, especially since you and Lua had just tussled yourself. Therefore you had first hand experience with the attitude we all disfavored. Thus, from the very start you had enough to go on to realize that she had an axe to grind. 10 minutes of reading the back pages of the thread could have fleshed out and confirmed the details rather quickly.

After your fracas with her ended and Tele tried to explain her nature to you ( one which you just had a taste of) you basically snapped at him and told him to buzz off and discarded his years of experience on FE with her with the wave of a hand.

Then you flipped, threatening to fight him, when you perceived one of his posts to be "questioning your manhood". Meanwhile, ironically, Lua was not only questioning but accusing much worse about Tele, as you stood by and basically aided her.

I think this is why many of us perceived your behavior on those threads as less than praiseworthy.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:01:04 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Is Telesphorus the ONLY poster here who has had long and passionate battles?

There is nothing wrong with long or passionate battles, nor did I say or imply that there is.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:08:20 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Elizabeth
Is Telesphorus the ONLY poster here who has had long and passionate battles?

There is nothing wrong with long or passionate battles, nor did I say or imply that there is.

Implicit in your critique of Tele is the threat of him going ape-#hit, being emotionally unstable, dangerous-in keeping with the FE trolls who were mobbing him.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2011, 08:09:11 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

The lashing out at Tele in her defense doesn't make much sense, especially since you and Lua had just tussled yourself.

That is an interesting version of events. Too bad it does not gel with reality. Mike himself pointed out to Tele that he was unjustly attacking me for refusing to railroad Lua because he said I should. Tele's response? Why, attack Mike, albeit not as fiercely and irrationally. This whole thing has been insane. C'est la vie...

Good night.