angrykittie25 wrote:DangerMouse, I was refering to Kelly when I said personal attack.
I know Angry. I was simply saying I didn't think Kelly's outburst was a bannable offense, nor did I want them to be banned for such.
technopatra wrote:Ok, let me explain one more time what this thread is for -
I want him gone. I was real active in going after him--but I'm like a terrier beside a rat hole. I have trouble turning off that part of my brain. (Take THAT hunter analogy, BRR.) It was so much more relaxing to be here without him. He can rejoin, of course. But then it's up to him to be polite enough not to get thrown off again. I tend to agree with the poor socialization/irritating personality hypothesis--in part because I struggle with that in my own life. And I certainly don't want to say that that puts him forever beyond the pale. But as long as he treats e-playans like bears in a pit to be tormented for his own amusement (yeah, yeah, right back at him) he runs the risk of being booted. And he has never put any vital part of himself on the table. All he does is sneer at us, like the grinch of Black Rock. I will admit that my style of trying to dialogue with him was not productive, yet, even at my poofiest I think if he had laid something real on the table I would have backed down. I'm not as whole some a Cindy Loo Hoo, but I am not a maruding barbarian 24/7.technopatra wrote:It's no skin off my nose to deactivate him over and over, but the fascism and technopatra-as-enemy-of-the-first-amendment cracks have me laughing chocolate milk through the same nose. But perhaps keeping a violator around because I think he's funny and he makes me feel good about my work here is not appropriate admin behavior.
Tell me what you'd like to see happen.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests