Hugh Mungus, I need some advice.

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rockdad
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca
Contact:

Re: Busted Buddy

Post by Rockdad » Sun May 21, 2006 6:51 pm

Funny what you find with a little research, Just posting for reference materials apparently you have problems everywhere on the internet
You are in possesion of an IP that is Infamous!


Traveller wrote:I've briefly returned to another part of this board to point people in the direction of [url=httpee://bmtraveller.proboards56dotcom/index.cgi?board=crap]my own backup rideboard[/url], and so I thought I'd better respond to this.
Shameless promotion of failed rideboard and subsequent links to stopburningman.org and Green Turtle slams.
Much like what you attempted on Wikipedia which in turn banned all of your sock IP's!
You got your whole IP Banned on Wikipedia your the only one I ever heard of?
65.182.172.*
Rockdad wrote:So that is another reason why I also suspect there is a connection between dustbuddy, HughM, traveller and Dr. Cliff posters and the rest of the I hate BM crew.
As far as all that other new Google account/Usenet crap it proves nothing just smoke and mirrors.
At most it suggests it took over thirty hours to get somebody to post a Usenet message for them or set up a IP spoof!
Your IP address mister Joe sock puppet shows a long history of abuse all over the internet and usnet some of this is now being documented on this post.
I had ignored your earlier post's and all since you got exposed as a bunch of sock's thought the thread would die and had decided not to pursue the matter of the troubles you have had all over the internet but since you insist I shall point out your abuse of the Burning Man pages at Wikipedia and related pages such as green tortise and blackrock city Wiki pages along with vandelism etc.

You are always trying to post links to same pages all over the place.
Also long history of fighting about and including links to stopburning man.org, Your failed ridehare board and your alternative green turtle site
And apparently have at least three Wikipedia socks tie together here:
SF Site wrote:Kit O'Connell
Kit O'Connell is a writer and bookseller from Austin, Texas. His reviews have also appeared on www.revolutionsf.com and his poetry has appeared on Storyhouse coffee cans, amongst other places. He is hard at work on short fiction which he won't tell you anything about, but you can read his sporadically updated journal at todfox.livejournal.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... .182.172.x

65.182.172.87 See Wikipedia link to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... es_archive

Some of the Dynamic IP's Involved in Trouble at Wikipedia


65.182.172.2
65.182.172.21
65.182.172.30
65.182.172.71
65.182.172.73
65.182.172.75
65.182.172.76
65.182.172.78
65.182.172.84
65.182.172.85
65.182.172.87
65.182.172.88
65.182.172.89
65.182.172.92
65.182.172.93
65.182.172.96
65.182.172.118
65.182.172.100
65.182.172.102
65.182.172.104
65.182.172.106
65.182.172.107
65.182.172.109
65.182.172.111
65.182.172.112
65.182.172.113 All the edits by IP 65.182.172.109
65.182.172.115
65.182.172.116
65.182.172.120



More Green Tortise slander http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... rds56.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... es_archive
from Wikipedia wrote:65.182.172.x – NOTE: The IP 65.182.172.87 has been blocked for one month as of February 6, 2006. User shows repeated pattern of violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and Wikipedia:Harassment with talk page comments. Has repeatedly posted personally identifying information about Wikipedia editors despite having been told not to. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... .182.172.x

The IP gets blocked from Wikipedia at this URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... .182.172.x



From Wikipedia wrote:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Jump to: navigation, search

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

NOTE: A Request for arbitration has been filed on this matter. Please visit RfAR to learn more.

NOTE: 65.182.172.87 has been blocked for one month as of February 6, 2006, in response to a posting at WP:PAIN. The following note was left on this IP's talk page:

I have blocked this IP for a month for violations of a number of Wikipedia policies, including NPA and NLT. Evidence is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Other admins are welcome to unblock if collateral damage arises; also, other IPs in the 65.182.172.x range that exhibit similar behavior should be blocked accordinly. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

* (65.182.172.109 | talk | contributions)

This user edits from IP addresses beginning with 65.182.172, including:

(65.182.172.2 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.13 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.21 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.30 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.71 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.72 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.73 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.75 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.76 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.78 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.80 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.81 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.83 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.84 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.85 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.86 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.87 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.88 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.89 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.91 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.93 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.92 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.94 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.95 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.96 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.99 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.100 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.101 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.102 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.104 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.106 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.107 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.111 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.112 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.113 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.114 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.115 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.116 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.118 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.119 | talk | contributions) - (65.182.172.120 | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Statement of the dispute
o 1.1 Description
+ 1.1.1 Inside view by AdelaMae
+ 1.1.2 Inside view by Cyberdenizen
+ 1.1.3 Inside view by Reub2000
o 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior
o 1.3 Applicable policies
o 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
o 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute
o 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary
* 2 Response
* 3 Outside view by McClenon
* 4 Discussion

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Inside view by AdelaMae

I feel that I am left with no choice but to bring a RfC against this anonymous user, as s/he continues to post pages-long rants to talk pages personally attacking any editor who dares to change or criticize even the minutest aspect of his/her edits, repeatedly posting people's (alleged) personal information without their permission. Far from complying with WP:AGF, this editor has a consistent history of assuming BAD faith. S/he has refused to provide sources for his/her contributions when asked, choosing instead to spend four or five paragraphs accusing the editors who asked for sources of twisting or breaking any number of Wikipedia rules and of being POV-pushing members of whatever organization is under discussion at the moment, regardless of how badly such accusations conflict with past accusations by this same anonymous user. He has also now accused me (AdelaMae) of being "chemically unbalanced".

The posting of personal information is clearly defined as harassment, and I have repeatedly removed alleged personal information about myself and others, including full names, email addresses, and messages reposted from members-only mailing lists with full headers intact. I even resorted in one instance to having this information permanently removed by an administrator (HappyCamper). One of the motivations behind my continuing presence on Wikipedia, despite the fact that I have very little time right now to devote to the project, is my fear of this person's continued posting of accusations about me accompanied by my real name. I have taken great care to prevent my Wikipedia screenname from being associated with my full name, and it is my belief that these continued violation of my privacy and the privacy of others, when this anonymous editor could just as easily have referred to me by my Wikipedia screen-name, are done with the intent to intimidate and harass. I realize that bringing this attention up in an RfC will reveal my full name to everyone involved due to the necessity of providing diffs, but I am willing to pay that price if it means that this harassment will stop. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Inside view by Cyberdenizen

I fully concur with AdelaMae, and have only a few further points to add. This user has hundreds of edits, yet still hides behind anonymity. He will not sign his edits or explain his edits in the summary box, and for nearly every contribution made to the project, there is an antagonistic or ad hominem attack on the corresponding talk page, if not right in the entry he is editing. The user manipulates and breaks apart blocks of discussion text other editors have written on talk pages which fragments the discussion and confuses readers because he refuses to sign his edits. Nearly from the beginning of my interaction with him, he has made wild accusations about my motives, my character, postulating about my identity and rattling off a long list of accusations and wrongs I have supposedly committed outside of wikipedia. I am not a Hellenic Reconstructionist, I have never posted to a Hellenic list nor do I personally know anyone from the organization Elaion other than reading their writings online. The headers he posted previously and cites of yahoo postings were not mine. The user incessantly refers to me as "Meic Crahart", but I assure you that is not who I am. I have no vested interest in this subject, other than the fact that I feel that user: 65.182.172.* is harassing other editors and bullying them as if this was Usenet. He is hiding behind his dynamic IP and he even states as much here and elsewhere. I have attempted to reconcile these issues as documented by AdelaMae and at this point, I personally feel that further interaction with this user is counter-productive until his behaviour conforms to wikipedia policy and common courtesy.- Cyberdenizen 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note:The above block of text has been restored by Cyberdenizen after being manipulated and broken apart by anonymous user: 65.182.172.* View history to see context and my justification for these actions.

Inside view by Reub2000

This anonymous user attacked the editors including me working on the Italian Beef article last summer. Often he/she would not discuss a compromise for the article, instead repeatedly reverting the article to his/her version of the article followed by personal attacks on the talk page. Comments on the talk page trying to resolve the issue where responded to with personal attacks instead of an attempt by the user to resolve the issue. User would also delete comments left on the talk page, and vandalized my userpage. These actions made it entirely impossible to reach an agreement over the article. The diffs posted by AdelaMae (talk • contribs) do not lie. The user claims that me and other editors are racist, a completely untrue statement and not backed up with any evidence. Reub2000 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

I have included specific quotations where relevants as this editor's talk page comments tend to be extremely long. Most of the examples below are from articles related to Hellenic polytheism, because that is the area with which I am most familiar, but you can easily find dozens more just by browsing the contribution history of any of the IPs listed above. This user displays a similar pattern of behavior on every article he/she edits.

1. June 2, 2005 Deletes entire section on history of Chicago from Chicago, Illinois.
2. June 2, 2005 Make 11 edits as 65.182.172.83, all of which are vandalism removing sections of text from articles.
3. June 24, 2005 Calls 64.132.0.250 a "jacka**" (asterisks in original).
4. June 24, 2005 Edit summar calling 64.132.0.250 a "nitwit".
5. June 24, 2005 More attacks on 64.132.0.250.
6. June 28, 2005 Deletes Hal4's talk page comments disagreeing with him/her.
7. June 28, 2005 Calls Hal4 a "pathological liar."
8. June 28, 2005 Deletes content of Chicago-style hot dog and replaces it with a call for the article's deletion. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
9. July 16, 2005 Refers to 69.47.22.195 as "you incredible nitwit."
10. July 16, 2005 Refers to other editors of Italian beef as "a few slices short of a loaf."
11. July 16, 2005 Personal attack on MysteriousMystery.
12. July 17, 2005 Deletes another user's talk page comments with the edit summary, "Turnabout is fair play, motherfucker."
13. July 17, 2005 Calls other editors of Italian beef "twits."
14. July 17, 2005 Calls another editor "you snobby waspish fuck."
15. July 17, 2005 Calls Reub2000 a "little spoiled brat."
16. July 18, 2005 Inserts a refrence to Reub2000's location (Evanston, IL) into an article.
17. July 18, 2005 Personal attacks on Reub2000, including - "So, Reub, go fuck yourself."
18. July 18, 2005 Calls Reub2000 an "adorable little cracker."
19. July 18, 2005 Deletes Reub2000's talk page comments.
20. July 18, 2005 Deletes comments a second time and insults Reub2000's intelligence.
21. July 18, 2005 Deletes Reub2000's comments a third time and threatens legal action against Wikipedia.
22. July 18, 2005 Vandalizes User:Reub2000 with the text, "racist and professional asshole to the stars."
23. July 18, 2005 Repeats vandalism to Reub2000's talk page.
24. July 18, 2005 Repeats vandalism a third time and publishes personal information about Reub2000.
25. August 4, 2005 Edit summary including personal information about Reub2000.
26. August 6, 2005 Another edit summary with personal attacks against Reub2000.
27. October 14, 2005 Blatant personal attack against 71.116.132.211 - "If anybody is looking in, please keep an eye on this guy, because he clearly has no intention of dealing honestly."
28. October 19, 2005 Removed a request that contributors to the talk page review Wikiquette, which was added by Jeffmcneill, not a party to the dispute.
29. October 20, 2005 Inflammatory edit summary.
30. October 20, 2005 Inflammatory section heading, accusing an opposing editor of "an almost sociopathic inversion of reality,"
31. October 26, 2005 Accuses Todfox of libel.
32. October 26, 2005 Replaces and reiterates libel accusation after it was removed.
33. October 26, 2005 Ad hominem attack against Todfox - "Tod, you got indulged a lot growing up, didn't you?"
34. November 8, 2005 Removed NPOV template from article. diff Removed NPOV template a second time, despite ongoing talk page discussion and a plea not to remove it.
35. November 8, 2005 Deleted AdelaMae's talk page comments in retaliation for her having resorted to requesting administrator assistance in deleting personal information about herself from Talk:Greek reconstructionism; note edit summary containing personal information.
36. February 4, 2006 Personal attacks on both Cyberdenizen and AdelaMae, accusing AdelaMae of trying to insert a pro-Shrine of the Sleeping Gods POV. (Comment from AdelaMae: This particular accusation is absolutely ridiculous, as the anonymous editor has previously accused me of trying to insert a pro-Hellenion POV, and knows very well from previous association with me that I am in no way associated with Shrine of the Sleeping Gods or any form of Christohellenism and would have no reason whatsoever to prefer any version of Christohellenism over another. I simply do not care.) - "Trying to lodge as many meritless accusations as possible, Cyberdenizen?" - "As the recent head-butting match I had with Ms. ---- over her attempt to slip a pro-Shrine of the Sleeping Gods phrasing into the article shows, I've arrived without any axe to grind."
37. February 4, 2006 - AdelaMae requested that this 65.182.172.x cite sources for a large quantity of information about Christohellenism that had been added to the article on Hellenic polytheism by him/her. This is his/her response. Repeated posting of AdelaMae's full name, assumes BAD faith, blatant misinterpretations of/outright lies about what she wrote (comment from AdelaMae: the user accuses me of "going back on" my agreement that "prominently" was a more appropriate term than "notably" when I did nothing of the sort - also, note my previous comments stating that this was originally a typo), accusations of breaking any number of Wikipedia rules, personal attacks, threat of contacting admins if she continues to disagree - "If you persist in the position and attempt in any way to act on it, I will be in touch with the admins immediately." - "Except that, and you do this a lot, Ms. ----, you're distorting the policy." - "In closing, let's reiterate the one key point in all of this: I most certainly did not place any claims regarding the number of practitioners or groups in the Christohellenism section of the article." (comment from AdelaMae: I said nothing of the sort. As you will see if you read my comments, I was attempting to find alternate possible sources for information on Christohellenism because The Almond Jar website was the only one I'd been able to locate.) - "And now you have the nerve to to yank my words out of their original context, trying to make political points for yourself out of my willingness to answer your question?" - "Shame on you. If you would like me to "assume good faith", as you said once in the discussion section for another article, try practicing it. This crude attempt on your part to set somebody up hardly qualifies."
38. February 4, 2006 Personal attacks on Cyberdenizen, willful misinterpretation of the purpose of his edits in a complete failure to assume good faith, threats to post messages Cyberdenizen sent to a members-only email list. (Comment from AdelaMae: I would like to note that I have been working with Cyberdenizen on this and related articles for some time and did not have a clue that he was affiliated with Elaion in any way; in fact, I couldn't have even told you whether he was himself a Hellenic polytheist. I don't see how any reasonable person could have a problem with the neutrality of his edits. This anonymous user insists on interpreting ANY disagreement with his/her edits WHATSOEVER as an attempt at POV-pushing, despite all evidence to the contrary. I suppose s/he just can't fathom the idea that some of us are able to set our personal POVs aside when we write on Wikipedia.) "Your position on NPOV has already been witnessed, Cyberdenizen, back when you made that increadible assertion that NPOV required that the text of the "Hard Recon controversy" section of the old Greek_reconstructionism article exclusively give Elaion's spin instead of presenting both sides of the argument, on the basis that you like Elaion more." - "Should I go dredge that one up out of my personal archives, or are you going to stop trying to use the NPOV policy as a personal mandate to deny visibility to any views you don't personally care for - indulging in the very practice that NPOV was set up to prevent?"
39. February 4, 2006 Accusing Cyberdenizen of censorship.
40. February 4, 2006 Accusing Cyberdenizen of censorship - "Your personal agenda is on public display, and now you're just looking for continuing excuses to try to win this one through just pure, underhanded, backbiting persistence."
41. February 4, 2006 65.182.172.87 edits this RfC, inserting the heading, "BS by those trumping up a charge follows below" at the top of the page and continuing to use AdelaMae's full legal name. Accuses AdelaMae of being an "undersocialized, chemically unbalanced spoiled brat who feels like throwing a fit just because she doesn't like what she has heard or isn't geting what she wants".
42. February 5, 2006 For a second time, vandalizes the RfC so that his/her comments are at the top of the page and interjects commentary into the Statement of the Dispute section despite being given very clear instructions to put his/her response in the response section. Continues to use AdelaMae's full name.
43. February 5, 2006 For a third time, interjects comments into the Statement of the Dispute section. Reference to AdelaMae's Yahoo ID, geographic location, etc. suggest cyberstalking behavior.
44. February 5, 2006 The following edits continuing to interject rebuttals into the Statement of the Dispute section: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (accuses RfC filers of racism) [8] [9] (reiterates accusation of racism, calls AdelaMae a "cracker" [10] (posts AdelaMae's Yahoo ID) [11] (states that he will continue to ignore AdelaMae's request to stop posting her personal information because he sees it as "improper," posts her Yahoo ID again) [12] [13] [14] (threatens to post AdelaMae's personal information on a non-Wikipedia website in retaliation for her comments here) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
45. February 5, 2006 Calls RfC filers "whiny overgrown adolescents who can't deal with the fact that somebody else is talking back to them."
46. February 8, 2006 After having one of his/her IPs blocked for repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, anonymous user continues to edit RfC and insert his/her comments at the top of the page; calls RfC endorsers "a group of childish and demonstrably sleazy individuals".
47. February 8, 2006 Edits RfC again, calling AdelaMae and Cyberdenizen "a pair of spoiled brats."
48. February 8, 2006 Makes repeated posts on Talk:Hellenic polytheism containing ad hominem attacks and personal information, including alleged details of AdelaMae's location. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
49. February 8, 2006 Edits User:Cyberdenizen with comments such as "Cyberdenizen, blow it out your ass"; edit summary is "Telling this lying nitwit where to get off."

Note:The above block of text has been restored by Cyberdenizen after being manipulated and broken apart by anonymous user: 65.182.172.* View history to see context and my justification for these actions.

Applicable policies

Policies violated by user's conduct on talk pages:

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Harassment
3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
4. Wikipedia:Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) Since this editor uses a range of different IPs, attempts to resolves these issues have taken place on article talk pages.

1. Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#New_Wikipedian_unsure_what_to_do_about_dispute This is my (AdelaMae) original request for administrator intervention, in response to 65.182.172.x's repeated attacks on me for what was my first ever edit to Wikipedia. 65.182.172.x's response to this, as noted above, was to delete my talk page comments.
2. diff Request for neutral opinion on Talk:Greek reconstructionism by 71.116.133.10. diff 65.182.172.x's response, posting, with full headers, emails by both me and the editor who requested a neutral opinion, which had been sent to a members-only Yahoo Group - including that editor's full name, my full name, various IPs and identifying information. This response also calls the request for intervention "BS" and based on "a baldfaced lie," and includes the "message numbers" of dozens of messages posted on the Yahoo Group by 71.116.133.10. I suppose this could also be listed above as evidence for 65.182.172.x's violation of the harassment policy.
3. link Requests for mediation filed by Reub2000 and Cyberdenizen.
4. diff Cyberdenizen filed a request for informal mediation as noted here; however, I have been unable to find a link to the request itself. (EDIT: The information has been restored to the Mediation Cabal Archives - [[29]])
5. diff Comment made on the user's talk page, on November 8, 2005, requesting that s/he stop posting personal information about other users; 65.182.172.x did not respond and this behavior has not abated (as noted above).
6. diff Request by AdelaMae that 65.182.172.x comply with WP:V and WP:NOR in his edits, which was followed on his/her part by the edit mentioned above.
7. February 4, 2006 AdelaMae warned 65.182.172.x a second time not to reveal her personal information on Wikipedia, a request that was completely ignored (see 65.182.172.x's comments below for evidence).


Note:The above block of text has been restored by Cyberdenizen after being manipulated and broken apart by anonymous user: 65.182.172.* View history to see context and my justification for these actions.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Cyberdenizen 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Reub2000 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Robert McClenon 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Previous complaints about this user (65.182.172.x):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=19125481
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=19148986 .
Dcfleck 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
3. SYCTHOStalk 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Jkelly 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Durova 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

[response removed for containing personal information: please ask an admin if the user returns and it becomes necessary to view this material. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ]

Outside view by McClenon

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Every now and then the "Response" to a user RfC is so over-the-top that it makes the case for the certifiers, so that any subsequent outsider who reads the RfC does not need to read the diffs in order to endorse the RfC. I endorsed the RfC before the "Response" was written. Maybe I should have waited and let the subject present the case for the certifiers. The response is uncivil and consists mostly of personal attacks.

I find the conduct of this anonymous editor with regard to privacy to be very disturbing. He or she is hiding behind the anonymity of a range of IP addresses. The certifiers of this RfC are using established handles that provide them with a measure of accountability. The anonymous editor insists on referring to them by what he insists are their proper names. (I do not know whether that is true, but one of them says that he has been misidentified.) That insistence on disclosure of personal information that they have chosen to withhold is a clear violation of the policy of Harassment, and blatantly unfair.

It also appears that this anonymous editor has tried to deface this RfC. That is not permitted.

I am not an administrator. If I were, I would have blocked the address from which the response was posted.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

1. Robert McClenon 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
2. SYCTHOStalk 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Durova 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
Now seeems like you have been having problems all over the internet Joe/Kit
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

[url=http://eplayabar.blogspot.com/]The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog[/url]

User avatar
stargeezer
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Burning Mountains

Post by stargeezer » Sun May 21, 2006 7:36 pm

One of the problems with a free forum such as this, is that it costs nothing to set up multiple accounts. I support freedom of speech, press, expression, and many others, but I would have to wonder if charging for an account would be a good idea. Those that do not a vested interest are usually the ones that cause problems. I doubt if the BM forum would ever charge, and it would probably be wrong to do so, but sometimes one just has to wonder....

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Busted Buddy

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 4:15 am

Rockdad wrote:
Traveller wrote:I've briefly returned to another part of this board to point people in the direction of my own backup rideboard, and so I thought I'd better respond to this.
Shameless promotion of failed rideboard
My board has only been into existence since February, it is now May, making the place only about three months old. Even if it had never seen a single post, this would be a little early to be declaring the place a failure, but of course even that is not the case. We have a story posted already - a real story, not that personal attack masquerading as narrative that you posted, a Near Eastern recipe to try out on the road, a little artwork ... and hundreds of visitors, implying that there certainly is interest. Whether more of those people will get brave enough to participate and not just spectate, has yet to be seen, but what does get posted in our little corner of virtual BlackRock does get seen.

As my promotion being "shameless", my post total tells the whole story. Alfredricko, I am not. I do not post in volume, and where I do post, I do so in an on-topic manner. It would be absurd, considering the wealth of links to camp and project homepages and threads in which people talk up their latest efforts, to suggest that my raising consciousness about this purely not-for-profit effort of mine somehow takes ePlaya where it has never been before.
Rockdad wrote:and subsequent links to stopburningman.org and Green Turtle slams.
Finally, this is just psychotic. For the record, I am the ringmaster of the Fans of the Green Tortoise webring and Travel to Burning Man is home to the Unofficial Green Tortoise Social Club, one of the few places in existence where those planning a trip on the Green Tortoise are invited to mingle with their fellow travellers-to-be online. How on earth does it become a "slam" of the Green Tortoise for me to invite people to talk about what a good time they had on it?

Here are my sites:

http://www.angelfire.com/funky/green-to ... _Tortoise/

http://www.freewebs.com/burning_man_tra ... _road.html

Anybody who is in doubt about whether I'm telling the truth or Rockdad is is invite to wander the sites, grab what urls they can off of them, and go over to Google and check the caches for any or all of the places they find. If anybody is reading this garbage in a few years, I also submitted my pages to the Internet Archive a few months ago, so in about a year or two with luck people should be able to see earlier versions of my pages. Even without that, though, Google takes weeks to refresh its archives, so I have no control over what will be in those page caches for the next week or two. I have never linked to stopburningman.org. One need only look at the cached and archived pages to see that this is so. When one remembers that you're also trying to claim that I am Observer, this becomes even more laughable.

The man distinguished himself in his debunking of their conspiracy theorising. Not that I suppose that this would be the sort of thing that you'd appreciate given your own personal habits, but anybody reasonably literate who looks over the man's words is going to having trouble not falling over laughing at the suggestion that he supported the stopburningman people. The boy walked right into the lion's den, attacking those idiots on their own list, and played no small role in their decision to tuck their tales between their legs and go running off. What exactly did you do in that area?




I see that you're continuing to pursue the sock puppet conspiracy theory with about the same level of critical thought that you've applied to every other conspiracy theory that has come through here - NONE - but whether you like it or not, Observer has already debunked that one and your "god" Spectabillis has already conceded the point. The large number of IP addresses you cite only drives the point home with more force. No internet service provider that wanted to stay in business would ever allocate that many IPs for the exclusive use of a single user.

The only thing that one can gather from the fact that some of us have posted from that IP block is that we use Netsource Communications, the only ISP based out of Naperville, which at 140,000 people may not be San Diego, but it is a sizable town, the second largest in Illinois. Netsource is a big company, even if it is only a big local company.



I could say something about a boy who thinks that it is appropriate to respond to the fact that he was asked to go away by trying to dig up dirt on the man who told him to go away, and why not? It's behavior worthy of a stalker, and exactly what I would expect from a conspiracy theorist or other paranoiac. This is standard for the psychosis: anybody who questions the existence of the conspiracy becomes part of the conspiracy in the mind of the paranoiac, and any action taken against the one asking questions becomes justified as far as the psychotic is concerned. Observer expressed worries that a paranoiac had been pointed in his direction and told that he was the enemy. That's a reasonable thing to worry about. Paranoiacs are sociopaths practically by definition.

Much of your recent behavior has illustrated this fact, Rockdad, but let's see how you try to squirm out of the inconsistencies. You've given a long list of IPs, and have claimed (based on no visible evidence) that they exclusively belong to somebody you call "Joe Sockpuppet". My name isn't Joe, but let's go on. If one takes those IPs and runs them through an arin IP check, they all resolve to Netsource Communications in Naperville. Yet we have you, earlier in this thread, insisting that I and Observer and Dustbuddy were all just sockpuppets of your longtime and equally nutty enemy Hughmungus, who is known to live in Reno, Nevada. Presented with a link to a post on which Dustbuddy's origination IP appears, and lo and behold resolves to an ISP here in Northern Illinois, your response was to insist that this wasn't evidence, it was all crap and we were all really Hughmungus and that was going to be the end of that. So, slickster, which is it? Are we posting from that IP block or aren't we, yes or no? You don't get to have it both ways.




I note with some amusement your crude attempt to draw me into one of Wikipedia's many edit wars. With all of the edits going on, I can't say with certainty that nobody has ever linked to my obscure little forum, but if so it is news to me. I will not be so foolish as to play your favorite game and snap at the bait laid out for me by taking sides in that fight, because I'm fairly sure that your next step would be to go tattle to the Wikipedians I criticized and invite them over to continue the fight, but let's take a look at your claim that "my" (read: Netsource's) IP block was the only one ever blocked from Wikipedia:

Do a Google search under the terms "Wikipedia" and "banned", and count the number of items returned. Google returns 2.55 million hits, including a report that all of congress was banned! If everybody who has been banned from Wikipedia is really me, which would mean that I'm everybody in Congress - wow. I guess I have some serious pay accumulated by now. Either that, or you're completely fucking nuts, as you'd have to be to cite the flammage of somebody on a site notorious for its cliquishness as being evidence of anything. (Google this: Wikipedia criticism, Wikipedia cronyism, Wikipedia cliquish). Even the most fanatical supporters of that site do not pretend that what comes out of those show trials is anything but mob justice, with reality frequently taking a backseat to political scheming, so we have you turning 180 degrees from your earlier stated position regarding the IPs, in an attempt to dig up dirt against me in something that is completely unrelated to anything going on here, and the best that you can do is point out that I use the same locally popular internet service provider as somebody who probably got screwed over while editing Wikipedia because he dared to disagree with one of the in-kids.

Is anybody reading this still unclear on why I banned this asshole from TTBM? If so, then I'd invite them to remember all of the fun that you all went through when Alfredricko and his wave of spamming friends came through here, and remember who they can thank for that - Rockdad. This entire community was thrown into chaos because Rockdad could not find the maturity needed to handle the fact that he was caught lying about what a cited source had to say and got called on that. One can briefly skim the Wikipedia drama he cites, and see that he's doing it again, or at least seems to on brief inspection. Looking at the first hundred or so edits, I find links being inserted only to sites which I don't link to, and which don't link to me. No small trick, considering how few Chicago burners there are, but there it is and I'd say it's fate. Rockdad is once again revealed to be a liar.

Anybody who wishes to ask "Todfox" [livejournal link] if he is one and the same as "65" is welcome to do so, and I imagine that he will probably get an interesting response from that resident of Austin, Texas. As for myself, I'm getting very tired of having to take this trip back to middle school just to defend my own reputation, and will be taking a good, long look at those community guidelines. I would be astounded if Rockdad had not violated them by now. Even by Internet standards, his behavior has been insane and outrageous, and under any civilized standard it's time that it stopped.

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 4:38 am

Consider this a request that the user Rockdad be banned from ePlaya, based on his egregious and gloatingly blatant violation of the following community guidelines:


1. Personal attacks are unwelcome.

Rockdad, having been caught in what is generally recognized to be an ethical breach (lying about what a cited source has stated) has responded by attacking the reputation of the user debunking his claim in an off-topic manner, then doing likewise to those merely accused of being that user. If what we have already seen out of Rockdad does not qualify as being a series of personal attacks, then what would?


2. Illegal activities are unwelcome.

Libel is most certainly illegal, and as one can see merely by following some of the links and cites which the man has carelessly provided himself, one can see that Rockdad has engaged in this repeatedly.

I know that this is probably a quixotic gesture on my part. I am not one of the in-kids, and I am running something that has been portrayed as being intended as a competitor for this board, though it is nothing of the sort. Realistically, I know that I probably have no rights, as far as the modstaff of this board is concerned, and Rockdad, being one of the in-kids, is probably free to run wild and do whatever he feels like, but at least I can say that I asked. The question anybody in my position would have to ask is "do these rules really mean anything, or are they just a cover for playing favorites".

One way or another, we'll all learn something about Burning Man, and that's always something worth knowing.

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

I stand corrected, kind of, not really

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 6:19 am

On wading through some more of Rockdad's mountain of crap, I came across a Wikipedia article written by some guy posting from Comcast. The history of that article can be found on this page. Sure enough, a link gets added to one of my lists at 22:54 on December 25, 2005 by a user at IP 67.163.61.212.

Note that the IP block which Rockdad is now stating is the one that I am posting from, having denied the same earlier, starts with 65.* Just out of curiosity I ran an an arin search on that IP and came up with an account at Comcast. Different provider. But both IPs do begin with 6, which would narrow one down to 10% of everybody on the Internet. :roll:

To sum up then, Rockdad has gone over to Wikipedia and apparently taken to vandalising at least one of the articles written by a Comcast subscriber because the subscriber dared to link to one of my sites. He then lied to those present, claiming that I had posted the link myself. The article history says otherwise, but now "67" gets yanked into the tarbaby that is Rockdad's latest growing conspiracy theory.

There is so much to sift through, that I don't know what the Hell else he did. What I do know is that if he's done a lot more of it, there are going to be a lot of really pissed off Wikipedians. Their site is being vandalized because of our infighting, making my earlier concern about getting sucked into one of their edit wars pale by comparison.

I've since posted an apology on behalf of burners in general on their site, linking back to this thread and explaining that this is just one guy running out of control on his own, and that in general burners don't sanction this kind of behavior, and I hope that they accept that, but where does it stop? ePlaya has already been basically shut down by spambots as a direct result of Rockdad's actions. Now, this site may find itself on hostile terms with Wikipedia. We'll find out. But how far do you go to be nice to somebody who's acting like this, for reasons as insane as these, and how much damage does he get to do?

User avatar
stargeezer
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Burning Mountains

Post by stargeezer » Mon May 22, 2006 7:12 am

Being one that has lost my cool on occasion, I can understanding a flaming message for a time or two, just to release a little negative energy, it is not the right thing to do, but it happens. At some point you just have to give it a rest and walk away. A quick release is one thing, but if you think such prolonged negativity is good, well, I hope you get some therapy.

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Mon May 22, 2006 8:17 am

Traveller wrote:Consider this a request that the user Rockdad be banned from ePlaya, based on his egregious and gloatingly blatant violation of the following community guidelines:.
any special reason i had to read this here, rather than pm me?

just in case this was forgotten, if its something that important its a very wise and prudent thing to pm a moderator. if you dont feel comfortable with pm'ing me there is also antiM (chai is off on a personal journey, Emily is away until the 30th).

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 9:11 am

spectabillis wrote:
Traveller wrote:Consider this a request that the user Rockdad be banned from ePlaya, based on his egregious and gloatingly blatant violation of the following community guidelines:.
any special reason i had to read this here, rather than pm me?


How about because you haven't been earning a lot of trust lately, so you know what? We're going to handle this in public instead of behind closed doors. When you've made the effort to earn back a little of the trust you squandered, then we can talk about doing things discretely.

There is no nice way to say this. You had a personal dispute going with Hughmungus. You were in a position to know that Rockdad's accusation that Dustbuddy was Hugh's sockpuppet was offbase, and you clutched at straws looking for any excuse to say nothing, because Rockdad's accusation was damaging Hugh's reputation on this board, and that was serving your purposes. You went so far as to imply that Rockdad was telling the truth. Then, the moment that Dustbuddy got done giving you the Hell that you deserved and proved that Rockdad was full of it (again), you capitalized on the ignorance of many about how dynamic IPs operate as you invented a brand new sock puppet accusation. Pure, crass vengefulness on your part in order to get back at somebody who talked back to you, and you didn't care who you hurt in the process.

How much can I trust you? Yes, you can screw me over, again, but if so, you're going to have to do it in public with everybody watching. I don't have any illusions that anybody on this board will come to my defense. I already know how little fairness means to most people on ePlaya, but take a good look at those hit totals on these threads. Sneaky little bastards like you have a way of collecting enemies and you never know when one will be lurking. The screw job you carry out today may come back to haunt you tomorrow, when somebody else goes out looking for something to use against you.
just in case this was forgotten, if its something that important its a very wise and prudent thing to pm a moderator.
Yes, because one really wouldn't want to have personal accountability intrude on the system. Far better to make sure that everything can be swept neatly under the carpet, as needed. Yes, I see your point, all too well.
if you dont feel comfortable with pm'ing me there is also antiM
who has had a personal dispute with Observer, the other smearee, so I think I can guess just how fair the hearing I would get out of her would be.
(chai is off on a personal journey, Emily is away until the 30th).
Then I guess I'd better stock up on the K-Y. Not that I was expecting any better, but at least I'm on record as having lodged my protest.

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 9:21 am

stargeezer wrote:Being one that has lost my cool on occasion, I can understanding a flaming message for a time or two, just to release a little negative energy, it is not the right thing to do, but it happens. At some point you just have to give it a rest and walk away. A quick release is one thing, but if you think such prolonged negativity is good, well, I hope you get some therapy.
Interesting how you have nothing to say to Rockdad about his negativity. Since you're into the pop psychology, why don't you go look up the word "enabler".

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Mon May 22, 2006 9:37 am

observer/traveller/dustbuddy: whatever your feelings towards me does not matter because you have the option of contacting someone else over it.

since this is the second time i have mentioned this to you and yet you persist in making those requests in posts, they will no longer be taken seriously until you do.

User avatar
stargeezer
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Burning Mountains

Post by stargeezer » Mon May 22, 2006 9:40 am

I did not mention names on any account. I am genuinely concerned about anybody that has a long term negative attitude. Release it, let it go. Get help, I did, I still have issues but I am turning things around. With that, I am going to take my own advice and just turn and walk away.

User avatar
ibdave
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:09 pm
Burning Since: 1998

Post by ibdave » Mon May 22, 2006 9:42 am

Can't this be dealt with behind closed doors.... Give the MODS a chance.
All of those envolved are bring this whole board down to a level of pure childness, But on the other hand it's like a car wreak, you have to look at it

Step back a take a few deep breaths. Now go home and play with yourself.
I was Born OK the 1st Time....

Don't bring defaultia to Burning Man, take Burning Man to defaultia...... graidawg

User avatar
AntiM
Moderator
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:23 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Anti M's Home for Wayward Art
Location: Wild, Wild West
Contact:

Post by AntiM » Mon May 22, 2006 9:59 am

who has had a personal dispute with Observer, the other smearee, so I think I can guess just how fair the hearing I would get out of her would be.
Who has not said one mean thing about you on this board since the original dispute when you plonked me. I've let it go and don't care that you think I'm off my meds. Go ahead, post the original thread, doesn't bother me a bit, I have not said anything to you in these forums I regret. You're making assumptions about my intentions and thoughts, which is likely why all this silly, YES SILLY, crap started in the first place.

EDIT: Silly crap in the threads in general, all the silly crap history we've all read or ignored, not just this thread of accusations in specific, not just "you" but everyone who cannot let things be and stop calling names. I felt I had to put this edit in place as I feel anything I say to Observer/Traveler appears to be taken very personally and with the worst possible intent; very difficult communication style for me as I do not like being on the defensive all the time.

User avatar
Lassen Forge
Posts: 5320
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Where it's always... Wednesday. Don't lose your head over it.

Post by Lassen Forge » Mon May 22, 2006 10:27 am

My opinion, since I'm not drawn into this, but reviewing pages and pages from one certain sockster (who is linked to a number of other postings of questionable content on many different forums) and it's making me really rather bored...

Walk away from it. Let the wah-wah peter out. If the bozo keeps yelling into n-space with no reply, no acknowledgement, it will go away. If not immediately, when they realize they have been ploinked by everyone in existance.

I got better things to do than suffer an idiot. Especially a socky snarky idiot.

At least the llc muckymucks who hide out here on occasion and post stuff keep it tough, short, sweet, and to the point. Their stuff is actually kinda *fun* to read (and occasionally stir up :roll: ). This is just hyperbole crap, ergo, not worth the time.

Now... let's see what shit gets started about me. And like AntiM, My stuff is out there for all to see. >shrug<. I've weathered much worse. (And there, I've rubbernecked this accident; time to drive on... so drive on I shall.)

bb

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Mon May 22, 2006 10:37 am

i dont wrk for the llc... but does this mean i am a mucky now?

oh no...

User avatar
Lassen Forge
Posts: 5320
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Where it's always... Wednesday. Don't lose your head over it.

Post by Lassen Forge » Mon May 22, 2006 10:48 am

spectabillis wrote:i dont wrk for the llc... but does this mean i am a mucky now?

oh no...
You don't hide out. I was referring to certain members of *the* llc. I like watching their ePlaya battles... Once I figured out the players, it actually gave me more respect for a couple of them... Sick, huh? (Guess I'm just drawn to doom!!)

You can be more mucky if you want, tho! >giggles<

bb

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Mon May 22, 2006 11:14 am

(Unsolicted Comment)
Good gawd, reading all of that woud be akin to riding in the back seat of an FA-18 that had a SAM fired at it. it's got more twists and turns than a sidewinder with a locked heat seeker....

I was under the impression that any request for banning or blocking would be made in case studies as a formal request. Then after the request was made the community could weigh in on it and then the admin...working with a community consensus and not unilateraily could make the decision. Making such a request in here cuts much of the community out from playing a role...and it's historically not how this board has been run.

As for the rest of these new allegations and stuff....I'm still trying to make sense of it all. But as for sock puppets and IP address tracking IMHO it's all a bunch of he said, she said bullsh*t as when I ran my socks in the past I had no less than 9 different accounts all with unique IP's I could post from, I had access to UNLIMITED email accounts to register with...and if all else failed I was sitting on Sprint's IP backbone so whatever I didn't have I could get....my point is if someone's determined enough they can get past almost any tracking, any countermeasures out there...and that includes the vaunted Nagus sniffers...but that's another story.

Edit: One more thing...the moderators are volunteers. There are things they can do and things they can't and people keep making these absolutely foolish demands of them...when a look at the threads in the eplaya feedback section clearly spell out what the mods can and can't do! Know the facts and make reasonable requests and don't get pissed when they tell you they can't do something...it's not a matter of playing politics or favorites, it's simply stating the facts....verifyable facts....

I don't want to take sides here but frankly I'm sick of seeing SB get crap for what he's doing....and while I'm ranting I'm going to give up my drama queen tiara, split it in pieces and start handing it out to a few others that have amazingly made my spat with Badger look downright civilized....which is a shock and something I never anticipated....
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon May 22, 2006 11:18 am

spectabillis wrote:observer/traveller/dustbuddy.
and you're back with the very same sock puppet accusation that you've already backed off of. I guess you're hoping that people will have forgotten that it's already been debunked? What is striking is not that you would try to talk out of both sides of your mouth and do it with so little subtlety, but that your community lets you get by with that. Behind every corrupt administration there is a corrupt culture, populated by people eager to look the other way.

If you people are the future of Burning Man, then it's time to start treasuring our memories a little more. Goodbye, Spec. You're dead in my eyes, and I mean that in all seriousness.

User avatar
Rockdad
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca
Contact:

Post by Rockdad » Mon May 22, 2006 11:51 am

Traveller wrote:
spectabillis wrote:observer/traveller/dustbuddy.
Goodbye, Spec. You're dead in my eyes, and I mean that in all seriousness.
Damn sounds like a not so thinly Vieled Threat? by the Socks. Worthy of a police report? and outright ban? And serious therapy/counseling.

I am done with this and will post no more to this thread. The Troll shall not be feed by me anymore!(BBSue right again)
observer/traveller/dustbuddy has proven himself a very disruptive element all over this board and others.

This all started with his out of the blue personally insulting attacks on another thread.

As for K4 comments aout IP's I do not believe this troublemaker has the knowledge or resources that you describe to hide behind.

Wikipedia has banned the IP after using many tools to confirm the troublesome socks and in real time on occasion.

If anyone wants to research this more just Google 65.182.172.*

See ya on the Playa!
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

[url=http://eplayabar.blogspot.com/]The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog[/url]

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3801
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Re: Hugh Mungus, I need some advice.

Post by EvilDustBooger » Mon May 22, 2006 2:14 pm

....OK, so far we have :

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Mon May 22, 2006 3:11 pm

i realize most people here have figured out what observer/traveller is all about, and even though i appreciate the support and others comming to my defense - please - its not all that big of a deal.

we just have someone who is in full combative mode that will feed on whatever response he recieves, its best to learn and move on, not much else can be done.

User avatar
thisisthatwhichis
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Reno, NV

Post by thisisthatwhichis » Mon May 22, 2006 3:28 pm

As BBSue said, can we quit bumping this thread, and let it meet it's DOOM.

Pick up the toys in the sandbox when you are done......
TITWI

To be on the wire is life. The rest is waiting.
It's show time, folks.....Joe Gideon

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Mon May 22, 2006 9:14 pm

Well my... aren't we a bunch of pissy 13 year olds.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Tue May 23, 2006 8:28 am

Rob the Wop wrote:Well my... aren't we a bunch of pissy 13 year olds.


unfortunately i am the school bus driver going through disneyland at a few miles-per-hour.


Image

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Tue May 23, 2006 8:43 am

unfortunately i am the school bus driver going through disneyland at a few miles-per-hour.
Maybe if you stopped looking at yourself as a babysitter (or bus driver) your frustration level might abate somewhat.

Moderating for blatant violations and perhaps steering the conversation to appropriate topics is pretty much the role I've seen for the moderator folk. Well, that's how I've understood it. Assuming your role is one of proctor for this crowd is only gonna get you muddy and piss off the pig.
Desert dogs drink deep.

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Tue May 23, 2006 12:11 pm

that was a joke.

i dont really look at myself as any kind of babysitter, community leader, netcop, sunday school bus driver, summer camp counselor, or... whatever.

if its labels people are interested in, psychotic analyst is about the closest one i would be interested in peeling off the beer bottle.

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Tue May 23, 2006 1:31 pm

Apparently I pissed someone off. Someone sent this to me this morning....it's a link to a satellite image of South Kansas City where I used to live.
"That's cool. Not to change the subject, but there's something that's been confusing me and I was wondering if you could explain it. I got a PM from somebody else who said that I should check out this image of yours.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/ ... idwest.jpg

I guess that it's OK, but it just looks like a standard landsat photo to me. Is there something that I should be looking for, anything I'm missing? Not to run down your artwork or anything, but I don't get that one."
I'm going to post this because I don't have anything to hide...and putting my own info out in the public domain is better than having someone else do it...plus it takes the punch out of what someone's trying to accomplish.

By the way it sure looks like that's the same Photobucket account that someone else has used on here. But I could be mistaken.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Yup.

Post by Rob the Wop » Tue May 23, 2006 1:47 pm

Y'see, I've never understood threats as such. It makes no sense telling your objective that you will be attacking them. It wouldn't take much effort on a LEO's part to determine the where's and who's of people involved. If they can't trace the email, big deal. Look at motive.

Cowards pull this kind of shit. I've had someone call me with a death threat before. I gave him my address and made sure my shotgun was loaded after they hung up. I figured out who it was easily enough, people that tend to do this aren't that bright. Also he had beaten up an ex-girlfriend of mine. Three months later I jumped across a counter at Burger King where he worked and beat him stupid. Patience, training, and timing works wonders against impulsive pricks.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

User avatar
AntiM
Moderator
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:23 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Anti M's Home for Wayward Art
Location: Wild, Wild West
Contact:

Post by AntiM » Tue May 23, 2006 1:50 pm

Aaaaah, you said shotgun. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy.

User avatar
Rob the Wop
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Furbackistan, OR
Contact:

Post by Rob the Wop » Tue May 23, 2006 2:25 pm

AntiM wrote:Aaaaah, you said shotgun. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy.
The reason why they still use the combat shotgun in the SeaBees is because it is, bar none, THE most effective close quarter firearm. Get a good pump action 12 guage, load it with 00 Magnum rounds, and stick a pistol grip on it. Practice with a couple hundred or so rounds through it and you have about the most effective home defense firearm out there.
[b]The other, other white meat.[/b]

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”