Aetherous

Sloppy, I've never personally heard of it happening (since it involves high level hacking ability which is very rare, and illegal)...but now that you mention it, if people have been known to track down others based on internet conversations then that's a good reason to enforce other rules such as: no harassing, no hateful messages, no defamatory messages, etc. Those actions are pointless in discussion, and could drive a violent person with hacking knowledge to act out. Such actions are more likely to cause real violence, than someone saying "that's a threat". In my case, those actions are what drove me to say "that's a threat". So yes, I do think if there are going to be rules, then enforce them all and make it clearly known that the pit will be moderated. And besides...as has been repeated multiple times...my non-specific threat took place before we knew there was moderation in the pit. Once we found out, I agreed and said no further threats would take place...at which point I was suspended? So the situation isn't sticky at all.

Mal, I don't get why you think something is going on with me, if I say "no harm" in my returning to use the forum that I love? That makes no sense... How I've behaved isn't an issue at all. A lot of people were behaving poorly in the pit. If all of the forum rules applied there (and they SHOULD in my opinion) then quite a few more people would be suspended right now. However, the issue is: did I agree with following the rules, once we knew there were rules in the pit? That is the ONLY issue here. And I did. So we shouldn't even be having this conversation. If a decision is made to suspend me, then of course I will have no respect whatsoever for it, and will continue to use the forum under a new screenname. I will also take it personally, since the decision will have been made on personal bias...and that will reflect on my relationships with each moderator after the fact.

There actually was a valid argument...what was it, two days ago? By the way, I'm not saying anything about you personally Stig, but I really do like that saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

TO THE PIT WITH YOU! I'll shake hands when you make a decent argument, or give in.

Isn't that hard to deal with? You put so much time and thought into making your points...and it all goes to waste. On top of that, you're ridiculed. Not saying anything about Stig's intelligence, but there's that saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Yup, this is where the discussion began: You can see the breakdown on page 1 of Serene's thread. We were essentially discussing nothing the entire time. Semantics or something. Anyway: I still think I'm absolutely right.

Well, I would disagree with such a decision.

To be clear, this whole argument about "in general" started from this statement: So are we essentially arguing that anger only arises when a fact is stated about many women (because the angry people will be ASSUMING that it's untrue due to interpreting "in general" to mean a majority)...but if the fact actually pertains to a majority, then people tend not to get angry (because "in general" will have been used in the correct way)? Edit: excuse me: "used in the correct way" should say "used in the assumed to be correct way".

In my opinion, there is nothing to decide. I agreed to the rules, and shouldn't have been suspended at all. If I end up being suspended (with this account too), of course I will come back under a new name and IP address. I like to use this forum. No harm in that.

Oh okay. I chose to look in the dictionary.

So: In general, people assume that "in general" means a majority. But according to the true meaning of the idiom "in general", we can also say... In general, people know that "in general" doesn't necessarily mean a majority. Therefore, in general, "in general" can be taken to mean either a majority...or not...depending on whether you side with a public opinion survey, or the actual definition, in general.

And there is also public record on this forum of your cute behavior, and it can be made use of in the future!

Right...which was nonspecific. I said "you don't know me, or how far I'm willing to go, that's a threat". I could have been referring to anything. To answer you specifically about what I was referring to: it was posting personal insults about him after every post he made. That was my intention. Or my intention could have been tickling him... "You don't know how much of a tickler I am, or how far I'm willing to take this tickling...that's a threat!" Essentially: stop trying to keep me suspended. It's not going to happen, even if the moderators decide to suspend this screenname. I will simply come back with a new one and a new IP address. I will always love you regardless of what you do, Tyler.

To be clear, this isn't a threat of violence or injury. I'm not saying that I'm going to do that to Stig. The threat was when I told strawdog essentially, "you don't know who you're talking to, or how far I'm willing to take this: that's a threat." Once again, that's not a threat of violence or injury. Besides...everyone has already made up as far as I can tell...so why is this legal action bullshit still being discussed? Much love to the beautiful woman, Tyler. I'm still waiting for her to yell at me. Soooooo cuuuutttteee!

Here you go: Thanks for sharing the experience with me. I have learned a lot.

You don't know me, Tyler. You don't know how far I'm willing to take the posts gushing full of love!

In that case, from this point forward I am going to only send you posts gushing full of love. That's a threat!

By the way...be careful that you don't THREATEN legal action against me. Otherwise I'd tell the moderators! That's a thr.......wait, ummm...that's a promise!

There's a difference between like and love.

I can also love them despite their unfounded hatred for me.

Threatening is only one of the forum rules which apparently apply even to the pit. Strawdog broke other rules which are just as legitimate, such as "no harassing" and "no hateful posts". If this still doesn't make sense, that's on you...

TaoBee, You could try actually reading what I wrote, and get up to speed on the conversation. That would show a little intelligence. No one thinks strawdog made a threat. And you could also do away with the personal vendetta against me. That's only making you into a bully. In an ideal world, there'd be no problems between us. Totally your choice.

Mal, That's totally fine by me, but what about the other forum rules which you went by in your decision? "posting any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane." Are those things fair game in the pit, and only "threatening" not allowed? What if others feel just as strongly about such things as harassing, or posting hateful and defamatory posts...as I claim strawdog did? As long as I'm suspended, I say he should be suspended as well...because we BOTH broke the forum rules.

_/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_ _/\_