# Cops - irresponsible show boating



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So in their infinite wisdom they shut down BOTH the Don Valley and the Gardiner to transport a tiny bit of explosive with no more bang than a gallon of gas going off.
Idjits.....




















> Bombs detonated in one ‘fireball-type' blast
> Canadian Press
> August 31, 2007 at 5:37 PM EDT
> TORONTO — Toronto police temporarily shut down two major highways Friday as they gingerly removed several letter bombs from an east-end neighbourhood and ferried them across town to be detonated at an isolated site near the waterfront.
> ...


CTV Toronto - T.O. police re-open highways, detonate 3 bombs - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television

New toys got show em in use............yeah right.

THIS is what they were transporting








- what's that 1/2 cup of gasoline?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Wouldn't want that exploding in my face that's for sure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes indeed but it also did not warrant the show boating and closure of major highways.
Not the first time ( think "terrorist" capture ).......unfortunately likely not the last.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Had they transported it unknown to you, and the press found out and exposed them, would you be among the first to be hollering they were risking lives by doing so? And more importantly, did they know _exactly_ what they were dealing with when they made the decision?

You can't have it both ways.

Erring on the side of public safety is a good thing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it's a post 9/11 world

anything to keep the populace afraid of "them" makes it easier for the neo cons to promote their agenda

wanna bet harpo et al are conducting an overnight poll on how the Cdn. electorate now views our military action in Afghanistan?

if positive for the cons, look for a poll to be released in Asper's Bazaar


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it's a post 9/11 world
> 
> anything to keep the populace afraid of "them" makes it easier for the neo cons to promote their agenda
> 
> ...


Wow! Took your paranoid/Harpo pill again today did you?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it's a post 9/11 world
> 
> anything to keep the populace afraid of "them" makes it easier for the neo cons to promote their agenda
> 
> ...


HEY! LOOK OVER HERE EVERYBODY! I'M MACSPECTRUM! I HATE STEPHEN HARPER!!! EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS HARPER'S FAULT! STOP LOOKING AT OTHER STUFF!!! LOOK AT ME!!! I'M MACSPECTRUM!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

How on earth would the police know that the bombs would be minor before detonating them?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MacDoc, your post is absurd. It is the job of the police to serve and protect.

They had no definite idea as to the explosive power of those bombs. Given that they were home made devices, and therefore assumed to be unstable, the safest method of disposal would be to transport and detonate them - exactly what the police did.

Now, if they had transported them in an unmarked and unescorted vehicle and the bombs had gone off, I'm sure you would be screaming bloody murder. The reason for closing the bridges is, one could assume, so that if the bomb detonates while under the bridge, and the bridge is damaged, there is no risk of casualties.

Please, stop *your* showboating and recognize when the police do their jobs.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I guess I'm not the only one who finds it ironic to criticize the bomb squad from a cushy chair. :lmao:

So riddle me this. Why would you detonate a gallon of gas in a residential area? Come on. Use your head.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I wonder if MacDoc has a problem with authority. Next time there's a bomb threat, except across the street from MacDoc's residence, the police should just detonate it there and then, and let MD come back here and complain that the police were being "reckless and needlessly risking lives." 

Honestly -- why in the _world_ would they detonate the bomb where they found it? Especially since they didn't completely (100%) know what the explosive devices were capable of. Why needlessly risk lives when it's not required? It's not the end of the world if the DVP goes down for a few hours. Seriously.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm with the lot who thinks MacDoc is way wrong on this score. Way, waaay wrong. From the comfort of a nice cushy chair, indeed. What a bizarre excuse to dump on the cops.

Guy Toronto: thanks, that was funny.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Yea, I agree I'd rather them have it blow up somewhere safe and isolated, even if that inconvienience me (travel or what not) for such a small explosion. The posibilities of things going wrong are quite huge, explosives are generally not a stable factor, a computer part should function the way it's meant to, an explosive is meant to cause damage, home made are meant to cause as much as possible.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I just knew I'd get the chance to post this picture eventually!


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it's a post 9/11 world
> 
> anything to keep the populace afraid of "them" makes it easier for the neo cons to promote their agenda
> 
> ...


You know, that kind of lobbying by the forces at bay is not untrue. A few years ago, as a journalist, I covered a cop bust of a big grow op in vancouver. They are a dime a dozen. So why were we treated to a bid red carpet show with photo ops of the cops removing plants etc, full access, cooperation upthe ying yang from the boys in blue - whatever the press wanted. ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON. That's unheard of.

Of course, there were bigwig politicians in town and the cops always make sure they are on the front pages in a positive light when the boys from Ottawa are visiting. Happens all over the country, an organised positive PR spin for law enforcement. And the press lap it up every time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well for once the National Pest got something right....Episode of 24



> *Bomb detonation turns Toronto into real-life episode of '24'*
> 
> *Torontonians were transfixed yesterday by the spectacle* of police gingerly transporting three live bombs through their city, shutting down two of Toronto’s busiest roadways for more than an hour after a man was arrested for a series of August letter bombings.
> After a series of updates earlier in the day, Posted Toronto presents its full account of the story below, which will appear in Saturday's paper.
> ...





> The two earlier bombs delivered to separate Toronto homes *were also inside bubble wrap courier envelopes, but contained an explosive petroleum-based fluid,* according to Toronto police. The first letter bomb exploded in the hands of an unidentified man at his east-end home on Aug. 11, leaving him with serious burns.
> * Last Sunday, the Toronto police Emergency Task Force blew up a second courier package, containing the same explosive fluid, after it was found at the north-end home of real estate lawyer Terrence Reiber.* The first letter bomb victim has not been identified by police and Mr. Reiber has declined comment on the incident.


Funny no parade for the first detonation - maybe because he was a lawyer.

They could publish a photo of the improvised device....why - because they already had evidence......they were following the guy..it was NOT a random traffic stop.

Someone else makes this comment..



> *It astounds me that the Toronto Police Services determined a gas station as the "safest place" in which to arrest an individual with explosive devices in the trunk of the automobile he was driving. This is madness!!!* Within 250 yards of this gas station you have Thorncliffe Park Public School (the largest in Canada with 1600 students) and Leaside Towers (2 - 44 story apartment buildings and 3,000+ residents) and again the largest in Canada. Since this makes no sense whatsoever the only plausible explanation remaining is that Mayor David Miller personally approved this move.


Indeed why would police CHOOSE to arrest someone they thought was a bomber at a gas station??



> If a bomb exploded in transit, it will be contained to the special police trailer, he explained.


oh really - contained you say??.....pray tell if contained why it was necessary for the spectacle????

No one is arguing that the devices needed careful handling when found....but when secured.....the rest was show boating.

I'm glad y'all enjoyed being transfixed. :clap:


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Deleted. MD: Try clarifying your post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm guessing that MacDoc is most concerned about whether a particular cultural group is ultimately going to be set up to take it on the ass for this.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lars - learn to read

••

MF - wrong.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bottom line is the cops did their job in a safe manner that resulted in no damage or risk to the public.

It amazes me that when cops take down a killer in a shootout, there is not a thread praising their efforts.

Making mountains out of molehills here comes to mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So what's your real beef MacDoc? What do you think is the actual intention of the police in this matter?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> Bottom line is the cops did their job in a safe manner that resulted in no damage or risk to the public.
> 
> It amazes me that when cops take down a killer in a shootout, there is not a thread praising their efforts.
> 
> Making mountains out of molehills here comes to mind.


I think, for once, I agree with SINC. Well said. :clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think the whole spectacle was showboating. In my own town, just a few months ago, the cops closed down a sizable neighbourhood just to save the population from - a BBQ set! Yes, we had to be saved from a wire brush, a prongy thing and a spatula!

The post 9/11 age is kind of stupid. Al Qaida is not trying to blow up some dude in Guelph or seek revenge upon some anonymous lawyer; they are out to destroy modern civilization as they see fit. If they are going to blow something up in Canada, it will be something big and impressive. Perhaps Parliament, or First Canadian Place, or Place Ville Marie, or the CN Tower. Something big and grandious that will guarantee a hundred days of coverage on the Larry King Show. And they are not going to mail little envelopes by Courier either. Al Qaida is all about big trucks filled with the maximum number of explosives in order to score as many kills as they can. Because it is all so blatantly obvious, that if they score thousands of kills, everyone will convert to their perverted vision of what Islam is!

There is no doubt that a Unabomber kind of dude is very dangerous, especially when he is a random killer with "personal vendettas" against random people he does not know. But it is insane to take him down at a gas station so close to major residences; and it is insane to close down the entire freeway system of Canada's largest city for something so small. But then again, it is the post 9/11 world, where everyone thinks they are worthy of being an Al Qaida target. I look forward to seeing more neighbourhoods and highways paralyzed in fear of a threat that does not exist in any practical measure.

Now back to the coverage of the Princess Diana Conspiracy Murder...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It's clear from eyewitness reports that it was at the gas station that the man started going nuts, inside yelling for jumper cables. Suppose someone had given him jumper cables, he went back to his car and blew up the gas station and everyone in and around it? It's stupid to think that the police "chose" to apprehend him there. He chose to go nuts there, having stopped at a gas station demanding jumper cables with three bombs in his car.

Had the police let him go, he may never have left the gas station and this story would read how stupid they were to just stand around and let me blow it up.

btw there is no indication his engine had stalled/failed.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

With the title of this thread in mind I do believe the police had "responsible show boating in mind."

The massive fireball / smoke plume were caused, no doubt, by the materials of the controlled explosion. I base this conclusion on the fact that the explosive material was safe for transport in case of uncontrolled explosion. Other wise the police would of executed a contained controlled explosion closer the gas station. 

Did the police / authorities perform this "spectacle explosion" to prejudice the suspect / accused person or to instill "healthy" fear, for control purposes, into the populace or a little column "A" a little column "B"? I don't know.

Could be column "C" just showboating and no other motive. "Hey look what I can do!"


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

What I didn't understand was why they didn't close down the northbound DVP......I was trying to get home from a meeting and they had shut down the Bayview/Bloor ramp so I had to go up to Don Mills, I was wondering what was going on then I saw the whole parade go passed in the southbound lanes......I was no more than 50ft away from their renovated garbage can.

I noticed from the design of it it has angled shields so in the evnt of the bomb going off the blast would be deflected away from the car towing it......what about the poor guys following 10ft behind ???!?!?

All good fun for the boys in blue I am sure.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I guess we should thank our lucky stars Jack Bauer wasn't on the case... if he had used his cell phone at the gas station, surely it would have sparked a fuel explosion. :lmao:

Frankly, if you're going to blame anyone for being transfixed on anything, blame the media.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> I guess we should thank our lucky stars Jack Bauer wasn't on the case... if he had used his cell phone at the gas station, surely it would have sparked a fuel explosion. :lmao:
> 
> Frankly, if you're going to blame anyone for being transfixed on anything, blame the media.


Absolutely. Don't blame the guy who lived in the house with steel doors, building bombs he sent through the mail nearly killing three people, nor the bombs that were nearly set off in the car at the gas station.

Blame the cops, the media, anybody you can find.

Not this guy, certainly:











> Adel Mohamed Arnaout, suspected of sending three letter bombs, appeared in Eglinton Ave. E. court, Friday, August 31, 2007.





Toronto Star said:


> *Letter bomb mystery deepens
> *
> Police close DVP as they take devices to lake for destruction, then focus their search on east-end 'Bombay Bunker'
> Sep 01, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I guess we should thank our lucky stars Jack Bauer wasn't on the case... if he had used his cell phone at the gas station, surely it would have sparked a fuel explosion. :lmao:


Jack Bauer saves people, that includes his most powerful tools, his cell phone and fists.



> Frankly, if you're going to blame anyone for being transfixed on anything, blame the media.


The media loves this kind of stuff, so your right, it's a nice rating grabber.:greedy:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The first recipient, Abdelmagid Radi, who lives in the Victoria Park and Lawrence Ave. E. area, sustained minor injuries when he opened a letter bomb Aug. 11.
> 
> The second, real estate lawyer Terrence Reiber, called police Aug. 19 after noticing a package smelling of a petroleum-type odour at his house in the Yonge St.-Sheppard Ave. area ; that device was later detonated by police.
> 
> ...


and the "analysis" we get is;



> Don't blame the guy who lived in the house with steel doors, building bombs he sent through the mail nearly killing three people


a little bit Dick Cheney and a little bit Karl Rove



> ex·ag·ger·ate (g-zj-rt)
> v. ex·ag·ger·at·ed, ex·ag·ger·at·ing, ex·ag·ger·ates
> v.tr.
> 1. To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate: exaggerate the size of the enemy force; exaggerated his own role in the episode.
> ...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MS, your (lack of) reasoning skills are becoming more and more apparent with every post.

Nanoo nanoo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP: Spec will be drawing on his anger about Dick Cheney and Karl Rove 50 years from now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF got banned? 

Was it for "Spec will be drawing on his anger about Dick Cheney and Karl Rove 50 years from now."? That would be odd.

Ehmax, I'm all for you clamping down a little on the insults, insulting innuendo -- I apologise for implying that MF hated children but, according to one, I am evil after all -- and, hopefully, the regular trolls (occasional trolls are cute), but now I do not really have a sense of what's allowed.

What did MF do?


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

It seems a few regulars are banned, either it was a mistake or ehMax is looking and banning based on posts from his vacation period.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Who else was banned? 

I've seen much more personally insulting stuff than MF posts from a couple noteworthy not-banned posters (maybe even this poster  ). I have not read every MF post but his stuff is relatively mild. Maybe he went nuts in the tech fora.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Beej said:


> Who else was banned?
> 
> I've seen much more personally insulting stuff than MF posts from a couple noteworthy not-banned posters (maybe even this poster  ). I have not read every MF post but his stuff is relatively mild. Maybe he went nuts in the tech fora.


Found them in the Taliban thread, IronMac, and da_jonesy

EDIT:Found why in the Taliban thread.

ehMax post


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I noticed the locked thread and ehmax's post but not the banned members. Thanks.

Now things make even less sense to me. I'm a pretty regular reader in this forum (but not the others) and those three are not regularly the rudest or most hateful (in a personal way).

Edit: I emailed MF and he was not given any reason. That's a little disconcerting, particularly given my above comment. How is one to know how not to behave?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Now things make even less sense to me. I'm a pretty regular reader in this forum (but not the others) and those three are not regularly the rudest or most hateful (in a personal way).


Da_Jonesy has been pretty rude and hateful to me in the past. I have never had issues with the other two, but they also happen to have similar views as I do, so there is less opportunity for it.

It wasn't just the thread referenced above, it was also this one:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/54982-subverting-democracy-once-more.html

in which Martman and I had words with each other. It looks like the two of us barely avoided a vacation. 

I support the Mayor in whatever decisions he makes since we are all guests here. That said, an explanation is always nice so that people understand what the rules are.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Vandave said:


> I support the Mayor in whatever decisions he makes since we are all guests here. That said, an explanation is always nice so that people understand what the rules are.


I agree, a rules sticky would be nice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> That said, an explanation is always nice so that people understand what the rules are.


Yep, it would help a lot given how odd the list of banned is. Right now, I've no clue how the rules are applied and, worse, the banned people (or at least one of them) has no clue either. 

The current situation is an unpleasant experience. Do I get banned one day for unknown behaviour exhibited at an unknown time?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

A sticky might do it, but ehMax has posted warnings recently.

Here are the rules you agreed to when signing up here.




> Forum Rules
> 
> Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
> 
> ...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

A sticky might do it, but ehMax has posted warnings recently.

Here are the rules you agreed to when signing up here.




> Forum Rules
> 
> Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> A sticky might do it, but ehMax has posted warnings recently.


Due to the lack of explanation we are in the unfortunate position of not knowing how the rules are applied. 

For example this:
" you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by ehMac."


...applies to a lot of posters, and moreso to some than the three banned ones in my opinion. Rules are great, but their application is quite important. Currently, outside of extreme examples of things such as vulgarity, the rules provide little use because their application is so murky. 

Of course there are time constraints and, as VD pointed out, we are just guests, but three odd choices and no explanation of the choices? As I said, this is unpleasant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

At the risk of being banned myself, I think it is time for the mods to step up and advise members what constitutes behaviour that results in being banned.

A recent message from the mayor in this thread

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/44716-taliban-suffer-crushing-defeat-29.html#post579863

apparently banned "several" members.

I'd like to know exactly why to avoid making the same type of mistake myself. 

I just can't see an obvious mistake by any member in that thread. I could of course be wrong, but it is so vague that I think members need to have clarification.

Is that too much to ask?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ehMax is in charge, and forum users should ask him such questions directly rather than post them here. What he shares or doesn't at that point is entirely his business but that's the way to find out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think that because this is a way to help everyone understand how the rules are applied it is best to discuss it in a public forum. Otherwise, only a couple people that contacted ehmax would know while others would not. And, if those couple people do not pass on the exact text they get from ehmax, then we've got a game of telephone going. 

Of course what ehmax shares or does not is his business; that applies to everyone (Why even bother to point that out? It comes off as somewhat defensive.) but I assume that I can ask for and recommend a certain course of action. Is that assumption wrong? I'm not the only one asking and, as I pointed out, it is with regards to something that affects many posters (arguably all, in practice a smaller set).

As for the banned individuals, can they PM ehmax to request an explanation?


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

HowEver said:


> ehMax is in charge, and forum users should ask him such questions directly rather than post them here. What he shares or doesn't at that point is entirely his business but that's the way to find out.


ehMax is the mayor, HowEver, we are only asking for clarifications on the rules, so that we do not suffer the same fate. His choice for why he banned those members is up to him to share. With no rules, we are in a state of anarchy, which just like capitalism and marxist derivatives does not work. And as we for the most part know, we are none of those political ideologies, the best of all in a way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> ehMax is in charge, and forum users should ask him such questions directly rather than post them here. What he shares or doesn't at that point is entirely his business but that's the way to find out.


That's just crap However. It is now a paid membership site. At least for some of us.

If people are announced as being banned in a public forum we have the right to ask why in that same public forum. 

As one who was advised by ehMax just yesterday that my membership was about to expire and if I did not pay up, certain privileges would cease, (I paid up today), I think I am owed the privilege of an answer to a pretty simple question, namely why were those three banned? I need to know so I don't make the very same mistake.

Problem is, none of us know what the mistake or infraction was, and that is just not right. When one charges me to be a member, one has a responsibility to make the rules clear as they relate to specific events.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I wouldn't get too caught up in any written rules. I believe the mayor just sees a couple of posters getting a bit carried away and sends them to their rooms. It's a time-out for them, and it also allows the guests to relax.
I'm okay with that, but then again, I'm not a paying member.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> As one who was advised by ehMax just yesterday that my membership was about to expire...


Speaking of which, did all memberships expire on Sept. 4, 2007, regardless of sign-up date? Because that isn't a year. I'm pretty sure I signed up like October or November of last year. Just a minor detail. (I renewed my 'premium' account, too!)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> That's just crap However. It is now a paid membership site. At least for some of us.
> 
> If people are announced as being banned in a public forum we have the right to ask why in that same public forum.
> 
> ...


paid or unpaid, there are no explicit or implicit obligations by ehmax to explain his decisions
it's a private board and He is God

that being said (or typed) members can always ask, but be careful of what you ask for

and it's more fun to get banned and figure out exactly why later


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*As far as Rules and Explanations*

Mr. Mayor *OWES* no one an explanation well except maybe the Mrs. His board his call.

Now to the topic of rules of how one should guide themselves when posting on this board? i would suggest the general direction contained in Rules of Order for Meetings would go along way. Either Bournot or Roberts Rules of Order.

When I post I am addressing Mr. Speaker err Mr. Mayor, in my mind. Sometimes I will direct a comment to someone personally, usually it is a positive comment or humour or at least my attempt at humour. 

If my comment is not taken positively then I would and have offered an apology.

Any cheap shots would never be directed personally but addressed to Mr. Speaker. 

The type of comment that is hard to find one at fault for is "I don't believe it when everyone is saying BigDL is a wingnut. 

I have not said that BigDL is a wingnut however for some reason people will have it in their minds that BigDL is wingnut.

Some of the comments lately made me think "folks are getting cabin fever" wrong time of the year for it though. I would expect that kind of chippy banter in late February or early March not during the dog days of summer. 

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If this is an EhMac Community and not merely a fiefdom, then it would be better if EhMax explained how the rules are applied and to what. I'm still mystified as to why I received a ban. I'm sure that showing me the offensive post would be very instructive to both myself and others who are wondering what's happening here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The current situation is an unpleasant experience. Do I get banned one day for unknown behaviour exhibited at an unknown time?


From someone who has been banned, it was usually for attacking the person and not the idea. The mayor is usually tolerant.
The other consideration maybe complains that are received via that little yield-like sign below the avatars.
As for locking the other thread - he was clear in what he expected. I edited my posts, did everyone else?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> From someone who has been banned, it was usually for attacking the person and not the idea. The mayor is usually tolerant.
> The other consideration maybe complains that are received via that little yield-like sign below the avatars.
> As for locking the other thread - he was clear in what he expected. I edited my posts, did everyone else?


Thanks for the insight. Still, the outcome seems somewhat odd. I know that you and MF are not exactly close pals, but his style is quite restrained unlike, for example, yours or even mine.

If it has to do with complaints, then I'm wondering about the ol' squeaky wheel syndrome. Are the rules, within the reasons of time constraints, applied reasonable or just when the right wheel squeaks? Are personal politics at play here? More clarity (less murkiness) is preferable.

As for the Afghanistan related thread, it had been quite heated on a number of occasions, so I could see some sort of reprimand for DJ and IM. What I am missing is the trio of choice and, more specifically, the relative treatment of say you and I.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I know that you and MF are not exactly close pals, but his style is quite restrained unlike, for example, yours or even mine.


I think that MF and I would get along fine in person. I personally wish he would debate the ideas and not try to obfuscate in a knee-jerk like fashion. 





Beej said:


> If it has to do with complaints, then_ I'm wondering about the ol' squeaky wheel syndrome_. Are the rules, within the reasons of time constraints, applied reasonable or just when the right wheel squeaks? Are personal politics at play here? More clarity (less murkiness) is preferable.


I'm venture that there maybe some truth to that but how to you expect the mods to know what's going on if there is not some system moderation (the system being users such as yourself).
I don't think that personal politics play into this - the mayor has been pissed off by certain users and never retaliated. 
In the past, I've spoken with Vex and Chelion both very capable and neutral mods.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I think that MF and I would get along fine in person. I personally wish he would debate the ideas and not try to obfuscate in a knee-jerk like fashion.
> .............
> I'm venture that there maybe some truth to that but how to you expect the mods to know what's going on if there is not some system moderation (the system being users such as yourself).
> .............
> ...


Given that, in all honesty does not someone like 'spec make things more personally vicious than MF? I'm not sure about banning based on obfuscation, but if we're going to talk about personally insulting lines, I think we can step beyond the right and left. 

Along the same lines, you are somewhat ruder than me and I am ruder than, say, Dr. G. This does not have to do with a frustration factor, but rudeness. Granted direct and indirect rudeness is a matter of taste not objectivity (indirect ie. I am not going to say that person X molests children but...), but the trio of choice was peculiar, at best.
.............
A fair comment. I will strive to, in the future, lodge complaints to ensure that the moderator is getting a broader set of information on the general opinion regarding rudeness. 
.............
Vex and Chealion are very laid back. That's fine, but not my preference. My problem is with the "yo-yo" treatment. Laid back, then round up a few for banning based upon vague reasons but not others that the same vague reasons apply to. Too random and too arbitrary without some explanation. 

It is quite difficult to figure out how to act without just being completely bland (yes, I come pretty close to that anyways  ).

So, as I initially mentioned, ehmax could -- and should in my opinion -- greatly help here by providing more clarity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Given that, in all honesty does not someone like 'spec make things more personally vicious than MF?


I can't answer that. 

Now sure how to put it delicately, but personally, I find both can be predictable. I find MF to be more annoying in the sense that he will rarely debate the ideas unless pressed. Maybe that's the way he just is.




Beej said:


> Along the same lines, you are somewhat ruder than me and I am ruder than, say, Dr. G. This does not have to do with a frustration factor, but rudeness. Granted direct and indirect rudeness is a matter of taste not objectivity (indirect ie. I am not going to say that person X molests children but...), but the trio of choice was peculiar, at best.


Yes, I can be rude, but I'm doing the best to curtail some of that. 
As for the choice, I would not read too much into it. At times SINC and I were both deserving of some time out and only one was given it. I could of raised a sink about the perceived lack of fairness but instead decided that it's only a forum after all...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I can't answer that.
> ...................
> At times SINC and I were both deserving of some time out and only one was given it. I could of raised a sink about the perceived lack of fairness but instead decided that it's only a forum after all...


Regarding personal attacks (direct and indirect) or just being irritating? Different things when it comes to banning in my mind. Arguably equally irritating I'll give you, but few around ehmac make things as personal as 'spec. But hey, I'm "evil". beejacon

And yes, as one who you know likes to enjoy many beers, I give people a lot of consideration if they come back and make amends the next day in an honest fashion.
...................
On this, then, we disagree. I have noticed one or two bans that I thought you (alone) had coming but, were it me and I found it unjust I would have spoken up. Again, are we talking irritating or just personal attacks? Repeated trolling or infrequent? It is somewhat grey, but no so grey as it has been made recently.

The apparent (until explained otherwise) arbitrariness is unpleasant, to me, and removes from my enjoyment of the forum. That could very well just be me but I assume I am allowed to voice that concern...repeatedly, given how often some views are voiced around here.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Still no explanation? And here I sit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since these topics are moderated so carefully I would expect an answer shortly.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Maybe they are discussing how to handle the issue in the secret mod forum.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Still no explanation? And here I sit.


I wouldn't worry about it Beej. I can't recall seeing any nasty posts coming from you.

I think if people follow the Golden Rule they will be just fine.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I think if people follow the Golden Rule they will be just fine.


From my perspective, that appears not to be the case.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Da_Jonesy has been pretty rude and hateful to me in the past. I have never had issues with the other two, but they also happen to have similar views as I do, so there is less opportunity for it.


For the record... I went directly to jail for calling someone disgusting. In retrospect I should have said that their statements were disgusting not that the person was disgusting. I understand the rules, I broke the rules, I got punished. Cest la vie. 

As for being rude and hateful? Rude, sure I'll take that one, but hateful? That is pretty strong considering you at one point had threatened to punch my lights out by suggesting that you didn't support our troops. That exchange has been conveniently deleted or else I would have quoted it. (BTW. searching through 2000+ messages here is a time consuming difficult thing to do, someone should create some software to make it easier... he he he).

Vandave, I don't hate you you... I just don't agree with your politics and world view. To that end if someone posts something on this board with the intent to convince others on a position I firmly believe is wrong I will respond and will NOT be bullied which is a common tactic used by the "right" leaning when their argument is weak. (whereas the "left" leaning will commonly avoid a subject where they have a weaker position, hence why there are a lot of threads I don't chime in on).

But I'm out of a Jail (for now).

Free at last, free at last, free at last.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I wouldn't worry about it Beej. I can't recall seeing any nasty posts coming from you.
> 
> I think if people follow the Golden Rule they will be just fine.


Nasty? Perhaps you are not familiar with my extensive body of work related to gaseous anomalies and other related materials. 

But it's not just about being suddenly banned for past behaviour or future posts. The recent events have made using ehmac a somewhat unpleasant experience due to the seemingly arbitrary 'justice'. 

An explanation, aside from being helpful to everyone for guidance on future behaviour (lest we all have to become overly polite :lmao: ) could also serve to lessen that unpleasant feeling of arbitrariness.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I dub thee GhandiBeej


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The second coming...
Movie Announcer: He's a one man recking crew. But he also knows how to party. 
Ghandi: Give me a steak, medium rare.


A nice explanation about the selection of the trio would still be quite helpful. DJ has put forward a pretty reasonable hypothesis for his own banning, but that was based on a single and very recent post. That further confuses the selection of the banned. And, of course, that means that things are still unpleasant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I would write a letter to the moderators requesting an explanation, but I know they carefully monitor these threads looking for cases of "personal attacks." I still may do so for the sake of completeness.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Regarding personal attacks (direct and indirect) or just being irritating? Different things when it comes to banning in my mind. Arguably equally irritating I'll give you, but few around ehmac make things as personal as 'spec. But hey, I'm "evil". beejacon
> 
> And yes, as one who you know likes to enjoy many beers, I give people a lot of consideration if they come back and make amends the next day in an honest fashion.
> ...................
> ...


that's just SPECulation
as for you being evil, we finally agree on something


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Beej said:


> The second coming...
> Movie Announcer: He's a one man recking crew. But he also knows how to party.
> Ghandi: Give me a steak, medium rare.












Man, that's a blast form the past... LOL.

_My mop!_


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> as for you being evil, we finally agree on something


Now this is the sort of thing that would be helpful for the moderators to weigh in on. Granted that the specific attack of 'Spec's being referred to was a while ago, laughably weak, made from a questionable state on 'spec's part and is now bandied about jokingly, but I never really thought that someone could get banned for such an attack so what else was to be done? Now I'm uncertain.

So I'll report this as a hypothetical, allowing that it is long gone, perhaps 'spec was not at his best at the time and that, in the end, with my understanding of how the rules were applied at the time, I think it could be expected to be allowed. But it could provide a nice litmus test of the new state of affairs.

Is an ehmacer in evident seriousness allowed to call another ehmacer "evil' (even an atheist  )? That would seem to be well beyond "clueless", "d**k", "disgusting" etc.

That, by itself, would not clear up the problem of the recent trio, but it would be a start.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Is an ehmacer in evident seriousness allowed to call another ehmacer "evil' (even an atheist  )? That would seem to be well beyond "clueless", "d**k", "disgusting" etc.


You cheeky little devil... beejacon 

I think that you called yourself "evil" - I think that MS was being Tongue-in-cheek in his response.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That is why I mentioned, "a while ago" referring to the initial attack and, in my message to the mods, specifically said I did not want action taken against 'spec for it. 

Under my former understanding, there was nothing to do but laugh it off (it was laughable, but a personal attack nonetheless). Now, using some of your helpful advice because there is a chance that my former understanding was self-fulfilling (not complaining about stuff that I thought was allowed made it allowed) and being in need of more clarity, I think there is a good opportunity to help ehmacers understand the standards.

Past attacks that were okay appear not to be anymore, but more clarity would be good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Perhaps a very comprehensive response is under development.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Comprehensive responses take time, particularly when they form the basis of future strikes against evil.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

... he said in an exceedingly dry manner.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Very comprehensive.

Recall: more guidance regarding the trio of bans and 'new' strictness with regards to personal attacks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm still eager to hear about the bans. I suspect this issue will not go away.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm still eager to hear about the bans. I suspect this issue will not go away.


What issue? (I'm well aware of the issue)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe the response is being laid out for the printers.

Recall: more guidance regarding the trio of bans and 'new' strictness with regards to personal attacks.


If that 'Recall' thing were snappier, it would make a neat sig. While we await the publication of what may be disturbingly comprehensive guidelines, perhaps we could work on making my spur-of-the-moment statement snappier.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought I would check this topic area to see if there is an answer yet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nope but, to be fair, this is not a simple matter so comprehensive guidelines would require much text. Maybe interim semi-complex guidelines would help as long as we understood that they are subject to revision as the complex guidelines are refined. This is not an easy task.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's quite sad that the EhMac "community" doesn't refelect the Canadian experience of allowing one to be told what one is being accused of. People from outside Canada will look at these threads and realize that these rights and freedoms are held aloft on a national level, but ignored by Canadians who find them merely inconvenient.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That other thread got hacked back quite a bit. I was just basking in the open lines of communications and now things are back to abnormal.

So one lesson is that when 'spec whines he gets what he wants; we must err on the side of caution when that happens. 'spec is welcome to smear at will, with the exception of the occasional grossly bigoted statement that he has been caught submitting, but innuendo that may or may not put 'spec in a bad light is not allowed and gets a swift response. At least that is a clear guideline. Kid gloves, squeaky wheel etc.

The second lesson is that trolling/off-topic discussions will be cut randomly (as well as posters) if too many questions are asked and arguments shot down regarding the mod'ing. 

Ours is not to ask. Because everything cannot be policed then no policing is to be questioned (I have seen that argument trotted out before). Because time is short then nothing need be explained (I'm not sure if I had seen that one before). I get it. 

I quite liked the clear line of communications that ehmax opened up in the one case and was open with my compliments, but that communications example appears to have been more of an exception than a new approach to policing.

Somehow things seem even less comfortable than before.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As I said, it's great to trumpet our "Canadian values" in principle, but they're apparently too inconvenient to be put into practice locally--better to just erase everything and pretend there's no need for these values at all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think of it more as having values that we complain about when others do not demonstrate them. When others point out that we do not practice as we preach, so to speak, then, well, there's usually a handy list of excuses and/or direct attacks at the ready.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It's quite sad that the EhMac "community" doesn't refelect the Canadian experience of allowing one to be told what one is being accused of. People from outside Canada will look at these threads and realize that these rights and freedoms are held aloft on a national level, but ignored by Canadians who find them merely inconvenient.


Still whining?
I'd think that you'd understand that this is a site owned and operated by "his majesty" Ehmac. 
While a community does need members to evolve, I fail to understand why you are complaining so much. 
Tomorrow, if he wanted the mayor could ban any one of us without any reason. Did of it a free market New Jersey where you can fire anyone without any explanation, even if they have been working there for years...

You and Beej seem to be pointing fingers at 'Spec. You seem totally ignorant that at times you exhibit behaviour that is at fault - needless attacks on the person and not the idea, trolling and a tendency to disturb threads with inanities.

:baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You "fail understand." I agree.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Still whining?


You seem to have missed the point, given the text of the remainder of your post. If things seem unclear then PM me and I can likely help. If your post was standard "provocateur" type stuff then that's something else. All well and good and only deleted if you harm 'spec's delicate sensibilities...or talk about corrupt consultants, of which anyone, including 'spec, may or may not be a group member. Judging by the intellectual honesty of 'spec's posts, I have reasonable doubts.

One helpful starting point is to not assume that others are unaware of ehmax's complete control over the board. Another helpful point is to not assume that subjective assessments of "our" bad behaviour is not understood. Take that as known to join the discussion and we can go forward from there. Put another way, can we skip past such silly positioning?

'Special treatment is also acknowledged as standard around here. We can play the, "at times" game or be honest about the discussion. Magnitude and frequency matter...something google-jockey's have no understanding of. Thankfully, you are not a google-jockey.

So what part of this is not clear?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It wasn't just the thread referenced above, it was also this one:
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/54982-subverting-democracy-once-more.html
> 
> in which Martman and I had words with each other. It looks like the two of us barely avoided a vacation.


And I would have taken it without complaint. :lmao: :clap: 
My problem for the record wasn't the insult, it was that that was all that was contained in the reply. Like the argument clinic sketch in Monty Python, I think more should be required than an insult when arguing politics. Most people on this board fall way to the right of my politics but I don't start by calling folks 
Facist or idiots. If I did then I gave an explanation.

All that said I have knowingly crossed the line a few times and was willing to and was expecting to be punished but felt "it" had to be said regardless.

The Mayor is god and I'm willing to live with his whim.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks for the contribution, mm. I like to see others' perspectives on this inherently grey issue. I would, of course, really like to get some useful guidance from "god" on this.

At this point it almost seems like stubbornness on "god's" part to not enter this open dialogue. Akin to some strange ego defense. It could also relate to the three bans not all having even barely good reasons. Or not. I have no clue.

Thanks again for the comments though. I disagree on the insult thing but do agree that, if the ehmac standard is to allow it, then it should be required to contain some meaty discussion. Repetitive non sequiturs would not count and brief one-liners (that are not repetitive) may be randomly asked to be explained in order to be judged. But that's all pie-in-the-sky stuff. For now I'm practicing my ability to lie with dogs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Thanks for the contribution, mm. I like to see others' perspectives on this inherently grey issue. I would, of course, really like to get some useful guidance from "god" on this.
> 
> At this point it almost seems like stubbornness on "god's" part to not enter this open dialogue. Akin to some strange ego defense. It could also relate to the three bans not all having even barely good reasons. Or not. I have no clue.


Grey issue? Okay that it maybe.
Seems to me that you are insulted because it happened to you. 
Pride get hurt? When someone else has been in time out, I don't recall you decrying the situation. 

The point is that while you may feel it's unfair, I don't see why you are harping on this. MF is bleating about "Canadian Values", you are whining in public... 
If you really feel chided, PM the mayor, it may take some time to get back to you, but he's generally a fair person....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You seem totally ignorant that at times you exhibit behaviour that is at fault - needless attacks on the person and not the idea, trolling and a tendency to disturb threads with inanities.


AS, have you heard of projection?

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> AS, have you heard of projection?
> 
> Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


:yawn: 
Bored today I see.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Grey issue? Okay that it maybe.
> Seems to me that you are insulted because it happened to you.
> Pride get hurt? When someone else has been in time out, I don't recall you decrying the situation.
> 
> ...


You may have missed how I have been doing this before anything was done to me. You may have also missed how sometimes I have agreed with timeouts. I'm not against any and every ban, Mr. Easy Equivalency Argument  . Also, if you remember from long-ago, I also spoke up when lpk was tossed. This is not out-of-the-blue. 

As for the time on getting back to me, or others, check back in this thread about how long ago this started. It is pretty clear that it is now just about gods saving face and not responding to this because it was avoided/missed when it started. Missed looks unlikely. ie. Not responding because one does not have to and thus "asserting" authority. I do not agree with that approach but can understand how it may feel satisfying to the 'asserter'.

I understand that you feel this is unnecessary or pointless but I'm curious as to how you seem to see no reason for this ("I don't see why you are harping on this"). Maybe you disagree with the reason, but do you not see a reason? 

I think that's just more positioning of your argument, as with the Easy Equivalency positioning. Please correct me if, after having gone back some pages and read the whole spiel, you do not actually understand, but may very much disagree, with why I am doing this.

On the Canadian Values thing, that's a little more obscure. Some people may wax poetic about the beauty of Canada and its values and tolerance etc. However, when it comes to practicing such values in one's own domain (home, business, internet etc.), things change. This is not a question of what must be done -- this is a privately owned board -- but differing opinions on what should be done. 

At the same time, I can choose to raise the issue, again and again. Ehmax is free to remove my posts, to ban me, to respond to my posts, to ignore my posts or whatever.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The problem here is all due to PMS 

The issue boils down to Pi$$ and Moan Syndrome. 

Some members insist on it's got to be my way, it's got to be my way, it's got to be my way........ 

Some members seem to forget the only rule on EHmac


Mr. Mayor said:


> There's really just one main rule at ehMac: Be Nice!


I can be as guilty as anyone by times of not playing nice.

So the great quandary of EhMacLand posting is: Be Nice!  Sooo easy to do  .


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The problem here is all due to PMS
> 
> The issue boils down to Pi$$ and Moan Syndrome.
> 
> ...


Again, over--simplistic. If one believes one is playing nice, then at least an explanation is required of what is "not nice" if nothing obvious precedes the removal of posts.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> You may have missed how I have been doing this before anything was done to me. You may have also missed how sometimes I have agreed with timeouts. I'm not against any and every ban, *Mr. Easy Equivalency Argument * . Also, if you remember from long-ago, I also spoke up when lpk was tossed. This is not out-of-the-blue.


LOL. 
When "timeouts" happens it can be a variety of reasons. From foul language to direct attacks on the person.
The mayor has been clear: " You can debate the idea but refrain from attacking the person". There is some latitude there, granted but it's been a facilitator to neutrality at times. 



Beej said:


> I understand that you feel this is unnecessary or pointless but I'm curious as to how you seem to see no reason for this ("I don't see why you are harping on this"). Maybe you disagree with the reason, but do you not see a reason?


I don't see a "reason" mostly because the rules have been discussed often enough. 




Beej said:


> I think that's just more positioning of your argument, as with the Easy Equivalency positioning. Please correct me if, after having gone back some pages and read the whole spiel, you do not actually understand, but may very much disagree, with why I am doing this.


EEp - I just think that this is a "battle" that is not worth your time. I have a feeling it would boil down to a matter of "perspective" in the end. 




Beej said:


> However, when it comes to practicing such values in one's own domain (home, business, internet etc.), things change. This is not a question of what must be done -- this is a privately owned board -- but differing opinions on what should be done.


Again this would be "perspective". In the past, I've viewed you as trying to be some "morality" police here (rightly or wrongly). Could this be the case here? 
Instead of generalities, maybe we could focus on a Specific that bothers you.




Beej said:


> At the same time, I can choose to raise the issue, again and again. Ehmax is free to remove my posts, to ban me, to respond to my posts, to ignore my posts or whatever.


Removing postings can be tedious...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> LOL.
> EEp - I just think that this is a "battle" that is not worth your time. I have a feeling it would boil down to a matter of "perspective" in the end.
> ...............
> Again this would be "perspective". In the past, I've viewed you as trying to be some "morality" police here (rightly or wrongly). Could this be the case here?
> ...


A fair point. Maybe I will see it as a waste or not at some time in the future. At the moment, not so much because I consider the current environment of increased uncertainty and arbitrariness (at least, in my opinion) to have significantly reduced the enjoyment I get out of ehmac. Thus, agree or disagree with me on whether I'm being reasonable, but that is a good enough reason for me to try.
...............
A fair observation that I disagree with in general and that I do not find to be specifically relevant here. Also, I did not start this with generalities (we had three very specific instances) and here, as well as in other threads, I have been specific and pointed out when I see positive developments and when I see developments that seem to make things more arbitrary and/or uncertain. I have also used general commentary to tie it all together. 

I understand that some of these posts are gone but you really do seem to be jumping into the middle of this and making all sorts of assumptions about what I do and do not think or have and have not bothered to do. I'll make a fine economist out of you yet.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I understand that some of these posts are gone but *you really do seem to be jumping into the middle* of this and making all sorts of assumptions about what I do and do not think or have and have not bothered to do. * I'll make a fine economist out of you yet*.


True but having been banned many times (and not complained about it), I just felt the discussion was going to go circular and it's certainly not worth digging your heels over this.

Just don't turn me into a Kenneth Whyte type of economist...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I was hoping that you would contribute, given your experiences. You're like the old and grizzled, "Been banned since you were in diapers" guy.  

Thanks for offering your practical-oriented insights.

I agree about the circularity, but that is also part of the point. Nothing was done, not even the standard, "I can't police everything" spiel. Sometimes nothing is conspicuously something. And sometimes it is just nothing. Perhaps that summarises a large portion of our differences on this topic?

Now I have to look up that name.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Now I have to look up that name.


Kenneth Whyte is not an economist. He's the editor of Maclean's. He's a right-winger and mixes opinion and fact quite often. He has a penchant for economics but with his special vision of the world... If I squint my eyes and look at the sun, I can sometimes see his point...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If you keep squinting you may get stuck that way. 

That theory is based on the Truth handed down to me by my parents: "stop making faces or your face will stay that way." 

You have met me and therefore know the Truth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Reminder: We are approaching the one-month anniversary and still no guidance on the bans although now the uncertainty and seeming arbitrariness has expanded, given recent events with one or two notable exceptions involving great clarity.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Kenneth Whyte is not an economist. He's the editor of Maclean's. He's a right-winger and mixes opinion and fact quite often.


Which is why Maclean's now has the credibility of the National Enquirer. I'm waiting for the Pierre/Margaret Trudeau and Sasquatch love triangle story and day now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Which is why Maclean's now has the credibility of the National Enquirer. I'm waiting for the Pierre/Margaret Trudeau and Sasquatch love triangle story and day now.


The State has no place in the bedroom of the Sasquatch.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A whole month and nothing on the original problem but one or two bright spots on subsequent sudden over-reactions. I guess that the non-response does, in its own way, provide clarity about ehmac's gods.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm sure the messages that caused the original problem are kept under lock and key in some sort of encrypted cyber vault for later consideration.


----------

