Asher is banned

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I don't even know who you are..I'd rather have some posters I can at least recognize frequent the OT.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by techumseh
Most of us wouldn't miss OT at all, if it were gone. It's fun for a while, but at its best, it's intellectual masturbation.

As it's a collection of people all springing ideas and rebounding off each other, I think it would be more correct to describe it as "intellectual mutual masturbation". Or possibly an usually shouty and argumentative orgy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


From Websters

7. under consideration, in this instance or case: The matter here is of grave concern to us all.

Here Here

Websters is pandering to the tastes of Americans who don't enjoy being told that they've been using an old English expression incorrectly and in a way that makes little sense.

[DrSpike]

Hear hear.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



Websters is pandering to the tastes of Americans who don't enjoy being told that they've been using an old English expression incorrectly and in a way that makes little sense.

Then you go devise a dictionary and you can decide what is correct

In the meantime, I shall use what the dictionary decides is correct

By the way, exactly what dictionary does it show it is an old expression and is not acceptable in the application I applied to it?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I know the one you are refering to as well. Related to the same incident I received a harshly toned PM for starting an offending thread, when, in fact, I hadn't started any threads.

I think the 'Read, respond or be restricted' template approach can be replaced with something better, because a lot of the time a polite request to refrain is all that is needed as most people are reasonable. It's when everyone gets lumped into one big flogging pen of communal guilts and sins of the father that it irks people into becoming belligerent.

I must say that I really like Grandpa Troll's approach when he's seen things that need to be moderated. Measured and polite, usually garnering an apology from the 'offender'.

Yes, "Read, respond or be restricted" is like a red rag to a bull with me. The one thing I really, really dislike is being talked to like a child...

[DrSpike]

/me pats PH on the head.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I don't come round here much anymore, and over-moderation plays a big part in that. Asher is a dickhead, but makes the site more amusing than it otherwise is without him.

Surely you are kidding? If anything I think the moderation here is a little too soft some times. But it's way better than PIF(Paradox Interactive Forums), where long standing members are permabanned for next to nothing sometimes. Even I, who always try my best to follow the rules, got banned for three days once. Why? Because in a post of the year thread, where a rule was not to discuss the posters of the posts in question, a discussion arose. I then got in and told them I thought they should stop it and let the poster in question alone. Since I mentioned his name(already mentioned everywhere), I got banned. Now, as I told the mod there, I accept the punishment, but the action was really way too harsh.

[PLATO]

Yeah, I think the actual moderation here is fine. The only objection I have ever had is the tone. It is my belief that you can handle difficult subjects in a civil way and be firmly grounded in authority. When it comes to actions, however, I cannot complain one bit about the way I have been treated.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by PLATO
Yeah, I think the actual moderation here is fine. The only objection I have ever had is the tone. It is my belief that you can handle difficult subjects in a civil way and be firmly grounded in authority. When it comes to actions, however, I cannot complain one bit about the way I have been treated.

I honestly see this as very fair and candid response, the way it should be, of course, if it needs to handled another way, i.e. the poster in question is insulting or threatening, then it should have a measured response, for that poster, not "from here on out, ALL will feel the wrath"

This is on my heart and I seek the hope we can all be individuals and at least get along to some degree.

I was taught a long time ago and it stuck with me, you dont have to love or like another individual or their views, but you should respect them as a person.

Seems a lot of issues could be resolved in such a manner, if we really tried

Gramps

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yes, "Read, respond or be restricted" is like a red rag to a bull with me. The one thing I really, really dislike is being talked to like a child...

Even though you're used to it?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Even though you're used to it?

GO TO YOUR ROOM!

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Yes, "Read, respond or be restricted" is like a red rag to a bull with me. The one thing I really, really dislike is being talked to like a child...

The worst part is that it's usually (in my experience) "READ RESPOND OR BE RESTRICTED," and the grammar nazi in me wants to write back with "What's Respond and where can I read it?"

[Zoid]

grammar nazis

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


Then you go devise a dictionary and you can decide what is correct

In the meantime, I shall use what the dictionary decides is correct

By the way, exactly what dictionary does it show it is an old expression and is not acceptable in the application I applied to it?

You'd be surprised what retarded things get to be "under consideration." I think McJobs is now technically a word according to Websters.

Anyway:

Dictionary.com: Hear, hear! (1689) was originally imperative, used as an exclamation to call attention to a speaker's words; now a general cheer of approval. Originally it was hear him!

Wikipedia: Hear hear is an expression that originated as hear him, usually repeated. This imperative was used to call attention to a speaker's words, and naturally developed the sense of a broad expression of favour. This is how it is still used today, although one can always vary one's tone to express different sentiments; the Oxford English Dictionary noted around the turn of the century that the phrase is now the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons, and expresses, according to intonation, admiration, acquiescence, indignation, derision, etc.

As a parliamentary cheer, hear him, hear him! is first recorded in the late 17th century and continued into the 19th; the reduction to hear! or hear, hear! occurred by the late 18th century. However, the use of the verb hear as an imperative meaning listen! is older: a notable example is the parliamentary-sounding Then cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear (King James Bible, 2 Samuel 20 verse 16).

Aside from the interjection, a number of other forms are found, such as a hear, hear (originally, of course, a 'hear him' or 'hear ye') 'a cheer'; hear-hear 'to shout "hear, hear!"'; and hear-hearer[citation needed] 'a person who shouts "hear, hear!"'.