Moo Bunny Amiga - messages 1 through 30 of thread "7 day ban for Dammy"
spellbook (1997)

7 day ban for Dammy

Page 1   [2]   [3]   [4]
Direct link to this message

7 day ban for Dammy

minator. @@@.

(78.105.201.193) [78.105.201.193]
fairlanefastback really does seem to be on a one man quest to bring AW.net back to the bad days of old.

Dammy gets a 7 day ban, this may or may not be justified but what's interesting is he then quotes the TOS when someone complains about it (even though they didn't actually break the TOS).

It's interesting because he evidently didn't bother reading them when he moderated a comment of mine the other week. I have only once been moderated before*

What's really bizarre is my comment was actually suggesting a way of *reducing* trolling comments and was based on a poll everyone agreed with. Best of all it was in answer to a comment that was *not* deleted.

I was going to say he broke the TOS because he didn't warn me about it but actually it's not clear if that is actually possible. The paragraph in question is so badly written that it doesn't actually make any sense:

"Threads: Creating threads that are not related to the forum category or posts which are not related to the thread that they are submitted to is against the rules. If you wish to discuss Off-Topic issues, please use our 'Free For All' forum. Also creating threads with misleading topics is against the rules. Repeated violation of this rule after one warning may lead to moderator action."

It twice refers to "the rules" but neither this paragraph nor indeed any other in the TOS defines what "the rules" are. Then it says "violation of this rule" but it again doesn't specify which rule, is it the last sentence or the entire paragraph?

You'd have though that they'd get someone with some understanding of the English language to write things like the TOS but evidently not.


*Actually, that's not true, a long time ago I was once modded for suggesting a violent action be taken against someone (IIRC I suggested McBill be shot), it was bloody obvious it was a joke but apparently whoever modded it didn't have a sense of humour.
OTOH fairlanefastback clearly seen the suggestion of a DDOS on Amiga.com was a joke...


Anyway, I'd at least expect a warning before being moderated, I wasn't given any. Also, the beginning of the sub-thread was not moderated. This strikes me as moderation at whim.
I'm not suggesting the old style moderation has come back, however, it does appear moderation has become rather inconsistent and somewhat illogical. However, given how badly written the TOS are, perhaps thats not entirely surprising.



I guess I should have done this by a PM to one of the other mods but I'm a big believer in openess and I am opposed to the whole "you can't comment on modding decisions"** policy . While this policy exists I will question things here.


**again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> fairlanefastback really does seem to be on a one man quest to bring AW.net
> back to the bad days of old.
>
> Dammy gets a 7 day ban, this may or may not be justified but what's
> interesting is he then quotes the TOS when someone complains about it (even
> though they didn't actually break the TOS).

I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal. He can't see the forest from all those damn trees in the way. If anything he is the king troll for allowing these stupid anti-Amiga Inc post to continue, and that is not going to help Hyperion make more sales. This is about business, get over what happened yesterday already as it's effecting today's and tomorrow's sales. How hard is that to understand?

As far as my reply to my ban, the last known legal document, clearly shows AI/KMOS/#? and Hyperion as partners and unless he has proof that that document has be invalidated by both parties, he has no basis to stand on. Common sense would lead most rational and reasonable person to realize that AI got something out of this settlement with Hyperion getting full access to AI's "Amiga" IP. That makes them partners. Had Hyperion won the law suit and AI turned over all their Amiga IP property to Hyperion, that would not be true but that did NOT happen.

>
> It's interesting because he evidently didn't bother reading them when he
> moderated a comment of mine the other week. I have only once been
> moderated before*
>
> What's really bizarre is my comment was actually suggesting a way of
> *reducing* trolling comments and was based on a poll everyone agreed with.
> Best of all it was in answer to a comment that was *not* deleted.
>
> I was going to say he broke the TOS because he didn't warn me about it but
> actually it's not clear if that is actually possible. The paragraph in
> question is so badly written that it doesn't actually make any sense:
>
> "Threads: Creating threads that are not related to the forum category or
> posts which are not related to the thread that they are submitted to is
> against the rules. If you wish to discuss Off-Topic issues, please use our
> 'Free For All' forum. Also creating threads with misleading topics is
> against the rules. Repeated violation of this rule after one warning may
> lead to moderator action."
>
> It twice refers to "the rules" but neither this paragraph nor indeed any
> other in the TOS defines what "the rules" are. Then it says "violation of
> this rule" but it again doesn't specify which rule, is it the last sentence
> or the entire paragraph?
>
> You'd have though that they'd get someone with some understanding of the
> English language to write things like the TOS but evidently not.
>
>
> *Actually, that's not true, a long time ago I was once modded for
> suggesting a violent action be taken against someone (IIRC I suggested
> McBill be shot), it was bloody obvious it was a joke but apparently whoever
> modded it didn't have a sense of humour.
> OTOH fairlanefastback clearly seen the suggestion of a DDOS on Amiga.com
> was a joke...

That is more likely what got me banned because I reported that post and the next thing that happens is that I banned. Using a web board to state that you are about to commit a serious felony needs to be moderated. Even if it was in jest, it needs to be moderated, but it's easier to ban Dammy for seven days then come down on a AI hater.

>
> Anyway, I'd at least expect a warning before being moderated, I wasn't
> given any. Also, the beginning of the sub-thread was not moderated. This
> strikes me as moderation at whim.
> I'm not suggesting the old style moderation has come back, however, it does
> appear moderation has become rather inconsistent and somewhat illogical.
> However, given how badly written the TOS are, perhaps thats not entirely
> surprising.
>
>
>
> I guess I should have done this by a PM to one of the other mods but I'm a
> big believer in openess and I am opposed to the whole "you can't comment on
> modding decisions"** policy . While this policy exists I will question
> things here.
>
>
> **again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.

There needs to be a forum for these issues to be brought forward for all the moderators to decide on. Apparently they do not give a rat's ass, so why sweat it?

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
Snipped.

Fact 1 - Its always been a shit site, with very bad moderation.
Fact 2 - Even when there was some improvement, this does not undo their previous antics.
Fact 3 - If you choose to reside there in any shape or form, serves you right. You're a moron for being a member, and you deserve no sympathy. By being there, you give that shithole a level of credence its never deserved.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dfgdhf. jtyfuig;o.

(74.162.177.12) [74.162.177.12]
One guy suggests DDOS'ing a commercial site and that's cool. Another guy states that two companies are partners because of a settlement, that's worthy of a ban. *rolls eyes*

Fuck furfagbareback, he should be stripped of his moderation priv.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> Snipped.
>
> Fact 1 - Its always been a shit site, with very bad moderation.
> Fact 2 - Even when there was some improvement, this does not undo their
> previous antics.
> Fact 3 - If you choose to reside there in any shape or form, serves you
> right. You're a moron for being a member, and you deserve no sympathy. By
> being there, you give that shithole a level of credence its never
> deserved.

Fact 4 - Clearly also at least one person is so fucking stupid, so fucking idiotic that he can't see the parallel between lying and covering up for Amiga Inc and doing the same for Hyperion will result in the same faeces hat being lovingly deposited at the end. People use liars when they can, but they never invite them to dinner.

Amiga Inc, Hyperion and Eyetech have all influenced AWN moderators by threats or simply by some stupid misguided sense of brandwhore loyalty. I wouldn't be too surprised if that were the case here. The history of the site makes such a thing so likely that any kind of negative speculation is justified, despite any protestations from users.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Alkis Tsapanidis. ezyyaat@nottingham.ac.uk.

(82.25.208.100) [82.25.208.100]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > fairlanefastback really does seem to be on a one man quest to bring AW.net
> > back to the bad days of old.
> >
> > Dammy gets a 7 day ban, this may or may not be justified but what's
> > interesting is he then quotes the TOS when someone complains about it (even
> > though they didn't actually break the TOS).
>
> I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I
> can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal.

Err, you can. PMing works, only posting in threads doesn't. PM another mod and state why you think it was unfair. If you don't trust other mods, PM the admins. I cannot comment for this specific incident but the fact that a mod takes an action doesn't immediately mean that every other mod agrees with him, if you appeal the case will be discussed with everyone else.


Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Alkis Tsapanidis. ezyyaat@nottingham.ac.uk.

(82.25.208.100) [82.25.208.100]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> > On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > > fairlanefastback really does seem to be on a one man quest to bring AW.net
> > > back to the bad days of old.
> > >
> > > Dammy gets a 7 day ban, this may or may not be justified but what's
> > > interesting is he then quotes the TOS when someone complains about it (even
> > > though they didn't actually break the TOS).
> >
> > I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I
> > can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal.
>
> Err, you can. PMing works, only posting in threads doesn't. PM another mod
> and state why you think it was unfair. If you don't trust other mods, PM
> the admins. I cannot comment for this specific incident but the fact that a
> mod takes an action doesn't immediately mean that every other mod agrees
> with him, if you appeal the case will be discussed with everyone else.
>

I'm not foolish enough to state the system is perfect etc... It has flaws. However, I just need to state that bans *have* been repealed several times, on people of all colours. Do you really think that I'd discriminate against blues for instance? :-P

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> > On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > > fairlanefastback really does seem to be on a one man quest to bring AW.net
> > > back to the bad days of old.
> > >
> > > Dammy gets a 7 day ban, this may or may not be justified but what's
> > > interesting is he then quotes the TOS when someone complains about it (even
> > > though they didn't actually break the TOS).
> >
> > I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I
> > can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal.
>
> Err, you can. PMing works, only posting in threads doesn't. PM another mod
> and state why you think it was unfair. If you don't trust other mods, PM
> the admins. I cannot comment for this specific incident but the fact that a
> mod takes an action doesn't immediately mean that every other mod agrees
> with him, if you appeal the case will be discussed with everyone else.

Oops, you are correct. Guess I was so annoyed by this, I wasn't thinking correctly and thought PM function was being blocked when I was clicking on the wrong item (name). The site still lacks a feedback system as far as I can tell but it appears PM works. I shouldn't have to chase down via PM to a different Moderator, there should be a single method for review requests. Use to deal with it this way back when I was a server admin on a small IRC network, appeals of bans were handled before the entire network staff.

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Christoph Gutjahr. .

(217.224.140.171) [217.224.140.171]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> **again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.

The idea that a site's TOS can be used as some foolproof guide as to wether a user should be banned or moderated is stupid anyway. Moderating is mostly a guessing game, nothing else.

Thus, using the TOS to judge a moderator's performance is unfair, IMHO. Fairlanefastback pretty much asked for it in this case - but even if you can't find any rule in aw's TOS that would fit Dammy's posting, moderating it could still be justified just by common sense: Dammy was not interested in any real discussion, he was just repeatedly posting a flame bait he just made up.

On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I
> can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal.

I don't think banning you was justified, but why would you want to appeal? It's just seven days and you're not posting over there all that often anyway...

And you're badmouthing the site and its users all the time anyway, why are you surprised that you finally got some unfair treatment (justified or not) in return?

> As far as my reply to my ban, the last known legal document, clearly shows
> AI/KMOS/#? and Hyperion as partners and unless he has proof that that
> document has be invalidated by both parties, he has no basis to stand on.

You forgot to mention "US code", Dammy.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Christoph Gutjahr wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > **again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.
>
> The idea that a site's TOS can be used as some foolproof guide as to wether
> a user should be banned or moderated is stupid anyway. Moderating is mostly
> a guessing game, nothing else.
>
> Thus, using the TOS to judge a moderator's performance is unfair, IMHO.
> Fairlanefastback pretty much asked for it in this case - but even if you
> can't find any rule in aw's TOS that would fit Dammy's posting, moderating
> it could still be justified just by common sense: Dammy was not interested
> in any real discussion, he was just repeatedly posting a flame bait he just
> made up.

Wrong, I ment it for them to STFU about AI. I annoyed someone who appears to be enjoying the flamefest against AI and wants to enjoy more of it. That is fairly apparent when he did nothing to moderate a statement of intent to violate international laws and specifically laws of the land where AI has it's server. Even if was just a very stupid statement, it clearly deserves to be moderated.


>
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> > I do not think it was justified and I will point out while being banned, I
> > can't even submit feedback to ask for an appeal.
>
> I don't think banning you was justified, but why would you want to appeal?
> It's just seven days and you're not posting over there all that often
> anyway...

That is why I wasn't going to mentioned it, but this thread popped up so I did mention it.

> And you're badmouthing the site and its users all the time anyway, why are
> you surprised that you finally got some unfair treatment (justified or not)
> in return?

I use to flame them back when it was filled with rabid fanboys which broke off to form Amigians.net. After that split up and it AWN was actually opening up to the rest of the Amiga community (MOS and AROS) is when I started to post there. It's been fairly reasonable site to deal with.

> > As far as my reply to my ban, the last known legal document, clearly shows
> > AI/KMOS/#? and Hyperion as partners and unless he has proof that that
> > document has be invalidated by both parties, he has no basis to stand on.
>
> You forgot to mention "US code", Dammy.

I'm slipping, old age I guess:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html might be the correct section.

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Christoph Gutjahr wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > **again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.
>
> The idea that a site's TOS can be used as some foolproof guide as to wether
> a user should be banned or moderated is stupid anyway. Moderating is mostly
> a guessing game, nothing else.
>
> Thus, using the TOS to judge a moderator's performance is unfair, IMHO.
> Fairlanefastback pretty much asked for it in this case - but even if you
> can't find any rule in aw's TOS that would fit Dammy's posting, moderating
> it could still be justified just by common sense: Dammy was not interested
> in any real discussion, he was just repeatedly posting a flame bait he just
> made up.

Why do we keep getting this bullshit again, time after time? If it isn't against the TOS, then it doesn't justify a ban. Period. Despite belief to the contrary, a site has moderators to enforce its TOS. That is their role, not to enforce harmony, not to enforce popular will - it's not a democracy - or to press their own opinion.

Don't like it? FIX THE TOS.

If a site allows their moderation to make up rules on the spot, they will always be biased, they will always be unfair, and they will always result in the site's name being dragged through the mud, your indignant whining makes no difference.

> And you're badmouthing the site and its users all the time anyway, why are
> you surprised that you finally got some unfair treatment (justified or not)
> in return?

Any badmouthing of AmigaWorld is permanently justified. It's pariah status will never leave it: that's the price of being other people's political commissars. Anyone who controls themselves long enough not to criticise it is doing it a real favour.

> > As far as my reply to my ban, the last known legal document, clearly shows
> > AI/KMOS/#? and Hyperion as partners and unless he has proof that that
> > document has be invalidated by both parties, he has no basis to stand on.

Yet the full right to state it. Yes, again and again and again and again if he likes. And to completely make stuff up if he likes. Thats what forums are for. Normally people who do post fantasies get nailed, except where the moderator staff shelter them.

Yet I'm not seeing any powerful arguments to counter Dammy, just the usual "we don't want to hear it", "that's trolling" censorship. AWN should either learn how to win an argument, or stay out of them.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Christoph Gutjahr wrote:
> > On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, minator wrote:
> > > **again, the TOS is so badly written, it doesn't say this.
> >
> > The idea that a site's TOS can be used as some foolproof guide as to wether
> > a user should be banned or moderated is stupid anyway. Moderating is mostly
> > a guessing game, nothing else.
> >
> > Thus, using the TOS to judge a moderator's performance is unfair, IMHO.
> > Fairlanefastback pretty much asked for it in this case - but even if you
> > can't find any rule in aw's TOS that would fit Dammy's posting, moderating
> > it could still be justified just by common sense: Dammy was not interested
> > in any real discussion, he was just repeatedly posting a flame bait he just
> > made up.
>
> Why do we keep getting this bullshit again, time after time? If it isn't
> against the TOS, then it doesn't justify a ban. Period. Despite belief to
> the contrary, a site has moderators to enforce its TOS. That is their role,
> not to enforce harmony, not to enforce popular will - it's not a democracy
> - or to press their own opinion.
>
> Don't like it? FIX THE TOS.
>
> If a site allows their moderation to make up rules on the spot, they will
> always be biased, they will always be unfair, and they will always result
> in the site's name being dragged through the mud, your indignant whining
> makes no difference.
>
> > And you're badmouthing the site and its users all the time anyway, why are
> > you surprised that you finally got some unfair treatment (justified or not)
> > in return?
>
> Any badmouthing of AmigaWorld is permanently justified. It's pariah status
> will never leave it: that's the price of being other people's political
> commissars. Anyone who controls themselves long enough not to criticise it
> is doing it a real favour.
>
> > > As far as my reply to my ban, the last known legal document, clearly shows
> > > AI/KMOS/#? and Hyperion as partners and unless he has proof that that
> > > document has be invalidated by both parties, he has no basis to stand on.
>
> Yet the full right to state it. Yes, again and again and again and again if
> he likes. And to completely make stuff up if he likes. Thats what forums
> are for. Normally people who do post fantasies get nailed, except where the
> moderator staff shelter them.
>
> Yet I'm not seeing any powerful arguments to counter Dammy, just the usual
> "we don't want to hear it", "that's trolling" censorship. AWN should either
> learn how to win an argument, or stay out of them.

This is not a debate, or a discussion. AWN is a shit hole and for a short time managed to elevate itself to being a lesser shit hole. So what, its a fucking dumb, the moderators there are shits, wasters, and fucknuts. Anyone spending time there deserves all they get. Dammy made the error of being there. Self inflicted idiocy.

As for any mods from that shit hole showing up here, its nothing not seen before.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
_I'm_ fairlanefastback

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> This is not a debate, or a discussion. AWN is a shit hole and for a short
> time managed to elevate itself to being a lesser shit hole. So what, its a
> fucking dumb, the moderators there are shits, wasters, and fucknuts. Anyone
> spending time there deserves all they get. Dammy made the error of being
> there. Self inflicted idiocy.
>
> As for any mods from that shit hole showing up here, its nothing not seen
> before.

I wouldn't go so far as to generalise all AWN mods like that. They're clearly not, although AWN has had some real arseholes as mods and plenty more who should know better. I wouldn't go so far as to say *nobody* sensible should post on AWN either: that plays into the hands of the people who don't want dissenters there. If it wants to be a public forum then it should be able to cope with a wide variety of views, it's as simple as that. If not, then it should lock up and become like that loony bin Amigans.net and save us the illusion of having to go there.

Dammy thinks Hyperion and Amiga Inc are partners, and has a small shred of circumstantial evidence to back him up. The moderator in question disagrees, and has no evidence of his own to take on that view. Banning someone is a great way of winning and an argument when you have nothing else to back you up.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Jorkany. Jorkany.

(166.137.5.52) [166.137.5.52]
Well AWN is not a normal web forum. It was created as the PR outlet for OS4. Unfortnately due to it's name it also attracted people interested in the Amiga-but I digress.

It sounds like somebody sat fairlanefastback down and explained what the pupose of the site is.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
>
> Err, you can. PMing works, only posting in threads doesn't. PM another mod
> and state why you think it was unfair. If you don't trust other mods, PM
> the admins. I cannot comment for this specific incident but the fact that a
> mod takes an action doesn't immediately mean that every other mod agrees
> with him, if you appeal the case will be discussed with everyone else.


Nothing like Dammy TOTALLY WASTING THEIR TIME!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, Christoph Gutjahr wrote:

>
> Yet the full right to state it. Yes, again and again and again and again if
> he likes. And to completely make stuff up if he likes. Thats what forums
> are for. Normally people who do post fantasies get nailed, except where the
> moderator staff shelter them.

So, you're a _fervent defender_ of the right to troll. Good to know, pal.

> Yet I'm not seeing any powerful arguments to counter Dammy,

How about "they are _most reluctant_, completely at odds, as each are at each other's throats, shot-gun wedding, each waiting and _hoping_ that the sooner the better, the other DIE; partners".

Wouldn't you say that's a tad more accurate?

> just the usual "we don't want to hear it", "that's trolling" censorship.

Yes, it IS trolling on Dammy's part, but then again, see above, you defend that.


> AWN should either learn how to win an argument, or stay out of them.

Yeah, only MOS, AROS and x86/win-dross supporters have _real_ debaters, sure.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
>
> Wrong, I ment it for them to STFU about AI.

Because you didn't want anyone badmouthing your best buddy Bill McEwen, right?

> I annoyed someone who appears
> to be enjoying the flamefest against AI and wants to enjoy more of it.

More tormenting of your best buddy, Bill McEwen? How awful.

> That is fairly apparent when he did nothing to moderate a statement of
> intent to violate international laws and specifically laws of the land
> where AI has it's server.

Yes, Amiga Inc. they who ALWAYS obey ALL law (even court judgments brought down against _them_).

> Even if was just a very stupid statement, it
> clearly deserves to be moderated.
>
>
> That is why I wasn't going to mentioned it, but this thread popped up so I
> did mention it.

How _most 4tuitous_ 4 you.

> I use to flame them back when it was filled with rabid fanboys which broke
> off to form Amigians.net.

Yes, _of course_, because ONLY AMIGA has rabid fan boys..... Jealous? Join us.

> After that split up and it AWN was actually
> opening up to the rest of the Amiga community (MOS and AROS) is when I
> started to post there. It's been fairly reasonable site to deal with.


Let's see, you joined AmigaWorld.Net December 22, 2007.

You should have been banned from December 21, 2007, to eternity.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, dammy wrote:
> >
> > Wrong, I ment it for them to STFU about AI.
>
> Because you didn't want anyone badmouthing your best buddy Bill McEwen,
> right?

Your delusional.

>
> > I annoyed someone who appears
> > to be enjoying the flamefest against AI and wants to enjoy more of it.
>
> More tormenting of your best buddy, Bill McEwen? How awful.

Your even more delusional then normal. What exactly are you going to accomplish by bashing AI that will benefit Hyperion? Here is a clue for you, you are not. You are not helping Hyperion one damn bit by continuing these attacks on AI. No matter who you hate AI, they are linked, legally, with Hyperion and will be for a very very long time. Your attacks on AI reflect on Hyperion's image.

> > That is fairly apparent when he did nothing to moderate a statement of
> > intent to violate international laws and specifically laws of the land
> > where AI has it's server.
>
> Yes, Amiga Inc. they who ALWAYS obey ALL law (even court judgments brought
> down against _them_).

Those are civil issues, I was referring to criminal activity on AWN. You can not tell the difference? I will point out even after AI screwed it's employees and other debitors, Hyperion made yet another contract with your buddies who still own the older IP.

> > Even if was just a very stupid statement, it
> > clearly deserves to be moderated.
> >
> >
> > That is why I wasn't going to mentioned it, but this thread popped up so I
> > did mention it.
>
> How _most 4tuitous_ 4 you.

Jealous?

> > I use to flame them back when it was filled with rabid fanboys which broke
> > off to form Amigians.net.
>
> Yes, _of course_, because ONLY AMIGA has rabid fan boys..... Jealous? Join
> us.

I'll wait on the very long shot of Anubis-OS, if it ever happens.

> > After that split up and it AWN was actually
> > opening up to the rest of the Amiga community (MOS and AROS) is when I
> > started to post there. It's been fairly reasonable site to deal with.
>
>
> Let's see, you joined AmigaWorld.Net December 22, 2007.
>
> You should have been banned from December 21, 2007, to eternity.

How nice of you to say that, I take that as a compliment, coming from you.

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> >
> > This is not a debate, or a discussion. AWN is a shit hole and for a short
> > time managed to elevate itself to being a lesser shit hole. So what, its a
> > fucking dumb, the moderators there are shits, wasters, and fucknuts. Anyone
> > spending time there deserves all they get. Dammy made the error of being
> > there. Self inflicted idiocy.
> >
> > As for any mods from that shit hole showing up here, its nothing not seen
> > before.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to generalise all AWN mods like that. They're
> clearly not, although AWN has had some real arseholes as mods and plenty
> more who should know better.

No. If people put themselves forward to be moderators, then they have to understand that actions of the site as a whole reflect on them. Now, you'd have to be dim as pigshit not to understand the history of that stinking piss hole, and its actions and activities, and thus, you'd nominally weigh up extremely carefully wether you wish to put yourself in that shitfest. If you do, you're stupid, and deserve whats coming to you.

Anyone stepping into it comes up smelling of shit, and deserves anything they get.

> I wouldn't go so far as to say *nobody*
> sensible should post on AWN either: that plays into the hands of the people
> who don't want dissenters there.

Wrong again. Any decent member of the community posting there, being there, taking part there, is lending themselves to giving that stinking shitfest a form of legiticmacy that_it_does not merit, nor deserve. In fact, I personlly go as far as to say they contribute to the ripping off and disinformation and general dark forces bullshit. That place was one that should have been blacklisted and blackballed, and everyone knows it.

> If it wants to be a public forum then it
> should be able to cope with a wide variety of views, it's as simple as
> that. If not, then it should lock up and become like that loony bin
> Amigans.net and save us the illusion of having to go there.

AWN is little better than Amigans.net, and has only moderated its idiocy partically. Its still to blame for ripping people off, and serving as a disinformation platform, and is in fact more heinous than the Loony bin.

> Dammy thinks Hyperion and Amiga Inc are partners, and has a small shred of
> circumstantial evidence to back him up. The moderator in question
> disagrees, and has no evidence of his own to take on that view. Banning
> someone is a great way of winning and an argument when you have nothing
> else to back you up.

So what is new? You're whining about the biggest shitfest in Amiga-dom, a place that ever has been thus. Again, If anyone chooses to spend time there, they are wrong, if they then get mistreated, they should be laughed at and abused for being so fucking stupid in the first place, with a lesser charge of being a in shithole that is not acceptable anyway.

AWN is a shithole. Its moderators have always been thus. Why are you or anyone else lending legiticmacy to their site and existance? This is the site that PR'd the disgrace of ripping of consumers and the public alike, and the rest. Then you have the temerity to complain when you get mistreated the way you always knew was the only likely outcome.

This is hardly the first time the shit and stink from that shitfest comes here, and it won't be the last. Some assholes round here are heard of learning and need to get a fucking clue.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Alkis Tsapanidis. ezyyaat@nottingham.ac.uk.

(128.243.220.22) [128.243.220.22]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:

> No. If people put themselves forward to be moderators, then they have to
> understand that actions of the site as a whole reflect on them.

We understand the history of the site pretty well and that's why we're trying not to repeat it. You will notice that not a single person from the "good old days" is still in staff, they didn't like the change of direction to not being a totalitarian arse-licking contest. You'll notice that even MB, the BS-meister pretty much guilty for everything the site did in the "olden days", is banned for being his usual narcissistic self.

Other than that, I can't talk for all the others but do you seriously think any of this is to be taken all that seriously any more? I would not allow people to defraud our members, like the infamous lot did ages ago, but other than that we're not exactly a regime making critical decisions ruling people's lives. The Amiga is a hobby that some people have taken too far and take way too seriously for their own good... I don't know why I am still here, other than perhaps the fact that watching the show is free and entertaining...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:
>
> > No. If people put themselves forward to be moderators, then they have to
> > understand that actions of the site as a whole reflect on them.
>
> We understand the history of the site pretty well and that's why we're
> trying not to repeat it.

Sure you are. But again, drill this through your synapses, being a member, or better yet a moderator there means you deserve whatever is coming to you. No quarter is given, not an inch. Your mistake is in joining that site, knowingly and accepting of its stinking past.

> You will notice that not a single person from the
> "good old days" is still in staff, they didn't like the change of direction
> to not being a totalitarian arse-licking contest. You'll notice that even
> MB, the BS-meister pretty much guilty for everything the site did in the
> "olden days", is banned for being his usual narcissistic self.

You might choose to see things that way, you can take it as read that some don't. AWN's name is mud. No discussion, no saving graces. That site should have posted a global apology and been closed forever as a testiment to its criminal and menevolent disgusting past, done in the full knowledge of owners/operators and moderators.

> Other than that, I can't talk for all the others but do you seriously think
> any of this is to be taken all that seriously any more? I would not allow
> people to defraud our members, like the infamous lot did ages ago, but
> other than that we're not exactly a regime making critical decisions ruling
> people's lives.

I *think* its a shit hole, The moderators names have changed, but the behaviour, owner, and other aspects have not. As far as I am concerned, that shithole changed (and not by nearly enough) when it became so utterly unsustainable to maintain its own cretinous stupendous idiocy in the face of reality, but did so in a kicking and screaming style of lampooned fucktardedness.

The site may well have got rid of its worst denizens, but it did so years late, reluctantly, and certainly gets no kudos for any of it. Don't expect any kudos. The last people on this planet I'd fucking trust not to defraud and lie to its members would be AWN 'staff'. You must be having a laugh daring to post such drivel. You should know better than ever daring to put yourself forward, a moderator of the laughable AWN as a defender of 'your members'.

Does it matter anymore? I dare say people who paid a fair old chunk of money might still feel defrauded. So yes, it matters. They are still defrauded and ripped off even if you come swinging through the trees like tarzen declaring it does not matter any more. On the other hand, if you were smart, you'd realise that it does matter, and you should not be an admin/mod there. Its history is too dirty, and the stink remains.

> The Amiga is a hobby that some people have taken too far
> and take way too seriously for their own good... I don't know why I am
> still here, other than perhaps the fact that watching the show is free and
> entertaining...

AWN has been a show for a long time, not particuarily entertaining, and certainly menevolent, and not good for the public, and certainly not for the gullable. Defrauding people, even in the context of a 'hobby' is no less wrong, and no less acceptable. You've clearly lived under the socialist scum too long, where complete wrongs can have 'a line draw under them' and 'move along'.




Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Alkis Tsapanidis. ezyyaat@nottingham.ac.uk.

(128.243.220.22) [128.243.220.22]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> > On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > > On Sunday, Nov 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> >
> > > No. If people put themselves forward to be moderators, then they have to
> > > understand that actions of the site as a whole reflect on them.
> >
> > We understand the history of the site pretty well and that's why we're
> > trying not to repeat it.
>
> Sure you are. But again, drill this through your synapses, being a member,
> or better yet a moderator there means you deserve whatever is coming to
> you. No quarter is given, not an inch. Your mistake is in joining that
> site, knowingly and accepting of its stinking past.

Deserve what exactly? The way I see it is that it's just a forum with many members of differing opinions. We do not do anything other than run a forum. There is no article or ask the sheeplord malarky. We deserve abuse from you? While I do value your views, you are not exactly the judge of all that is good and holy, ie. throwing dirt at me will not exactly hurt my self-esteem and send me in the corner to cry...

> > You will notice that not a single person from the
> > "good old days" is still in staff, they didn't like the change of direction
> > to not being a totalitarian arse-licking contest. You'll notice that even
> > MB, the BS-meister pretty much guilty for everything the site did in the
> > "olden days", is banned for being his usual narcissistic self.
>
> You might choose to see things that way, you can take it as read that some
> don't. AWN's name is mud. No discussion, no saving graces. That site should
> have posted a global apology and been closed forever as a testiment to its
> criminal and menevolent disgusting past, done in the full knowledge of
> owners/operators and moderators.

Well, that it should be closed is your opinion. The issue is that even for the staff, this was not quite as transparent as you think it was. Some people, like the one I mentioned, were doing things without asking or notifying anyone, leaking information to "interested parties" etc. The owner was not around when all this was happening, the site was pretty much run by MB. If anyone asks me whether the site was driven by Amiga Inc. drivel and lies and was used to defraud members, I am not going to lie. It was. 100%. The thing is that all that is left of that is a forum with 3000 users. That's about it.

> > Other than that, I can't talk for all the others but do you seriously think
> > any of this is to be taken all that seriously any more? I would not allow
> > people to defraud our members, like the infamous lot did ages ago, but
> > other than that we're not exactly a regime making critical decisions ruling
> > people's lives.
>
> I *think* its a shit hole, The moderators names have changed, but the
> behaviour, owner, and other aspects have not. As far as I am concerned,
> that shithole changed (and not by nearly enough) when it became so utterly
> unsustainable to maintain its own cretinous stupendous idiocy in the face
> of reality, but did so in a kicking and screaming style of lampooned
> fucktardedness.

And I agree. It did. However, it did not change because it was about to die, the previous site did die, the regime collapsed, the culprits quit. The owner was not around then and hardly ever is around now, he is too busy with that small important thing called real life. Sure, you could say that he should have never allowed his property to be used as it was but there you go.

> The site may well have got rid of its worst denizens, but it did so years
> late, reluctantly, and certainly gets no kudos for any of it. Don't expect
> any kudos. The last people on this planet I'd fucking trust not to defraud
> and lie to its members would be AWN 'staff'. You must be having a laugh
> daring to post such drivel. You should know better than ever daring to put
> yourself forward, a moderator of the laughable AWN as a defender of 'your
> members'.

And that is exactly what I mean by saying that you're taking this way too seriously. Did I put myself forward as a defender of anyone? You are being extremely pompous, all I am saying is that if anything like the past gets to repeat itself I will not be quiet about it and will not allow it to happen in my name, ie. I will quit. It's as simple as that.

> Does it matter anymore? I dare say people who paid a fair old chunk of
> money might still feel defrauded. So yes, it matters. They are still
> defrauded and ripped off even if you come swinging through the trees like
> tarzen declaring it does not matter any more. On the other hand, if you
> were smart, you'd realise that it does matter, and you should not be an
> admin/mod there. Its history is too dirty, and the stink remains.

It does matter. It very much does matter. What is important, though, is that people like using it as a resource (a forum). The past is the past, it happened, it stinks like cow shit, no-one is disputing that and I am not claiming it has gone away. Just that while people know about it and acknowledge it and still want to use the forum, it doesn't change anything.

> > The Amiga is a hobby that some people have taken too far
> > and take way too seriously for their own good... I don't know why I am
> > still here, other than perhaps the fact that watching the show is free and
> > entertaining...
>
> AWN has been a show for a long time, not particuarily entertaining, and
> certainly menevolent, and not good for the public, and certainly not for
> the gullable. Defrauding people, even in the context of a 'hobby' is no
> less wrong, and no less acceptable. You've clearly lived under the
> socialist scum too long, where complete wrongs can have 'a line draw under
> them' and 'move along'.

It is not acceptable, I did not call it that. All I'm saying is that it did happen, it must never happen again and if people want to use the site in full knowledge of that regardless, then fair enough, they can. You may ask what I am doing there then, well, all I do is give my opinion on matters and maybe edit news, I do not mod often if at all nowadays, unless if someone calls someone else's mum a f*cktard.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:

> Well, that it should be closed is your opinion. The issue is that even for
> the staff, this was not quite as transparent as you think it was. Some
> people, like the one I mentioned, were doing things without asking or
> notifying anyone, leaking information to "interested parties" etc. The
> owner was not around when all this was happening, the site was pretty much
> run by MB. If anyone asks me whether the site was driven by Amiga Inc.
> drivel and lies and was used to defraud members, I am not going to lie. It
> was. 100%. The thing is that all that is left of that is a forum with 3000
> users. That's about it.

I'm not going to bandy creed words. The whole stinking mess was transparent to me and many others. The fact you think it was not so is your mistake.

> And I agree. It did. However, it did not change because it was about to
> die, the previous site did die, the regime collapsed, the culprits quit.
> The owner was not around then and hardly ever is around now, he is too busy
> with that small important thing called real life. Sure, you could say that
> he should have never allowed his property to be used as it was but there
> you go.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. And throw in a good smokescreen for good measure. Maybe you'd like to stop digging now.

> And that is exactly what I mean by saying that you're taking this way too
> seriously. Did I put myself forward as a defender of anyone?

Maybe you should re-read your own posting.

> You are being
> extremely pompous, all I am saying is that if anything like the past gets
> to repeat itself I will not be quiet about it and will not allow it to
> happen in my name, ie. I will quit. It's as simple as that.

Yes, I'm pompous, but then again, I'm not a mod at AWN and I'm not making claims. Unlike some others.

> It does matter. It very much does matter. What is important, though, is
> that people like using it as a resource (a forum). The past is the past, it
> happened, it stinks like cow shit, no-one is disputing that and I am not
> claiming it has gone away. Just that while people know about it and
> acknowledge it and still want to use the forum, it doesn't change
> anything.

> It is not acceptable, I did not call it that. All I'm saying is that it did
> happen, it must never happen again and if people want to use the site in
> full knowledge of that regardless, then fair enough, they can. You may ask
> what I am doing there then, well, all I do is give my opinion on matters
> and maybe edit news, I do not mod often if at all nowadays, unless if
> someone calls someone else's mum a f*cktard.

I'm not interested in what you do there. I'm not interested in the white washes, the scum that mod there, the bullshit lies, deciet, criminality. I'm not even interested in your weasel words, for that is what they are. You elevated yourself to a mod in the shithole, and doing so, you lose any right you had to being treated kindly. You may not like this outcome, tough shit. You made an error when making your choices. And its clear you made those choices knowing you were supporting a site with said history.

Dammy is a fucking cretin for being a member there, it's his own fault.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> No. If people put themselves forward to be moderators, then they have to
> understand that actions of the site as a whole reflect on them. Now, you'd
> have to be dim as pigshit not to understand the history of that stinking
> piss hole, and its actions and activities, and thus, you'd nominally weigh
> up extremely carefully wether you wish to put yourself in that shitfest. If
> you do, you're stupid, and deserve whats coming to you.
>
> Anyone stepping into it comes up smelling of shit, and deserves anything
> they get.
>
> Wrong again. Any decent member of the community posting there, being there,
> taking part there, is lending themselves to giving that stinking shitfest a
> form of legiticmacy that_it_does not merit, nor deserve. In fact, I
> personlly go as far as to say they contribute to the ripping off and
> disinformation and general dark forces bullshit. That place was one that
> should have been blacklisted and blackballed, and everyone knows it.
>
> AWN is little better than Amigans.net, and has only moderated its idiocy
> partically. Its still to blame for ripping people off, and serving as a
> disinformation platform, and is in fact more heinous than the Loony bin.
>
> So what is new? You're whining about the biggest shitfest in Amiga-dom, a
> place that ever has been thus. Again, If anyone chooses to spend time
> there, they are wrong, if they then get mistreated, they should be laughed
> at and abused for being so fucking stupid in the first place, with a lesser
> charge of being a in shithole that is not acceptable anyway.
>
> AWN is a shithole. Its moderators have always been thus. Why are you or
> anyone else lending legiticmacy to their site and existance? This is the
> site that PR'd the disgrace of ripping of consumers and the public alike,
> and the rest. Then you have the temerity to complain when you get
> mistreated the way you always knew was the only likely outcome.
>
> This is hardly the first time the shit and stink from that shitfest comes
> here, and it won't be the last. Some assholes round here are heard of
> learning and need to get a fucking clue.


What's with all this "holier than thou" coming from you? Think this place is "manna from heaven"??

Isn't this the same opinion you have of Amiga.Org? And of Amigans.Net?


You are a pathetic piece of human garbage, bitching about everything that comes his way. A supertroll.

YOU _are_ a total loser for wasting your time commenting, and TROLLING.

This applies equally to jorkany, Dammy, XraalE, kronos (the censorship KING over at morphzone), takemehomegrandma, AMiGR, and a host of other scumbags here and over at those other sites, posting crap, continually.


It's _incomprehensible_ that you are still here after 10 years. I guess it's something that's wrong with your genes. Defective. Obsessive compulsive disorder. It's you guys that are in need of medical attention and treatment.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

<snip>

> This applies equally to jorkany, Dammy, XraalE, kronos (the censorship KING
> over at morphzone), takemehomegrandma, AMiGR, and a host of other scumbags
> here and over at those other sites, posting crap, continually.
>
>
> It's _incomprehensible_ that you are still here after 10 years. I guess
> it's something that's wrong with your genes. Defective. Obsessive
> compulsive disorder. It's you guys that are in need of medical attention
> and treatment.

So why do you post here, and why do you post so many times in a single day? That speaks volumes about yourself, you do realize that, don't you?

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> We understand the history of the site pretty well and that's why we're
> trying not to repeat it. You will notice that not a single person from the
> "good old days" is still in staff, they didn't like the change of direction
> to not being a totalitarian arse-licking contest. You'll notice that even
> MB, the BS-meister pretty much guilty for everything the site did in the
> "olden days", is banned for being his usual narcissistic self.


I would say that Mike Bouma is worth 100 times more than you, but that _would be an insult_ to Mike Bouma, as you are worth zero, and it would consequently mean he was too. So no, I can't say that about Mike Bouma. But how about, if you had 100 lifetimes, then Mike would still be ahead of you in worth, with his one lifetime. Yeah, that should cover it fine.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

sdf. sdf.

(74.162.178.208) [74.162.178.208]
remember when Dammy tried to rip off the aros community with his shitty laptops? What a loser.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> Sure you are. But again, drill this through your synapses, being a member,
> or better yet a moderator there means you deserve whatever is coming to
> you. No quarter is given, not an inch. Your mistake is in joining that
> site, knowingly and accepting of its stinking past.
>
> You might choose to see things that way, you can take it as read that some
> don't. AWN's name is mud. No discussion, no saving graces. That site should
> have posted a global apology and been closed forever as a testiment to its
> criminal and menevolent disgusting past, done in the full knowledge of
> owners/operators and moderators.
>
> I *think* its a shit hole, The moderators names have changed, but the
> behaviour, owner, and other aspects have not.

This place is saintly, right?

> As far as I am concerned,
> that shithole changed (and not by nearly enough) when it became so utterly
> unsustainable to maintain its own cretinous stupendous idiocy in the face
> of reality, but did so in a kicking and screaming style of lampooned
> fucktardedness.
>
> The site may well have got rid of its worst denizens,

I _left_ because it became infested like an AIDS outbreak by trolls, some even became moderators!

However, those "worst denizens" are still there, and even increased after I left.

> but it did so years
> late, reluctantly, and certainly gets no kudos for any of it. Don't expect
> any kudos.

I know they'll NEVER come from you, as you expect nothing less than that domain URL be retired, like a hockey player number.

> The last people on this planet I'd fucking trust not to defraud
> and lie to its members would be AWN 'staff'.

Man with a paint brush, I love it.

> You must be having a laugh
> daring to post such drivel. You should know better than ever daring to put
> yourself forward, a moderator of the laughable AWN as a defender of 'your
> members'.

He IS a shithead, at least you got that right. Bravo!

> Does it matter anymore? I dare say people who paid a fair old chunk of
> money might still feel defrauded.

I have a working OS, I have a working NG computer, go fuck yourself.

> So yes, it matters.

I paid, I got what I paid for, I am _very, very, very, VERY, happy_, SUCK IT UP!

> They are still
> defrauded and ripped off even if you come swinging through the trees like
> tarzen declaring it does not matter any more.

I didn't get ripped off. Amiga Inc. hurt me by standing in H.E.'s way for so many years, though. They DO owe H.E. restitution based on that, but those bums will never pay.

Funny thing, I always knew that they had a rock solid court case against them, hehehe. Outsmarted you ALL!!!!!

> On the other hand, if you
> were smart, you'd realise that it does matter, and you should not be an
> admin/mod there. Its history is too dirty, and the stink remains.

I guess he has nothing else going 4 him, or maybe he wants to rebuild the kkkomunity. How nice.

> AWN has been a show for a long time, not particuarily entertaining, and
> certainly menevolent, and not good for the public, and certainly not for
> the gullable. Defrauding people, even in the context of a 'hobby' is no
> less wrong, and no less acceptable. You've clearly lived under the
> socialist scum too long, where complete wrongs can have 'a line draw under
> them' and 'move along'.



NOW who's a RAVING LUNATIC???

_However_, if you were directing your energies toward knocking micro-shafters, then I would be _in full support_ of this insane tirade, as it would be mucho justified and true..... They owe EVERY PENNY THEY EVER TOOK _AND THEN SOME_ in penalties to EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER that they EVER HAD, for their UTTERLY USELESS PUTRID STINKING PILE OF SHIT THAT THEY REFER TO AS AN "operating system"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


micro-shafters is the BIGGEST FRAUD in possibly HISTORY!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: 7 day ban for Dammy

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Nov 2, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
>
> Deserve what exactly? The way I see it is that it's just a forum with many
> members of differing opinions. We do not do anything other than run a
> forum. There is no article or ask the sheeplord malarky. We deserve abuse
> from you? While I do value your views, you are not exactly the judge of all
> that is good and holy, ie. throwing dirt at me will not exactly hurt my
> self-esteem and send me in the corner to cry...
>
> Well, that it should be closed is your opinion. The issue is that even for
> the staff, this was not quite as transparent as you think it was. Some
> people, like the one I mentioned, were doing things without asking or
> notifying anyone, leaking information to "interested parties" etc. The
> owner was not around when all this was happening, the site was pretty much
> run by MB. If anyone asks me whether the site was driven by Amiga Inc.
> drivel and lies and was used to defraud members, I am not going to lie. It
> was. 100%. The thing is that all that is left of that is a forum with 3000
> users. That's about it.
>
> And I agree. It did. However, it did not change because it was about to
> die, the previous site did die, the regime collapsed, the culprits quit.
> The owner was not around then and hardly ever is around now, he is too busy
> with that small important thing called real life. Sure, you could say that
> he should have never allowed his property to be used as it was but there
> you go.
>
> And that is exactly what I mean by saying that you're taking this way too
> seriously. Did I put myself forward as a defender of anyone? You are being
> extremely pompous, all I am saying is that if anything like the past gets
> to repeat itself I will not be quiet about it and will not allow it to
> happen in my name, ie. I will quit. It's as simple as that.
>
> It does matter. It very much does matter. What is important, though, is
> that people like using it as a resource (a forum). The past is the past, it
> happened, it stinks like cow shit, no-one is disputing that and I am not
> claiming it has gone away. Just that while people know about it and
> acknowledge it and still want to use the forum, it doesn't change
> anything.
>
> It is not acceptable, I did not call it that. All I'm saying is that it did
> happen, it must never happen again and if people want to use the site in
> full knowledge of that regardless, then fair enough, they can. You may ask
> what I am doing there then, well, all I do is give my opinion on matters
> and maybe edit news, I do not mod often if at all nowadays, unless if
> someone calls someone else's mum a f*cktard.


Hey AdmV,

Now you have the attention of an AmigaWorld.Net moderator!

Let's see how many more come to hear your grievance. Bet you feel real big and important now, huh?

Some little loser knocking nearly 4,000 people, and the mouse that roared has their attention. Maybe fairlanefastback (me ;-) ) will come over and make his case to the impartial "Judge of All Things" as well, looking for reversal of the verdict passed?


How many more mods can we get to this little round-table cyberspace town hall meeting, huh? Let's start counting.....

Reply to this
Page 1   [2]   [3]   [4]

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 11:57:51 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (10:30:54)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (11:37:14)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]