how can you call this booting anything but a setup?
since you asked, here goes... i do see a set up, but not quite as you describe
my comments are in brackets, basically i'm disputing the characterization that the setup started with admin dave throwing the "first punch"
<dave makes his appearance, you called it butting in, however all i see is a topical response, no throwing of punches that i can see>
Message 19983977
<"lb" responds with a topical answer (and a "thank you" no less) so far so good, it all appears quite civil, but note there are 2 responses to "lb's" on topic discussion, one from admin dave and bdbtr one could argue that bdbtr "butts in" here, only as you will see he doesn't address the topic>
Message 19985849
<now here are the two responses to the "lb" thank you/topical response, i'm going to paste them, since i believe *clearly* the first punch gets thrown>
Message 19985860
To:laura_bush who wrote (282777)
From: Box-Down-By-The-River Saturday, Apr 3, 2004 10:02 PM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 283131
amazing, no? <not sure, punch?>
first salient thing he's done since joining SI...<punch>
after all, it was created as an "invest" thang.<questionable punch?>
more amazing for an admin to rough it...<punch>
perhaps, the dude is finding a worthy groove he couldn't find as a mere poster on clubby threads for the over the hill gang.<punch>
<here's admin dave's response to "lb", no punches>
Message 19986021
To:laura_bush who wrote (282777)
From: SI Admin (Dave) Saturday, Apr 3, 2004 11:19 PM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 283136
There's no doubt that federal tax statutes miss the mark... but it's not really practical to blame corporate management when the tax code all but encourages them to seek lower tax venues. Their primary fiduciary (legal) responsibility is to their shareholders, followed by their employees, and lastly to the "communities" in which they operate.
The party to blame is Congress, which has mismanaged the tax code for decades. It's also the only place where it can be fixed.
****************************
from the moment bdbtr throws the punches/insults, lb then goes off on a tangent about wingers and lawsuits, admin dave says in response to the punches thrown bdbtr by saying he's"clueless as usual", bdbtr points out his own provocation
Message 19986026
and tells admin dave he doesn't disappoint, "lb" chimes in with "you suk, admin dave", even when bdbtr tries to stay on the topic with his "snooze response",
Message 19986041
he can't refrain from another punch , with a tangental "moral majority" crack(wtf is up with that anyway and how in the world it relates to corporate governance, the topic at hand, i'll never know) and let's throw in for good measure "indeed, better perhaps to keep your mouth shut don't you think?" to which admin dave doesn't even respond...
here he shows himself again throwing punches, goading "lb"
"rev him up baby"
Message 19986044
and here he is practically begging to get booted taking a proprietary attitude on *your* thread telling admin dave to get off the thread in no uncertain terms (lol..vbg)
Message 19986051
now luc, we may agree that the whole thing didn't warrant a permanent ban, but anyone who persists in poking a site administrator with a stick over and over despite private and public warnings.....well that's just plain stupid.
what i don't like about the situation is that because the ban was predicated upon the interaction with one of the site administators, it could (despite the warnings that were given, and the opportunity to cease and desist) give the appearance of having a chilling effect
i think in order to truly avoid that, there needs to be a very minimal interaction between posters and site administrators, addressing mostly site issues |
