Here is the thread flow:
Grainne saying calling people psychotic is a violation:
To: Agustus Gloop who wrote (89243) 11/23/2004 2:25:23 AM
From: Grainne Read Replies (5) of 90189
"While some people find hunting distasteful human life is, always has been and forever will be more precious than ANY animal. What happened up here is unthinkable and was carried out by someone who was clearly psychotic."
It's not acceptable to call anyone psychotic at this thread. It violates the no name calling rule.
Message 20793485
Wobbles' response:
To: Grainne who wrote (89316)
11/23/2004 2:29:50 AM
From: BenWobbles
Mark as Last Read | Respond to of 90189
It's not acceptable to call anyone psychotic at this thread. It violates the no name calling rule.
LOL! it's ok to make light of 6 deaths in a nice pretty civil manner, but it isn't ok to call a mass murderer psychotic?
oh man, this is a joke, right? you aren't really that obtuse, are you?
I guess it isn't ok to call Ted Bundy a sociopath either. Wouldn't want to hurt his feelings....LOL!
So I misremembered here. It was Gloop to whom you were responding, and though Wobbles commented, it was not he.
To: Agustus Gloop who wrote (89321) 11/23/2004 3:10:14 AM
From: Grainne Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90189
You took the thread description and distorted it. This is what that sentence actually says:
This is a place for people who have been talking about tech stocks all day to unwind and discuss whatever, including the neurotic/psychotic motivations behind discussing tech stocks all day, and the pain they hold inside.
It has nothing to do with justifying calling anyone psychotic.
Since you continued to be vulgar in your post--and again I am making this decision based on several really rude posts of yours tonight--in order to protect people who ARE able to carry on a discussion without getting vulgar you are now banned from this thread.
I've gone back through the past week or so of your posts and cannot yet find the post in which you said you understand friends who feel that the re-election of Bush-- and knowing that many of the votes for Bush were from the Armed Forces-- was so disappointing to them that they now consider the active Armed Forces serving in Iraq to be essentially on their own and undeserving of emotional support from the citizenry.
Have I mi9sremembered this? If I have, I'll look back further and produce the post from which I'm drawing the inference.
No, I'm not miserable here. But I'm bright and honest-- not to mention have a whole host of feelings worth discussing. I've called you on some of your posts, but, in case your memory needs a jog, it was I who said you were right to ban Gloop for that post-- NOT for using the word psychotic, but because he called you a nasty name a few times. And by the way, it was I who TOU'ed him and asked SI Dave to have the posts removed.
I don't have anyone in my corner going around SI defending me.
Yes you do.
Graystone.
Please take the "energy" to look at his posts.
As for my "bringing down the energy of this thread", I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some sort of California-speak with which you assume I am familiar?
I am pleased you enjoy my poetry. |
