Book ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
it sounds like your mind is pretty made up. How is anyone supposed to answer that? If you have evidence about it from the email, I would like to know what that is
I am not posting here about anything in the email. I was purely talking about hypotheticals.
The coincidences others have mentioned are that they
And I didn't even collect those.
And your response if he insists on being innocent, as anyone in this country has the right to do?
Now this would be a good topic for a politics thread. Civil liberties vs. societal enforcement of community standards.
And What Steph Said -- this must be dropped.
I respect your opinions, and Steph's, but "must"?
If it is the guy, he's insulting us every day. Maybe I have an over-developed sense of betrayal, but I hate that idea so much that it will be really hard for me to behave normally around him in threads.
And What Steph Said -- this must be dropped.
But, clearly, John's not going to drop it. And I don't really feel comfortable dropping my opposition to his stance. Schmoker's playing by the rules. No one will never be able to prove definitively that he is or is not mieskie.
Betrayal? Because he's making an effort to fit into a community after, as you allege, being stupid in public?
I agree, I don't see it as a betrayal. If they're the same person, he's making a choice I would not make in terms of posting where he shouldn't, but he's also contributing to the community. Which is the goal we were trying to reach with the banning, anyhow.
your response if he insists on being innocent, as anyone in this country has the right to do?
That was my exact question earlier on. What should we do?
Three people have now asked him directly if he's mieskie.
He's been reminded twice by me that the question has been asked here and he's made no response.
Also, "in this country", connie? Which country?
Because he's making an effort to fit into a community after, as you allege, being stupid in public?
The banning rule says "go away for two months, then come back and everything will be fine".
John, you're walking a thin line, here. You're harassing this person. He's done nothing wrong.
Sorry for assuming Americanism, my fault.
If someone insists that they're innocent and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary, we must publically assume he's innocent. If we persist in saying "We don't believe you," we are in the position of having to prove our statement or risk slander. Or merely stubbornness.