Although I don't happen to have a personal preference on the mieskie situation, I want to point out to you, Wolfram that you're ignoring an event in the whole shebang.

When he reregistered as Schmoker (which began with him posting in this thread as his first Schmoker post) he continued to raise hell for a while, including lying to us when asked if he was the same poster. He made our John (who I believe we may have lost on this very issue, although I have no John H. backchannel info. - that's just my guess) look like an ass, when in fact, John was just trying to do his duty as a stompy and find out if Schmoker in fact, was mieskie. Which he was.

There was more to this than a simple he-didn't-know-we-discussed-stuff-in-bureau confusion.

I ended up enjoying the Anathema persona, which is why I have no personal preference, but when you're stating all the facts, you might want to thread suck bureaucracy 1 and read December through March, skimming for both the mieskie, Anathema names. However, he did delete a few of the posts, I think the ones involved where he went off on John. However, I'm don't remember and don't care enough to check for myself.

>There is no need for a big kerfuffle. I think we shouldn't post about this any more until we hear from one of the stompies.

Michael did contact the stompies last week to ask if he could come back (since 2 months had passed) or if he was permanantly banned. Here's what we wrote back to him:

Michael,

Sorry for the delay in responding. We admins can be rather Entish sometimes.

Here's what we decided. When you started posting as Schmoker/Anathema, you effectively violated your suspension and were automatically banned. This banning occurred around March 10. We have since voted in a "4-month-reconsideration rule" that "wipes clean" any warnings given after 4 months. It's unclear whether a banning would fall under this rule (it probably shouldn't), but at a minimum we could revisit your case then. In other words, you'll have to wait another two months.

Say, should I actually propose "Any Buffista who gets a show gets their own thread"?

It could avoid a lot (knock wood for everyones' careers) of tsuris in the future.

t hearts Trudy

Thank you Jon. That seems like a good way to handle it.

Say, should I actually propose "Any Buffista who gets a show gets their own thread"?

Trudy, I'm sure this will make several people think I'm completely insane, but I will support this proposal wholeheartedly.

It would even mean Tim just gets a thread for his show automatically, and I support it wholeheartedly.

I think that would be a more appropriate way of going about it, and I think more reflective of our nature as a community.

I s*c*nd Sophia's v*te of confidence.

Sean, your logic seems perfectly sensible to me.

(Though I think you are completely insane for much more lewd reasons.)

Thanks, Trudy.