No dammit Moonlit. One person should not keep you away from Natter. Why the hell should natterers suffer Moonlit deprivation because of one immature individual?
Fred: So you don't worry that it's possible for someone to send out a biological or electronic trigger that effectively overrides your own sense of ideals and values and replaces them with an alternative coercive agenda that reduces you to a mindless meat puppet? Shopkeeper: Wow. People used to think that I was paranoid.
'Time Bomb'
Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer
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
Typo Boy - Jul 25, 2003 7:20:50 am PDT #3381 of 10005
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
scrappy - Jul 25, 2003 7:22:41 am PDT #3382 of 10005
Nobody
More Moonlit, I say!
DavidS - Jul 25, 2003 7:33:21 am PDT #3383 of 10005
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
More Moonlit, I say!
Thirded. More Moonlit is part of the General Good, and needs to be encouraged.
sj - Jul 25, 2003 7:37:11 am PDT #3384 of 10005
"There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea."
Yes, we need more Moonlit.
Consuela - Jul 25, 2003 7:46:21 am PDT #3385 of 10005
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
So Caroma has been warned and has, apparently, left the board. Under the current rules, she can return and post, yes? But another warnable offense merits a three-month suspension.
Am I correct in my summary of the situation?
deborah grabien - Jul 25, 2003 7:51:37 am PDT #3386 of 10005
It really doesn't matter. It's just an opinion. Don't worry about it. Not worth the hassle.
I'm pleased about the warning, because it helps me with clarifying something I haven't been sure about: what qualifies something as the kind of behaviour that merits a warning.
I decided to stay away from Natter entirely because I dislike the concept that a flame war, with twisting of remarks and constant poking to stir ashes into the active flame the twister-poker enjoys, is good clean fun. I don't find it fun at all; in Caroma's case, I found I literally had to make a decision, namely, risk a warning or suspension myself by answering her in kind or leaving the threads in which she can generally be found. I opted for the latter.
DXMachina - Jul 25, 2003 7:57:50 am PDT #3387 of 10005
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Am I correct in my summary of the situation?
Yes.
Katerina Bee - Jul 25, 2003 8:08:30 am PDT #3388 of 10005
Herding cats for fun
(Pokes head into Bureaucracy)
The Caroma kerfuffle kinda made me miss the "Ignore" feature - was it at People's Forum - ? but am quite glad we don't usually need such a thing at the Phoenix.
Lysana - Jul 25, 2003 8:40:13 am PDT #3389 of 10005
Hellbound Equal-Opportunity Nookie Hog
Nicely played, all. It's good to see the system work (provided Caroma gets the point, anyway). And damn, did she deserve what she got.
Noumenon - Jul 25, 2003 9:01:30 am PDT #3390 of 10005
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti
you insulted posters with cracks about their physical appearance, in a discussion about the ethics of arguing politics.
I'm worried that we might open the door to this kind of thing if we overturn "All Buffistas are Foamy." Though we can always turn to the power of Corseted Cleavage to swing that door shut again.