Look you've more than answered my questions. You've educated me immensely here and in a manner I can't complement you highly enough on; in terms and examples I could easily understand. That's all the proof I need that you really do understand what you're talking about.

In fact I would have even highlighted your last statement in read above this in my signature ugly pink purple and size 7 type. But why call more attention to you or me. If they don't have the sense to read that one and understand that's their bad move.

Once again thanks for all this.

 

Using simple explanations and words that everybody can understand is always much better than using all the technical jargon to get things across to someone..
I certainly appreciate your words and if I've helped by answering your questions in an easy way then I'm more than happy to have done so
It cost me nothing and hardly took any of my time but I can see that it was very beneficial to you (and hopefully others) so it wasn't any trouble at all to reply sensibly in a civil manner.

I might not reply to some of the other posts you, or anyone else, might make on other threads in the same manner but so what ? I'm replying to the posts NOT the username behind the post.
I come on here as a bit of a break, make light hearted posts, piss take posts, sensible posts, angry posts in my replies depending on what I'm reading others have posted. I never post against a person just because of their username or reputation on here.

Anyway, glad I helped and if you need more feel free to PM me in case I miss your questions on here.

Now like I said yesterday, Go and annoy somebody :excited: Being civil doesn't suit you

 

How about instead of hate E-Mail how about sexy heavy breathing E-Mails, Wait you will not hear the breathing will you. Dam must be the medication yet again lol:excited:

 

Naughty boy :excited:

 

Yes I am are you a Naughty girl?? If so we can be naughty together lol :-E

 

​

 

Already answered, but I've gone and found it for you again vvv

If the admin were concerned that AZRIEL had my log in details and could access parts of the forum he shouldn't, then yes, I believe they would check. And then I may well have my moderator position taken away from me. Simple really, hunh :neutral:

Absolutely not, but some are memorable certainly.

:laughing:

 

SMC, I don't doubt your integrity. Anyway, yes, my point was that I believe the admins would only check if they suspected something.

 

and an IP check would prove what ?

 

Excuse me if I am wrong....But honestly the rules are posted EVERYWHERE on this forum. Common Sense people....follow the rules and no Banning....simple as that. I have been posting in forums since the Bulliten Boards of the late 80's. How hard is it??? Follow the rules, simple as that.

 

Sorry to point out but you are wrong. The rules are not posted everywhere on this forum nor is there a set of rules that are to be followed. just read the rules you find to see that.
If the mods went by the rules then there would be hardly anybody on here.

Mods can't even decide between them on what the rules are in so many areas or how they should be applied.

Not as simple as you thought.

 

You sure hit the concerns and objections I have.

 

stumbler,

You have said that deidre79's charges of favoritism against the mods was inaccurate, but that the mods are currently displaying favoritism by banning posters they dislike.

First of all, I agree with you that one of the mods is displaying favoritism. I do not believe the dog story any more than you do. No one has ever explained why Maya Simone was banned.

My second point is that deidre79 was banned for accusing the mods of favoritism and not substantiating that accusation to Nophest's satisfaction.

My question is this: where in the Rules does it say that accusing the mods of favoritism and not substantiating the accusation is a banning offense? (?):???::?:

 

Deidre79 is not banned. He's still posting as Big Trobbing.

 

Read: Forum rules.
Here are the rules :

- No underage content (below 18 years old) anywhere.

- No scat or beast porn.

- No death threats.

- Don't spam competitors sites. Established sites are OK to mention.

- You cannot write anyone's address (even yours), phone number, or real name, basically any personal information. (this is for security reasons).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- No stupid hateful posts though you are free to be harsh and even insulting if it is appropriate. We are all adults anyway right? we can handle it.

- Do not post Private Messages (PM) without the approval of the person who sent them.

- Keep your signatures to a reasonable size please.


These are the posted rules. Seems like this started because of the posting of private information. So it is in the forum rules. I underlined the specific one. I am sure I was right and seeing this I know I was. Thank you for all comments.

 

It is difficult to fabricate a personality, even a cyber personality. I would not try.

deidre79 was a fascinating, troubled, and occasionally charming young women.

BigTrobbing is a loathsome, vulgar, poorly educated, low class swamp dweller who is too stupid to realize that if the Republicans sweep the next election his permanent disability checks will be in jeopardy.

 

Then maybe you can tell me. Does posting yours or someone else real first name amount to posting personal information or not?

PS And where does smcaaphd's position that it would be unfair to ban Baller16's stalkers for posting his personal information because he posted it first. Where does that come in in the rule you posted?

 

My guess is that SMC was making a cheeky statement about that dog photo and it got blown out of context. There's no dog photo, you can be sure of that. Seems Chunky's statements got blown out of context too.

Maya Simone, Stoner, and all others connected to the Carrie Joslin clan were banned as a group, which they were. I suspect that after Carrie (the real one) got banned purposely then it was clear who the fakers were and it was time to get them off the board. Also, DL, you're blaming one moderator here. What makes you think that the admins didn't make this call?

Where in the rules does it say that this is a democracy and an admin can't get rid of someone who is being a pain in the ass and pisses him off by screaming unsubstantiated claims of favoritism? Correction, an admin who owned and was responsible for hiring someone to develop the site according to his business idea.

 

DL you are still trolling for deidre and CJ, you know why deidre got banned and as the owner ofthe site Nophest could and did ban her, it was nothing to do with the rules it was all to do with his challenge to her, one which she failed to meet. As for CJ she was part of a 'net wide scamming and spamming gang that targeted sex forums and then linked her page to her own website to get her click for for cash rates ticking over. As for her and her dog picture, she was a porn star, the sort of person who takes their clothes off and has sex for money so that people like the members of this site get a thrill, she was not the sweet and innocent you portray but a hard faced business woman who would sell her body for cash. So yes I do believe she would have pictures of her and a basset hound or even a Chihuahua having a little fun time, and I would believe Smc over her and you on any given subject and any day of the week.

 

You know a lot for someone who's only been here since July. Either you have been banned yourself, or you lack the courage of your convictions, and do not want to express them as an established poster.

If I was an admin the Rules would be enforced. Those who obeyed them would be safe. If a poster irritated me beyond my level of endurance I would add a new rule to prohibit what was irritating me. I would not enforce the new rule retroactively, but the irritater would leave, clean up his act, or feel my ban hammer.