PDA

View Full Version : Are green names allowed to post other than administrative info related to the site?


JonIrenicus
12-11-2009, 02:08 AM
My guess is no. I have only seen posts from green named people regarding some site policy or to react to a charge made about an administrative action.

If no, do they have normal name aliases?

Or do they simply have no interest in commenting. (seems that may be a majority)

Lyle
12-11-2009, 02:53 AM
I feel bad for them. They probably aren't allowed to come play. :(

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 10:16 AM
My guess is no. I have only seen posts from green named people regarding some site policy or to react to a charge made about an administrative action.

If no, do they have normal name aliases?

Or do they simply have no interest in commenting. (seems that may be a majority)


Knowing what I know about a couple of them(seems that may be a majority)...they really have nothing new to add here that is not already covered by the libtards already present

nikkibong
12-11-2009, 10:22 AM
My guess is no. I have only seen posts from green named people regarding some site policy or to react to a charge made about an administrative action.

If no, do they have normal name aliases?

Or do they simply have no interest in commenting. (seems that may be a majority)

You'll recall that Green Brenda, bhtv's managing editor, made a bunch of churlish/snarky comments directed at commenters here. (including the unfairly banned Kidney.)

Strangely, she seems to have completely disappeared from the scene since then.

The rest of the Little Green Men don't say much at all.

AemJeff
12-11-2009, 10:53 AM
You'll recall that Green Brenda, bhtv's managing editor, made a bunch of churlish/snarky comments directed at commenters here. (including the unfairly banned Kidney.)

Strangely, she seems to have completely disappeared from the scene since then.

The rest of the Little Green Men don't say much at all.

"Unfairly" banned? Why would you say that? What do you even know about the circumstances?

nikkibong
12-11-2009, 10:58 AM
"Unfairly" banned? Why would you say that? What do you even know about the circumstances?

Jeff:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=135701&postcount=11

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 12:01 PM
"Unfairly" banned? Why would you say that? What do you even know about the circumstances?

Let me add that I have tasted the "circumstances" on my own and they are summed up by an unfair application of the rules compounded by bias.

What do YOU know?

bjkeefe
12-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Let me add that I have tasted the "circumstances" on my own and they are summed up by an unfair application of the rules compounded by bias.

What do YOU know?

I'll tell you what I know: on most Internet forums, you'd have been banned long ago.

AemJeff
12-11-2009, 12:08 PM
Let me add that I have tasted the "circumstances" on my own and they are summed up by an unfair application of the rules compounded by bias.

What do YOU know?

Bias? Okey-dokey. You're making assertions of bias in regard to your own treatment here. In other words, nobody's going to conclude that you're unbiased in this regard.

I didn't say anything about the extent of my knowledge. I saw what everybody could see.

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Bias? Okey-dokey. You're making assertions of bias in regard to your own treatment here. In other words, nobody's going to conclude that you're unbiased in this regard.

I didn't say anything about the extent of my knowledge. I saw what everybody could see.

Not true Jeffy. I have both witnessed and have been a part of treatment that is inconsistantly delved out. Bong correctly notes one. The others are documented already. Sometimes a puke is a puke. You obviously did NOT see what everybody else could see as evidenced by your feigned ignorance here. You obviously also did not see a stream of PM I have had with the GREENs here.

On a similar note say I started a New Thread called say...

"AemJeff is a PUKE" in the Life and everything area and then proceeded to post daily/hourly nonsensical rants and insults at your expense, in an effort to keep it at the top of the pile. Do you think that the "Greens" (I like that) here would allow it to stand?

Lyle
12-11-2009, 12:49 PM
... and you wouldn't? :) Too cute.

bjkeefe
12-11-2009, 12:50 PM
... and you wouldn't?

Nope.

AemJeff
12-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Not true Jeffy. I have both witnessed and have been a part of treatment that is inconsistantly delved out. Bong correctly notes one. The others are documented already. Sometimes a puke is a puke. You obviously did NOT see what everybody else could see as evidenced by your feigned ignorance here. You obviously also did not see a stream of PM I have had with the GREENs here.

On a similar note say I started a New Thread called say...

"AemJeff is a PUKE" in the Life and everything area and then proceeded to post daily/hourly nonsensical rants and insults at your expense, in an effort to keep it at the top of the pile. Do you think that the "Greens" (I like that) here would allow it to stand?

If you're going to imply special knowledge ("You obviously also did not see a stream of PM I have had with the GREENs here.") you probably ought to ask your correspondents if they'd mind you making those PM's public; and then do so, if they're ok with that. Otherwise the hints to what's hidden in private communications are pointless and self-serving, don't you think?

The thread title you proposed isn't even close to the name of the actual thread you're referring to, is it? In an equivalent situation, there's very little chance I'd be treated any differently than you.

handle
12-11-2009, 04:36 PM
On a similar note say I started a New Thread called say...

"AemJeff is a PUKE" in the Life and everything area and then proceeded to post daily/hourly nonsensical rants and insults at your expense, in an effort to keep it at the top of the pile. Do you think that the "Greens" (I like that) here would allow it to stand?

Maybe if he had been allowed to do the same with a thread called "The President is a puke" and he just kept feeding it with spam-like links and noise from, say, the 911truth propaganda machine for days before anyone even posted there....

handle
12-11-2009, 04:47 PM
Knowing what I know about a couple of them(seems that may be a majority)...they really have nothing new to add here that is not already covered by the libtards already present

Translation: They are all out to get Punkfur.

FYI Joan of Arc, there are plenty of Conservatives, Wingnuts, Lefties, and Libtards here who I think are just great, and I'd be nothing but a Lurker if you didn't come off like such an arrogant poser.

handle
12-11-2009, 04:57 PM
Maybe if he had been allowed to do the same with a thread called "The President is a puke" and he just kept feeding it with spam-like links and noise from, say, the 911truth propaganda machine for days before anyone even posted there....

Really nice to see you crying about that though, it makes my day a little sunnier..

Added: And what if somebody started a thread called, say, "BHtv Spambusters New Ability" before he even found out how absurdly presumptuous and factually bankrupt it was?

Where's your apology on that one?

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 05:44 PM
If you're going to imply special knowledge ("You obviously also did not see a stream of PM I have had with the GREENs here.") you probably ought to ask your correspondents if they'd mind you making those PM's public; and then do so, if they're ok with that. Otherwise the hints to what's hidden in private communications are pointless and self-serving, don't you think?

Well of course, my implication of special knowledge, was part of making the overall point...the other parts you conveniently ignore in your response here. You would have to ask the Greens about PM disclosure...last time I did I was also reprimanded. In the mean time ignore those parts and concentrate on the others...there enough there.

The thread title you proposed isn't even close to the name of the actual thread you're referring to, is it? In an equivalent situation, there's very little chance I'd be treated any differently than you.

I would argue that the title of the "actual" is even more demeaning as it can be taken literally and could even be considered libelous.

Unfortunately, my question was kind of a trick question. You see, the worse thing I said in the thread of mine that WAS deleted by "The Greens" was calling you a puke. But of course, that was one post, and I didn't use your name in the title, and my post was followed up by even more derogatory insults by "those that follow me around". So where "the Greens" allow my username to be hung up as a thread title and where "the Greens" allowed (allow) it to continue for days as "those that follow me around" utilized it to pillory me ...my thread with the one lowly insult was removed. And THEN when I joked about the reason being "those that follow me around", the "the Greens" banned me.

So, I'm sorry...you were saying?

handle
12-11-2009, 06:32 PM
I would argue that the title of the "actual" is even more demeaning as it can be taken literally and could even be considered libelous.


Then why use it to describe the President of the United States of America??
You really do hate America, don't you?
And since you professed your love of country under Bush, then the title isn't far off now is it?
Unless your declaration was conditional?:
I only love my country when I agree with the current administration.

Lyle
12-11-2009, 07:28 PM
Yes, you would. You violated the spirit of bh.tv time and time again. Your name calling reputation is the stuff of legend.

handle
12-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Yes, you would. You violated the spirit of bh.tv time and time again. Your name calling reputation is the stuff of legend.

Talk about pots, kettles and legendary backpeddles:
Childish and stupid, you're childish and stupid.

Barack "******" Obama... I'm only joking!!!! I'm only joking!!! (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=93750&highlight=******#post93750)
But it's OK 'cause Lyle creates the appearance of a statement, without actually saying anything:

Nope, a point needed to be made. Calling people names is unserious.

It were a noble thing at 'e done...

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Earth to idiots.

"A fraud at every turn"...points to events and actions of people not to a specific person. There are links there about Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Jobs created and saved, Reid, the Labor dept., the Adminstration in general, the EPA Head, and yes Obama, but each link speaks of the action of fraud, flip flops or out and out lies.

And what I am posting are LINKs to video and articles by others with very little comment.

I realize it behooves some idiot, because he is looking like an obsessed fool here, to try to legitimize his preoccupation. I guess he now wants to make it look like he is protecting Obama's honor or something. Well that's good...but instead of misrepresenting the meaning of the thread, how about intelligent rebuttel of the links.

He may be on to something though, maybe the GREENS were just as myopic in their analysis when they allowed his caustic thread to continue. Could they be that stupid too?

handle
12-11-2009, 09:26 PM
Earth to idiots.

"A fraud at every turn"...points to events and actions of people not to a specific person. There are links there about Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Jobs created and saved, Reid, the Labor dept., the Adminstration in general, the EPA Head, and yes Obama, but each link speaks of the action of fraud, flip flops or out and out lies.

And what I am posting are LINKs to video and articles by others with very little comment.

I realize it behooves some idiot, because he is looking like an obsessed fool here, to try to legitimize his preoccupation. I guess he now wants to make it look like he is protecting Obama's honor or something. Well that's good...but instead of misrepresenting the meaning of the thread, how about intelligent rebuttel of the links.

He may be on to something though, maybe the GREENS were just as myopic in their analysis when they allowed his caustic thread to continue. Could they be that stupid too?

Wouldn't that be "frauds at every turn"? could this be a back peddle?.. not possible from "Mr. integrity".

Everybody go there and check out the rebuttals!

Whatfur
12-11-2009, 09:52 PM
Earth has found its idiot.

The idea was that "every time I turn around I find a story about another fraud." I don't turn around and find a story about another "frauds". The idiot misrepresents the content and now tries to change the title to his liking.

handle
12-11-2009, 11:49 PM
Earth has found its idiot.

The idea was that "every time I turn around I find a story about another fraud." I don't turn around and find a story about another "frauds". The idiot misrepresents the content and now tries to change the title to his liking.

Good points all, though a tad bit defensive, I guess I'm just not a literary whiz-bang like Tolstoyfur.

Or could it be an ambiguous non-sentence?

Orrrr have I been leaving typos and holes you could drive a truck through that were just the kind of thing that you love to attack so you would do what you just did?
Nah.... not possible for an idiot.

Lyle
12-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Yeah, I made a good point there.