Rabid BANNED.
30 August 2006, 08:09 AM
#31
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NACRO
I hate to point it out but just for the avoidance of doubt the phrase is 'hear hear' as in
"hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"- which in my case is quite correct.
Maybe we'll never see this phrase misspelt again on this board?
Cracking down on illiteracy and the causes of illiteracy on scoobynet.
"hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!"- which in my case is quite correct.
Maybe we'll never see this phrase misspelt again on this board?
Cracking down on illiteracy and the causes of illiteracy on scoobynet.
30 August 2006, 08:11 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Infractions - Scoobynet's version of the "scamera" van
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hypocracy on this BBS is astounding in its magnitude.
Perhaps not surprising when you consider who (now) appears to be in charge.
It appears banning is "de rigeur" these days. (Shaun, Sammy - look it up)
And, as far as recent history is concerned, apparently banning is warranted for being anti racist and for registering with a username that was similar to our very own head moderator's real name.
And yet a convicted criminal who made bombs in his shed (and openly admitted that fact) and had child pornography on his computer is not.
I quite expect to be next, for being so "daring" as to make this post.
There are ******* on this board who are ten times more inflamatory than "Rabid" was, yet they don't get banned.
Now, how this board is run is entirely up to those who pay for it. No arguments from me. Nor do we have a right to an explanation, unless perhaps we are a "paying" member.
But it would, perhaps, be nice to see some consistency.
On recent form, I'm sure we will all be expecting to see more bans for continual and blatant abuse and harrassment.
Perhaps not surprising when you consider who (now) appears to be in charge.
It appears banning is "de rigeur" these days. (Shaun, Sammy - look it up)
And, as far as recent history is concerned, apparently banning is warranted for being anti racist and for registering with a username that was similar to our very own head moderator's real name.
And yet a convicted criminal who made bombs in his shed (and openly admitted that fact) and had child pornography on his computer is not.
I quite expect to be next, for being so "daring" as to make this post.
There are ******* on this board who are ten times more inflamatory than "Rabid" was, yet they don't get banned.
Now, how this board is run is entirely up to those who pay for it. No arguments from me. Nor do we have a right to an explanation, unless perhaps we are a "paying" member.
But it would, perhaps, be nice to see some consistency.
On recent form, I'm sure we will all be expecting to see more bans for continual and blatant abuse and harrassment.
30 August 2006, 08:14 AM
#33
Originally Posted by ///\oo/\\\
The hypocracy on this BBS is astounding in its magnitude.
Perhaps not surprising when you consider who (now) appears to be in charge.
It appears banning is "de rigeur" these days. (Shaun, Sammy - look it up)
And, as far as recent history is concerned, apparently banning is warranted for being anti racist and for registering with a username that was similar to our very own head moderator's real name.
And yet a convicted criminal who made bombs in his shed (and openly admitted that fact) and had child pornography on his computer is not.
I quite expect to be next, for being so "daring" as to make this post.
There are ******* on this board who are ten times more inflamatory than "Rabid" was, yet they don't get banned.
Now, how this board is run is entirely up to those who pay for it. No arguments from me. Nor do we have a right to an explanation, unless perhaps we are a "paying" member.
But it would, perhaps, be nice to see some consistency.
On recent form, I'm sure we will all be expecting to see more bans for continual and blatant abuse and harrassment.
Perhaps not surprising when you consider who (now) appears to be in charge.
It appears banning is "de rigeur" these days. (Shaun, Sammy - look it up)
And, as far as recent history is concerned, apparently banning is warranted for being anti racist and for registering with a username that was similar to our very own head moderator's real name.
And yet a convicted criminal who made bombs in his shed (and openly admitted that fact) and had child pornography on his computer is not.
I quite expect to be next, for being so "daring" as to make this post.
There are ******* on this board who are ten times more inflamatory than "Rabid" was, yet they don't get banned.
Now, how this board is run is entirely up to those who pay for it. No arguments from me. Nor do we have a right to an explanation, unless perhaps we are a "paying" member.
But it would, perhaps, be nice to see some consistency.
On recent form, I'm sure we will all be expecting to see more bans for continual and blatant abuse and harrassment.
