Good points Jailer; we don't know what happened behind the scenes regarding warnings; past banishments or similar prior to the time outs issued.

However I don't agree that we need to know the exact details of their punishment (I hope I didn't misinterpret your last paragraph); all I need to know is that the events on the referenced thread warranted a time out and the link was posted so that we all know in the future what type of conduct "may" warrant a time out. As for the length of the time out, IMHO we just don't need to know, I don't care if its one day or one year; I don't want a T/O of any length so the amount of time is irrelevant to me. Edited to add: Im sure we will figure it out when they come back or the FT grapevine will let us know eventually.

By the way; does FT use the three strikes law where you get 25 to life for a 3rd offense LOL



[This message has been edited by TrojanHorse (edited 11-14-2002).]

I support Randy's decision to allow us to see the offending thread, to better understand his expectations/threshold of tolerance of what constitutes his TOS.

To johnfpage-

it takes just ONE post to defend yourself; then just ignore any further posts from the other person.
And/or
simply tell the other person that you don't wish to do any transactions with him/her, which is your right. And again, simply ignore any future posts from that person.

I do appreciate what Randy has done to keep peace on the boards. But unless JOH also has a timeout then Ozstamps is free to post away.

------------------
danville 1K

Thanks, Randy, and all I can add is Marysunshine has it right.

Geez, guys, lighten up. It's not like someone's going to jail or something. It's really not that big of a deal now, is it? And I'm saying this as someone who likes Oz.

I am not sure why everyone is going to "moot" court analogy. I though Randy used a sports officiating analaogy.
I do some sports officiating on the side in the NCAA and in most sports Judgement calls are not protestable. Exception I guess would be the NFL. Most sports nope.
If the umpire says it is a strike it is a strike no matter how much one protests. If the referee says it is a foul you got that right it is a foul and protesting (dissenting by word or gesture) can get you further sanctions.
I am not really in disagreement with anyone here about what their opinion is and although I may disagree with their opinion until I turn blue in the face (or get carpal tunnel syndrome) if I choose, I choose not to get into rooster fights.
In most threads where an opinion is seemingly required I post mine once and that is it. Anyone who sees it can make their own judgement about it. If they want to respond they are welcome to.
Maybe I am not the age of marysunshine but I surely am at the age where I can respect someone's opinion whether I agree or disagree and I know also that it will get you nowhere (pun intended) to protest the referee's decision.

I have been following these posts for a while. First, I want to say kudos to Randy for stepping in and being involved in the decision. Second, I want to say that while Ozstamps may have a longer history of alleged infractions here, Johnfpage's actions have been called into question on many, many occasions on Coupon Connection.

Searching Coupon Connection bares that out. (No need to search other threads. JFP only posted on CC). Many people were concerned that JFP was trying to turn CC into his own personal business of buying and selling certificates (including receiving "gifted" certificates that he would later sell). JFP essentially admitted that he was running a business, revealing that he kept a computer spreadsheet of his transactions.

While nobody ever claimed that JFP reneged on any exchanges, many considered his actions to damage the spirit of CC, which was once a place where people more often "gifted" items and less often "sold" them.

I know that Ozstamps has rubbed plenty of people the wrong way. I take no position on that. But the integrity of Flyertalk, including the CC board, should be formost, and we should not lose sight of trying to maintain that integrity. Maybe CC will begin to return to what it once was: A place where generousity starts to outstrip profiteering once again.

That's probably reading a bit too much into what has transpired, I think.

Its not like you can't tell who's writing if he does use hers LOL; there is a slightly different posting style don't ya think ???

md tony: Geez, guys, lighten up. It's not like someone's going to jail or something. It's really not that big of a deal now, is it? And I'm saying this as someone who likes Oz.

Sorry Tony, for once I can't agree with ya.. It is OS were talking about here; and well youre a smart guy and you can figure where I'm coming from on this one

PremEx, I guess we finally agree on something. I am also without words, amazed and speechless when I read your above post.

I cannot possibly understand how you, PremEx, can keep a straight face and openly declare that Ozstamps was not provoked, or that there is no pre-judgment against him. And, on top of it all, I cannot believe that you, PremEx, being one of the self proclaimed champions of justice, equality, wisdom, and civil manners on these Boards now selectively chooses to blatantly ignore the facts!!! Are you going to sit there and post that there is no �lets bust Oz� movement out there? You will forgive me, but, it�s just mind-boggling.

I don�t know, maybe I�m mistaken and you suddenly have only have feelings of sympathy towards Ozstamps. Perhaps I�m wrong and you carry no grudge against him? Or perhaps I�m just too stupid to understand where you are coming from.

Maybe I�m just making up the fact that it was you, PremEx (and others acting as your emissaries) that have repeatedly tried lobbying various members of these Boards with anti-Ozstamps agendas. Perhaps I�m also just inventing the fact that an enormous amount of fuss was made by many, you included, when I was so bold as to dare to invite Glen to join us on MoreMiles. Perhaps you don�t remember the email you addressed to me, �whining� about the fact I basically invited the anti-Christ into our living room�.? PremEx, can you really deny any of this with a straight face?

In a nutshell, I don�t like double standards, vested interests, telling only half of the facts cause its in our interest, and I cannot stand hypocrisy. I know what and who I stand for, and I make no secret of it. Also, I don�t consider myself the paladin of justice or equality, nor do I try to pose as taking the high ground. I just wish everyone would come out of the closet and take off their masks.

Finally, I sincerely hope you, PremEx, will not revert to your usual MO (modus-operandi) when the discussion and the statement of facts gets just too politically-incorrect for you, and argue your case till the end this time, for all to see and read.... else, its really hard for all of us to understand on which side of the issue you really stand.

------------------
Gaucho100K

I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. It became an internet pissing contest, and Lord knows those happen all the time.

But, it's Randy's board, and he can do whatever he wants with it. So he decided a time out was in order. And that's that.

Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled pissing contests over which airline or hotel program is better than the other one?

Could someone let me know how to find this???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gaucho100K:
[B]
Are you going to sit there and post that there is no �lets bust Oz� movement out there?

TrojanHorse... Just what I was thinking but didn't want to post.

Goucho100K (and all further quotes are his) writes:

Are you talking generally or just this specific thread? My comments were addressed to this one instance, and I stand by that opinion. Oz was not provoked and Oz threw the first punch, IMHO.

Wow! Really? I must have missed my proclamation. Someone must be posting using my handle. And it may shock you to learn I don't consider myself as such.

No. And I did not. I was addressing this thread. This is no more relevant to this debate (unless you want it to be) than any "let's promote Oz" movement that might be out there. But since you bring it up...you would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that I do not belong to any such movement. I do not have, nor participate in any anti-Oz mailing lists or do I even CC anyone if I respond to an Oz related email that someone might rarely email me. Other than a list of MoreMiles founders, the only FlyerTalker I communicate privately and personally with on any regular basis is Catman. I don't do chats or IMs either with FTers. In the history of FlyerTalk, I think I've written Randy about ozstamps maybe 3 times total. And they were short and sweet, without anything but pointing out a possible TOS violation or question. No more than any other FlyerTalker would do, IMHO. Randy is free to bear this out, if he wishes to do so.

You are making up this "fact." I have not lobbied anyone or ever had any "emissaries" mount any sort of anti-Oz agenda or organized campaign against him. I have never asked anyone to mount any letter writing campaign to Randy, anyone else, nor have I ever participated in one. I have no emissaries. Gaucho, you make it sound like I have some sort of anti-Oz private club or mailing list out there. I do not. Perhaps my very silence is fostering this perception. I can imagine when one only hears one side of a "story" that one may begin to form opinions based on inaccurate "facts." This can happen.

Yes. You are inventing the "enormous amount of fuss" about when you invited ozstamps to join MoreMiles. Again, you may be surprised to know (and can be vouched for by Punki, Rudi and any other MoreMiles founders) that when you "invited" him to MoreMiles (posting the fact that you had) and the subject of concern was brought up for debate (not by me, BTW), I was the first to respond that ozstamps did not require an invite from anyone to join MoreMiles, and by rules I agreed to and helped set up, he was welcomed as long as he didn't violate the TOS spirit of MoreMiles. I did write you a personal email basically saying "Oh thanks a lot buddy, for going out of your way to reel him in." It is no secret that I would prefer not to have ozstamps in any community I inhabit. But I would hardly call what happened an "enormous amount of fuss" or any sort of "Oh my God! End-of-the-world" deal.

Pretty much how I feel, which is the reason I made my first post (let he who is without sin) in the thread referenced here.

I know who and what I stand for as well. And generally I don't make a secret of it. I'm sure it's fairly easy for anyone to know where I stand. But also, I don't go out of my way to shout it from the mountain tops in this public forum. I just say my piece and move on, with regard to the board owner's limitations on just what I can and cannot say here. There is no totally "fee speech" here, IMHO. Nor should their be, IMHO.

This one is a real puzzle to me. I've read it several times over and still don't quite understand what you are saying here. Sorry. But I have kept to the subjects of your post and I hope I have addressed all of you opinions and accusations to your satisfaction.

To magic111, wideman, Marysunshine, jailer (partially), TrojanHorse, beaubo and those others that have written that it's Randy's call and the reason's (sports or courts), I agree.

I was, once, during some 'difficult' first months of Glen here on FlyerTalk, myself a member of a kind of "anti-ozstamps-alliance" (during a hefty exchange of arguments with him, then, I even asked, offline, for post-support from some 'oldies' then).

But in the longer run, I learned to (mostly) understand and (mostly) accept (or sometimes ignore) his Aussie-humour.

It helped that I also met him in person (twice in D�sseldorf, once as his and Joh's guest in Melbourne).

I also understand (and regret at the same time), that some of my closest FlyerTalk friends can't easily forget and forgive how Glen (miss-?)'treated' them and the unfriendliness that often accompanied postings here some time ago.

Please let this case rest - it is Randy's call.

Your Honor, defense counsel requests the Court remind those testifying that they are under oath....

PremEx-- As always, I guess you are right. I guess I am making everything up, just to spike you. I definetely should be banned for 'falsely accusing' you. Shame on me...

But you and I know what the truth is, even though you choose now to ignore the facts and look away. So be it, it is your choice.

------------------
Gaucho100K