"Can't we all just get along?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Yeah, don't you realise? The difference is when only one person does it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif And besides, I'm only bumping the good threads. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

This is really something. Where, oh where, did skofarrell state this? Not on any publicly accessible forum, I don't think.

I never told him to take a hike.

What an angel you are. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

FewMiles..

To clarify, he has posted at least once in FT Community since that time, but has not to my or others' recollection, posted in OMNI.

Nor, would I say, has anyone been temporarily banned from OMNI for disagreeing with the moderator. Heck, I disagreed with the moderator at that time. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

FewMiles..

To put this one to rest, please see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum95/HTML/004035.html

doc posted Dec 05, 2003 06:38 AM

FewMiles..

Oh well, I can assure you he posted those exact words. And many others that were not highly complimentary I understand. So know you also now know how it feels for Moderators to post behind your back I guess? Glad you have confirmed that it is not just me.

Are you calling skofarrell a liar? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Quite stunning detective work I really have to say. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

J.Edgar Hoover would surely be cheering and hollering if he were with us. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Yes, sorry to spoil the News Flash I saw doc's post on that one thread in 3 or 4 months. And was pleased to hear from him he had a great night.

And as I (correctly) said he has not generally posted on FT other than to accept Randy's generous and gracious invitation for that dinner. Seeing the thread was specifically titled toward he and Catman. Noticed that small detail did you? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Calling Catman and Doc, I'm in New York Dec. 19-21

I have no issues with either fewmiles or doc at this point.

Your quote is also inaccurate. I suggest you go read the referenced thread again.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 26, 2004).]

And I don't have any issues with skofarrell.

Just one thing though, ozstamps. If this "take a hike" comment was posted in the moderators forum, who's been letting you in to see it?

FewMiles..

Is that so? I know the words "annoying" and "troublemaker" have been used before. So what?

I've known this since MoreMiles.

I don't really care what they say in there so long as it's not slanderous. They're just posting their opinion of my posting behaviour.

No, are you? He posted his opinion, and I saw the situation differently. So what? I respect him and trust his ability to do a fair job. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

FewMiles..

I can't seem to find anything related to the original topic in the most recent posts here.

As for doc, he was looking good when I saw him in New York in December. He'll always be one of my favorite - and he's got a basketball loving son who is a very positive contributor to FlyerTalk as well.

As noted, this is not Only Ozstamps or Only skofarrell, it is my forum. With that ruling comes some perks.

I'd like to evoke rule #1: oz and sko have to simmer down. I think you have both have added quite enough already.

Ruling #2: Members who aren't factual with their information must please make an effort to state such with their posts. For instance, parnel posts this "And, of course Randy will go along with you. You are a volunteer after all." Fact: a few moderators will tell you that I don't agree with them all the time. A few moderators will tell you I have over ruled their closing or editing of a thread. A few moderators will telll you that I've asked them (politely...) to take some time away from the responsibilities. A few moderators differ with me all the time. I'm not sure if the facts will support parnel's 'fact'.

And for another "fact." I've also gone along with other members who weren't volunteers.

So, where do you want this to go? If you want it to stay open, at least try to focus on something constructive for my consideration. Oh, and by the way.... the topic title is "Timeout for Dovester, please"

And since I closed the spoof account for ftomnibox, I guess there really sums it up.

Point taken by me with last 2 pars Randy, and glad to hear doc is keeping well. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif



------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!

Quote by Randy P
For instance, parnel posts this "And, of course Randy will go along with you. You are a volunteer after all." Fact: a few moderators will tell you that I don't agree with them all the time
__________________________________________________ ___________
Randy, I was just repeating what was said by the moderator in an earlier post. And it was in conjunction with an email sent to me saying Omni was his "turf" for which he has since apologized. I'm ok with that and have said so and dropped the discussion.
Its good to hear you exercise some vetos over the mods as well.

Back on topic: Dovster is an adult. If he needs a timeout he can ask for one himself, without the "help" of ftomnibox. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I can't believe I'm seeing this post with my own eyes. I posted the italicized part quoting ap2110's now-famous racist position on middle eastern taxi drivers. He made (and subsequently defended this post) and I'm being criticized for flaming because I quoted him verbatim?

[This message has been edited by RS (edited Jan 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by RS (edited Jan 31, 2004).]

I was not referring to the word "raghead" (as much as I condemn it). I know that you were not the one using it.

I was referring to the line "so we're supposed to listen to him on this topic?"

And, even there, I have no problem with you writing it. However, any logic that would consider what I posted to be a flame would have to accept this as a flame also.

The above quotes were not, strictly speaking, addressing the issue at hand. They were attacking the writer's line of reasoning and way of expressing himself.

That is the reason given for my letter being censored.

Compare the two:

You: Didn't ap2110 post on Dec 29, 2003 03:41 PM, the following racist comment:

"I refuse to ride in a cab driven by a raghead, I just wave them on and catch the next one even though I just stood in line at LGA for 30 minutes at the taxi stand."

Me: debo_nair used a harsh word: "Rat".

As shown above, both you and I quoted what another poster said. Our posting then proceeded to to use those quotes to question to cast doubt on the poster's objectivity:

You: So we're supposed to listen to him on this topic?

Me: He used no such word to describe the mass murderess.

He used no such word to describe the artist who honored her.

He used no such word to describe the Swedes who allowed the exhibition.

Only one person warranted such a denunciation from debo_nair: the Israeli diplomat.

A few months ago Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was murdered while shopping. Ms. Lindh was not particularly loved in Israel as she was one of its harshest European critics. If an Israeli museum were to put up an exhibit honoring her assassin, I wonder if debo_nair might use his harsh words a bit differently.

The thread your post was on was locked, but your post was allowed to stand for all to read. Presumably, you did not get a letter sent to you telling you that the next time you would be suspended for 7 days.

In my case, the thread was allowed to continue, but my post was removed. I did get such a letter.

I think now you will understand that I was not criticizing you for having used the quote.



[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 29, 2004).]