Danmmit, that sounds really really GOOD!!!

Hmmm, Kiliminjaro... *drool*

I believe you misread that post Jim.

I believe that Sean was saying they were asking the person who gave you access to OMNI to review your recent posts.

I could be wrong... but I did not read it as an attack.

William

Wharvey, skofarrell says he suspended my OMNI posting privileges until the owner has a chance to review who gave me OMNI posting privileges.

What does that imply if not that I got my OMNI posting privileges in some underhanded means, that I was given those privileges by Santa Claus?

We flew over Mt Kiliminjaro this morning actually on the way from the safari parks there to Zanzibar. Heavily snowcapped in this hot weather, right on the equator is a pretty weird and amazing sight.

Back to the threads, if the mods lock them and ban this poster from OMNI they appear to have their reasons.

Now opening my third coldie ..... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif


------------------
Try and make it down to SYD for "OZ FEST 2004" - May 21-23

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

Your credibility has been shot to heck.

Give it up already.

In the above post you state 99 replies to your posts. I added the total number of posts in your 10 threads, and count 102 posts altogether. Now remove your 10 original posts gives us 92, and remove Sean's posts gives us 82, and remove my 2 or 3 posts gives us around 80 replies, some of which are your own.

So to put it succintly, I'd say you have a penchant for stretching the truth quite a long ways.

Anyone cry "wolf" lately?

What are you doing on FT then!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

hehehe I can tell you are a TRUE addict, Glen!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

I am unable to understand how Feldspar has done anything that would warrant a timeout. Surely, he has not violated the TOS.


Also, if he does not get a timeout, perhaps Randy should consider giving timeouts to those who requested the timeout.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

Have you even read this thread and the other threads in question???

I don't understand how some people can voice an opinion without even reading the content in question.

EDIT: In light of goldlust's two quick locked threads, and I do recall a couple of other ones where he/she intentionally repeated a couple of threads and got heat for it, I now understand how to interpret goldlust's posts - totally disregard them. So sad to see such childish behavior.



[This message has been edited by UALOneKPlus (edited Mar 14, 2004).]

Children...children....

Please calm down and behave!

I hate to have to open up a 'can of whoop ...' on you all!

UALOneKPlus:
"One fine Sunday morning, at least FOUR useless threads from this poster..."


We may find them "useless" (or not), but if we do, what is wrong with ignoring them?

They may be useless to one poster, but where does any poster have the right to decide
what is "usless" for the rest of us?

If there are way too many, and cause actual disruption, then there may be a case to
take it to FT. But there is no reason (or right) to disrupt the discussion in the
other threads by making accusations of trolling, or being a "sleeper" - - and I am
NOT saying that only one poster is to blame for both of these personal comments.

What I AM saying that, in my personal opinion, more disruption was caused by the OP
of this thread (in the other threads), than by the OP of all the other threads.


UALOneKPlus:
"...in addition to many trolling posts."


Well, "many" may be somewhat correct, but "trolling"? Trolling results in flames,
or in pointless discussions, but it seems that the OP of this thread is the cause
of the 'flammatory' responses and pointless posts.

If someone posts inflammatory respones, does that prove their assertion that the post
to which they are responding to is "inflammatory", or is a troll? Then I could 'prove'
that someone is a thief by giving them my purse. What a self-fulfilling belief...


UALOneKPlus:
"I've emailed the fine mods of Omni."


Then what is the point of this thread, other than to continue the (public) attack?


UALOneKPlus:
"That's it."

"Enjoy your Omni posting privileges while you can."

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021030.html


So, apparently, the OP has decided that he/she has had enough. OK, but to decide that
another poster should not be able to post is quite another. Only FT can do that. And
to make this accusation and warning publicly is over the top. Even FT does this sort
of thing in private.


UALOneKPlus:
"Note the OP is merely copying and pasting paragraphs from external links, in the hopes of
inciting flamatory reactions."

"Do not respond to this childish behavior."

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021030.html


And who is to say that responding with "flamatory" [sic] reactions is not childish behavior?


UALOneKPlus:
"But this OP is merely posting links to other websites, without adding any useful content."
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021029.html


There's that concept of "useful" and "useless" again. 'Useful' to whom?


UALOneKPlus:
"I merely noted that you do nothing but copy and paste links from very flamatory websites
in the hopes of generating disruption in Omni."


This 'mere' assumption and accusation is not 'mere' at all. Posters are always posting some
news story or another (hopefully with links) in OMNI - - they all seem to be allowed to do this.
Why make an exception fo one poor poster?

Even one former poster who stopped posting (by choice) was only *asked* to not continue
to post and bump threads excessively - - apparently, they were never timed out for posting
news stories, even when one thread was mostly various news story posts by the same poster,
not allowing any discussion to even get off the ground due to the sheer, heavy, heavy volume
of news links posted to one thread. I have yet to see any "disruption" of OMNI by the poster
accused by the OP - - but I have noted disruption by others...


UALOneKPlus:
"...the way you have just gone about and copied and pasted BS in Omni is excessive and must stop."

"Omni is not your playground to post willy nilly. I hope you learn this lesson."

"He does nothing except copy links from external websites (especially flammatory ones) and
post them as threads, adding zero value whatsoever."

"You've never seen me complain about another poster's viewpoints here in ORP. I am complaining
about how this poster is attempting to disrupt Omni by posting junk/links willy nilly."


So we are only to copy links from *internal* websites? And not do so "willy nilly"? Is
everyone (or just one poster) supposed to request permission each time they want to
post threads or replies?


UALOneKPlus:
"...in Omni or wherever else, posting one or two links, fine, I don't care. This person posted
4 - 6 threads in the space of ONE hour, that is generally related, the same useless junk. I call
that trolling,"


One or two links is fine by you? - - Is that per hour? - Per day? - Per lifetime?

And 4 - 6 per hour is not OK? So what is your 'cutoff' criteria? And why is there confusion
as to whether it was 4 per hour, or 6 per hour? Isn't this easily determined (as if it mattered)?

FT has a limit of not posting within 60 seconds, I believe. If this is the beef, then take it up
with those that determine this setting, and any other jurisdictional matter concerning FT or OMNI.

"Generally related"? As in 'anti-Bush', 'anti-Republican', or what? Hmmm... I guess this is an
OMNI crime - - posting threads where others see some connection between them.

I guess that is why we see so few same sex marriage related threads in OMNI. I wonder where we all
were when one poster kept posting new threads on same sex marriage, IMHO, just to get a response.
Why did we not disprupt those threads too?

"Useless" - - again, but with a twist - - now it is "useless junk". If you wish to call it "junk"
or trolling, inform FT and let them make the call.


UALOneKPlus:
"Sean just locked 10 threads from the poster, all basically the same junk in different iterations.
If that's not disruption, I'm not sure what is!"


There we go - - more confirmation that the posts and/or news links (not sure which) are "junk".
"Different iterations"? I don't think so - - but my guess is that everyone can see that they
are anti-Bush and anti-Republican. Is this the common denominator in the threads? - - That must
be outlawed?

If the OP is not clear as to what "disruption" is (and from the paper trail, I believe this is true),
then it is stating, over, and over again, the same things - - and preventing discussion of any sort.

If there needed to be a response by FT, it was caused by members who took personal exception and
took it upon themselves to take personal action and make personal attacks in a public forum. THAT
is the disruption that was caused.

While it is certainly a curiosity to the rest of us, and a necessity for FT, to determine who the
"new poster" is, and the circumstances, it is none of our business to 'run them out of town' just
because they are new and we don't like their kind. More similarities to the Wild West...


UALOneKPlus:
"...prove yourself to be a pest."


'Pests' are easily reported to FT and OMNI. And stop calling people names, please...


UALOneKPlus:
"Why don't you consolidate all of your threads into one single thread?"
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021029.html


Utterly preposterous suggestion. Fters should know better...


UALOneKPlus:
"They all seem to be the same political agenda."
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021029.html

And even if they are - - so what? Others have had a political agenda, and have started
many threads 'with their political agenda'. Is it just that the 'political agenda' here
is disliked by certain posters? Does that give them the right to disrupt the proceedings,
hijack discussions, and make personal assertions about other FTers?


UALOneKPlus:
"Dude, please get a clue."
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021029.html


I do not like to be addressed as "Dude", or anything else, for that matter. None of us should
be addressed as ANYTHING, unless you are engaged in a personal conversation elsewhere.


UALOneKPlus:
I DO NOT want Omni to be flooded with this useless junk, even though I support the cause."


There are thoset words "useless" and "junk" again. There must be something more useful to do
on a fine Sunday than to all comments and posts by another as "useless"...


UALOneKPlus:
"When someone is a disruption at Omni, it's not personal to ask that they stop that behavior
or get timed out."
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021010.html


I don't see where anyone was asked "that they stop that behavior". They were told off,
personally accused and warned in public in no uncertain terms that they would be 'timed out'.
Is that "asking"? Did anyone email the member in question, ask, and discuss it in private?

When someone is becoming a disruption at Omni, any warnings about being timed out are done
in private by a moderator. If any member has behavior to report, they can do so in private
by using the response system and email OMNI at FT.


UALOneKPlus:
"How that becomes "personal" is quite unclear to me."


It seems that the argument being made here is that 'the end justifies the means', something
which is abhorrent to most liberals, and seems to be a favorite excuse of totalitarian,
fascist or right-wing regimes.

If an FTer makes a judgement (rightly or wrongly) that another member is in need of a
rebuke and remidial action, then there should be no automatic 'escape clause' that any
member can become personal and violate the TOS themselves by taking justice into their
own hands. This is elitism and "Wild West" Bush style vigelante justice...

"How that becomes 'personal' "? I'll explain it: Whenever you get personal, you get personal.
I hope that is clear enough.


RKG:
"Did you forget to take your medication today?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/021032.html


Another personal attack on someone.

Can we just not get personal, and stick to fighting about what is right and what is wrong?...
.



[This message has been edited by IJK (edited Mar 14, 2004).]

I herewith repeat: I propose a timeout for (public) timeout-requests
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000890.html

Thanks IJK, that was totally entertaining.

I'm flattered that you found so much time to dote on my posts.

Ta da.

Yes, papa!!

I'm into raves as well. I like Crystal Method and Moby.

Woowooo, twirling around a neon light in the darkness. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I agree Rudi!

But then, both you and I should get time-outs too. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif