Hello.
First - some advice. If you really don't want to read about this stuff, please consider not reading it. If you think it needs to be given a rest, again, feel free to give it a rest and don't read it.
The following (after my introduction) is my conversation with Anderson via my email address - tqmca001@yahoo.ca. I give this address out freely, because frankly, I rarely use it.
Let me again point out I am fully aware this is a privately owned site and freedom of speech isn't some legal right at play here. The ownership can ban who it wants to ban, by whatever whims he/she so wishes to act on. But having the ability to act doesn't mean such action is therefore the right course of action. Companies make mistakes all the time.
I saw nothing in Anderson's posts that were deserving of a banning. Yet, he was banned. On the basis of evidence available, I attacked the banning. In case you weren't sure - I'd do it again in a heartbeat - not just for Anderson, but for almost any of you with very few exceptions (hello, Cinelli).
Now it came out from Steph, and then Sheik, that Anderson allegedly threatened some sp's. And for my very strident position, I too was banned for several days. I, however, threatened no one. You can't begin to know how chastened I feel (well actually, you can - imagine a rock being punished......)
While I have a moderately low opinion of Anderson, frankly, it would surprise me if he really threatened anybody via pm. It would be an intensely stupid thing to do, and at his angriest here, Anderson wasn't going around threatening anybody, nor did his last posts sounds so particularly like he was angry. With this in mind, it would also surprise me that someone would make up such a charge.
So I emailed him and asked him specifically why he threatened anybody. As you'd expect, he has denied doing so. Below is the conversation. Feel free to make your own judgments. I've made mine.
I've left out certain passages which were extraneous to the discussion and also certain passages at Anderson's request. If you see '.....', it's because I've taken on the role of language police. I've not corrected Anderson's grammar or spelling (but was sorely tempted....)
Me: Little one, why would you threaten anybody?
Anderson: I would never ever fucking threaten anyone ?!????!!!!
What are you even talking about for god sake
Me: Keeping this short.
Sheik claims you were banned because you threatened
via pm a service provider or two. The service
provider complained about you and they checked into it
and banned you.
Now I'm banned too. Toodles.
Anderson: This is bullshit.
I never ever threatened anyone, and what the fuck does a ''service provider or two'' mean. He is a ....... for stating that.
You can read into my threads enough to know that I am not that fucking stupid.
This ''steph'' individual obviously fabricated this re the thread and got me banned.
Thats fine, whatever.
Me: So,
1. You've now read my thread.
2. You're denying Steph's charges.
3. You're denying Sheik's charges.
Please confirm these 3 points.
Questions:
1. Had you at all been pming this Steph?
2. Had you been pming any sp's at all over the
previous few weeks?
It wouldn't hurt to be fully forthcoming about anything - however misinterpreted it would be.
Anderson: Yes sir !
I am very pissed off.
I have read your thread,Steph is a .... liar and I would never threaten someone on a freaking cyber board,Shiek has fabricated this to justify his ridiculous actions.
I debated them as you saw, then I just had enough .I sent 1 pm to Steph, and I just clarified my posistion in a very non aggressive way.
I do not have the pm as my box only holds incomings, not outgoings for some reason. Anyway the worst thing I wrote was something to the effect of not trying to justify your actions while making money off womans asses and throats .
I would never threaten.
Me: I guess, ultimately, this is a he said/she said scenario.
In the original thread Steph said she only complained about your threats to the moderators after you were banned.
Which is all the more curious - because it suggests you were banned for other than Steph related reasons. Now Sheik said you were banned for making pm threats.
So we are left with:
Either Steph has been fully truthful or not. And,
Sheik has been either fully truthful or not.
Hard to believe someone would make up being threatened by someone - to what purpose? Hard to believe Sheik would, in a rage, ban you, then make up an excuse.
Hard to believe you would threaten someone.
Interesting.
Anderson:No, not really.
I irked people with that hooker thread.
I sent a pm to Steph.
I was banned. I sent no pms to anyone else except a few people like you and me just bantering back and forth.
Steph was pissed, and called me a yankeee kike openly and took a shot , pays the board money for adverts, and Sheik has been bugged by me since my first thread since I questioned who they ban and why .
Whatever,
This bothers me because I have formed some relationships on this board and it is unfair for them to lie.
Me: Are you saying, she called you a "yankee kike"? Those
were her terms? Where did she do this?
Anderson: She stated on the LIM thread and I will quote as best as I can '' I could call you a yankee kike jew boy '' but I won't .
She also states Jew boy, and Kike , numerous times.
Me: I recall that her point was that you were wrong
about your terminology, and she was trying to make an
analogy to the terms you state.... I don't recall her
using them in a weaponized way.
Anderson: Her analogy was passive agressively to call me a kike.
Me: By passive aggressive - you mean she isn't exactly
calling you such names (not that name calling would
justify a threat).
__________
So there you have it. Steph, guessing, was obviously angry and upset with Anderson in the thread over in the lounge over his clumsy attempts at defining certain terms. Anderson was obviously angry and upset with Steph over her alleged use of the term 'kike'. Anderson is denying quite strenuously the claim that he threatened her or anyone, but my experience is that people don't make such claims lightly (but surely there have been cases of false accusations.) My money is on two people talking past each other and neither side listening to what the other is saying.
I can't help but feel there were much better ways for the moderator(s) to deal with this. And while on that topic, I'm terribly glad to see Cinneli still posting - we wouldn't want the anti-semitic post quotient dropping now would we - no threat in that, is there?
Still - it's all too easy for me to say the moderators could have dealt with this in a better way. It's always easy being a critic. Awaiting my next ban.......
First - some advice. If you really don't want to read about this stuff, please consider not reading it. If you think it needs to be given a rest, again, feel free to give it a rest and don't read it.
The following (after my introduction) is my conversation with Anderson via my email address - tqmca001@yahoo.ca. I give this address out freely, because frankly, I rarely use it.
Let me again point out I am fully aware this is a privately owned site and freedom of speech isn't some legal right at play here. The ownership can ban who it wants to ban, by whatever whims he/she so wishes to act on. But having the ability to act doesn't mean such action is therefore the right course of action. Companies make mistakes all the time.
I saw nothing in Anderson's posts that were deserving of a banning. Yet, he was banned. On the basis of evidence available, I attacked the banning. In case you weren't sure - I'd do it again in a heartbeat - not just for Anderson, but for almost any of you with very few exceptions (hello, Cinelli).
Now it came out from Steph, and then Sheik, that Anderson allegedly threatened some sp's. And for my very strident position, I too was banned for several days. I, however, threatened no one. You can't begin to know how chastened I feel (well actually, you can - imagine a rock being punished......)
While I have a moderately low opinion of Anderson, frankly, it would surprise me if he really threatened anybody via pm. It would be an intensely stupid thing to do, and at his angriest here, Anderson wasn't going around threatening anybody, nor did his last posts sounds so particularly like he was angry. With this in mind, it would also surprise me that someone would make up such a charge.
So I emailed him and asked him specifically why he threatened anybody. As you'd expect, he has denied doing so. Below is the conversation. Feel free to make your own judgments. I've made mine.
I've left out certain passages which were extraneous to the discussion and also certain passages at Anderson's request. If you see '.....', it's because I've taken on the role of language police. I've not corrected Anderson's grammar or spelling (but was sorely tempted....)
Me: Little one, why would you threaten anybody?
Anderson: I would never ever fucking threaten anyone ?!????!!!!
What are you even talking about for god sake
Me: Keeping this short.
Sheik claims you were banned because you threatened
via pm a service provider or two. The service
provider complained about you and they checked into it
and banned you.
Now I'm banned too. Toodles.
Anderson: This is bullshit.
I never ever threatened anyone, and what the fuck does a ''service provider or two'' mean. He is a ....... for stating that.
You can read into my threads enough to know that I am not that fucking stupid.
This ''steph'' individual obviously fabricated this re the thread and got me banned.
Thats fine, whatever.
Me: So,
1. You've now read my thread.
2. You're denying Steph's charges.
3. You're denying Sheik's charges.
Please confirm these 3 points.
Questions:
1. Had you at all been pming this Steph?
2. Had you been pming any sp's at all over the
previous few weeks?
It wouldn't hurt to be fully forthcoming about anything - however misinterpreted it would be.
Anderson: Yes sir !
I am very pissed off.
I have read your thread,Steph is a .... liar and I would never threaten someone on a freaking cyber board,Shiek has fabricated this to justify his ridiculous actions.
I debated them as you saw, then I just had enough .I sent 1 pm to Steph, and I just clarified my posistion in a very non aggressive way.
I do not have the pm as my box only holds incomings, not outgoings for some reason. Anyway the worst thing I wrote was something to the effect of not trying to justify your actions while making money off womans asses and throats .
I would never threaten.
Me: I guess, ultimately, this is a he said/she said scenario.
In the original thread Steph said she only complained about your threats to the moderators after you were banned.
Which is all the more curious - because it suggests you were banned for other than Steph related reasons. Now Sheik said you were banned for making pm threats.
So we are left with:
Either Steph has been fully truthful or not. And,
Sheik has been either fully truthful or not.
Hard to believe someone would make up being threatened by someone - to what purpose? Hard to believe Sheik would, in a rage, ban you, then make up an excuse.
Hard to believe you would threaten someone.
Interesting.
Anderson:No, not really.
I irked people with that hooker thread.
I sent a pm to Steph.
I was banned. I sent no pms to anyone else except a few people like you and me just bantering back and forth.
Steph was pissed, and called me a yankeee kike openly and took a shot , pays the board money for adverts, and Sheik has been bugged by me since my first thread since I questioned who they ban and why .
Whatever,
This bothers me because I have formed some relationships on this board and it is unfair for them to lie.
Me: Are you saying, she called you a "yankee kike"? Those
were her terms? Where did she do this?
Anderson: She stated on the LIM thread and I will quote as best as I can '' I could call you a yankee kike jew boy '' but I won't .
She also states Jew boy, and Kike , numerous times.
Me: I recall that her point was that you were wrong
about your terminology, and she was trying to make an
analogy to the terms you state.... I don't recall her
using them in a weaponized way.
Anderson: Her analogy was passive agressively to call me a kike.
Me: By passive aggressive - you mean she isn't exactly
calling you such names (not that name calling would
justify a threat).
__________
So there you have it. Steph, guessing, was obviously angry and upset with Anderson in the thread over in the lounge over his clumsy attempts at defining certain terms. Anderson was obviously angry and upset with Steph over her alleged use of the term 'kike'. Anderson is denying quite strenuously the claim that he threatened her or anyone, but my experience is that people don't make such claims lightly (but surely there have been cases of false accusations.) My money is on two people talking past each other and neither side listening to what the other is saying.
I can't help but feel there were much better ways for the moderator(s) to deal with this. And while on that topic, I'm terribly glad to see Cinneli still posting - we wouldn't want the anti-semitic post quotient dropping now would we - no threat in that, is there?
Still - it's all too easy for me to say the moderators could have dealt with this in a better way. It's always easy being a critic. Awaiting my next ban.......
