DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



Oh, we're dropping Brian's definition from Wikipedia now and striking out on your own very limited form of definition?

This is fun! Can you do a few more gyrations for us? To the tune of Chubby Checker's greatest hits?


*Snore*....as if, really, he NEEDS "promotion" from such a low-rent district forum as this where it seems all of four people are active on any given day....

Dear, if you can't deal with the arguments, JUST ADMIT IT. You'll feel so much better, and Brian might get back some of the credibility he's losing with things like the Beddru fiasco.

Eddie, can you clarify one thing, please.

How is linking to a site a promotion of it? Holding is presenting data and arguments that happen to be on his site. How about I post (with his permission of course) all of his items on my webspace and then he can link to that? Would that be more acceptable? (of course I agree not to link to that webspace.)

I do want to make a prediction: We ban "Sheila" and invite Holding to register here.

And then a chorus of people mourn "Sheila's" demise as if she actually exists, and act as if Holding himself has actually been banned.

If I'm wrong, I will eat my hat.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

I fail to see what profit holding could gain by "fooling" anybody with an internet pseudonym.

If richard carrier were to come on this site, would you demand he use his real name? Regardless of whatever status I may have within any community, I enjoy my safety. I put my real name (first, not last) on my Xanga webjournal.
But I think it's ultimately my decision where and when I plug personal info.

Perhaps sheila could add something to his signature stating that he was responsible for the tektonics website, and from there, people could do their own research?

I dunno. Just looking for middle ground.




Understandable on one hand. You havn't made the claim that you would bar him from posting, merely that you would bar him from posting under a pseudonym.

However, on the basis of personal rights, I contend that this is a decision that should be left to mr. holding.

I think the sticky idea would work. It wouldn't be that hard for anyone on the forums to place a link at any point in time, to the stickied anouncement.

People are constantly using the argument of "do your own research" which I kinda dissagree with, but since it only takes a few clicks to find, and people really should read the announcements anyways as well as the rules and FAQ before posting, I don't think it's too much to ask.


On a personal note, I would like to say that I appreciate your attempt to be fair, in puting the issue to the community, when you have the power to simply ban outright.

Thank you for your moderate moderating.





Love,
Goth_Slut

__________________
My favorite universe analogy:
A circle has a finite diameter, and a finite circumference, yet the ratio between the two is infinite.

I will *pay* to watch you eat your hat

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



The latter means nothing whatsoever, dear. You and the rest are simply playing games to avoid admitting your inability.

As for vitriol, I'm still wondering about Brian calling tragically killed Branch Davidians "crispy". It seems likely that he and his lesions (er, I mean legions) are just poor sports who can dish it out, but can't take it.

Burn the house down, then complain about the carpet. Good boy.


As many as have been posted, you OUGHT to know! But really:

Ah..of course. Another "Statement of Belief" rendition.


Given how few active users there are here, that would indeed be a tremendous concern!


So here's the sum:

Ed, Edd and Eddie want to be able to freely define "sock puppet" (or whatever) and want me to not act like "crispy" Brian while here.

He thinks that a website ranked about 300,000 ticks above his master's is coming here seeking "promotion".

Mmmm. I can see why the Christ myth is so popular here.

I admit it, Mr. Holding. I haven't even READ them. I'm focusing on behavior here, not arguments. As I've said, you could be making fine arguments as far as I know.

Mr. Holding, please understand: It's about your BEHAVIOR, not your opinions. We DO want your arguments here, we just want them from you, and in a civil manner.

Please do register here as "J.P. Holding," and argue civilly and brilliantly. We will value that contribution.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

For the record: I don't know who "Ed" and "Edd" refer to.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

Goth,

Anonymity would of course still be allowed here.

If you're a private person and want to remain private, of course that's a legitimate use of a pseudonym.

But if you're a PUBLIC person and want to create a nasty sock puppet to promote yourself and avoid accountability, that's a different thing.

__________________
Eddie
Moderator, Movie Forums
TIP: Don't feed the trolls

DISCLOSURE FROM ADMIN: "Sheila Rangslinger" was discovered to be a sock puppet identity created by J.P. Holding. Any statements about J.P. Holding in this post were written by J.P. Holding himself. More.



If you haven't read the arguments, what are you doing? Reading the posts and when you get to an argument (past "vitriol" alleged) putting dark glasses on?

Do you really think you're making sense here, dear?


If you want his arguments, it shouldn't matter who brings them and how, now, should it? Especially if it is I, one of his own creations.

This is an obvious distraction/avoidance. You have spent pages on it that could be spent catching me flat-footed with actual rebuttals and evidence, if you had it.

Obviously, you don't.

Obviously, you shift definitions or ignore them as you please, and have no concern to correct your own inconsistences. The goal was in your mind from the start, no? It was just a matter of making the spin sound good. Simply admit this.

Just try: Explain how a website ranked about 300,000 ticks above this ones is coming here seeking "promotion". Especially when it is already promoted on theologyweb.com, which ranks at 81,714 in alexa.com's ranks.

Humor me. Try to explain your arguments rather than dropping them like hot potatoes when called on their absurdity. Or else admit it is contrived. Can you do that?

I'll look forward to either an explanation or the expected result you already had in mind when I return tomorrow. Cowardice manifests itself so easily from those in fear.