Complaints about Lothar's moderating

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:29 pm

NOTE: Lothar is a Delete Happy Nazi -Lothar
Hey Vader, you're right about Lothar

Oh wait, where is your post? Lothar deleted it

EDIT: I didn't start this thread, LotharNazi did.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:35 pm

He also deleted my witty reply.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:06 pm

Why delete a reply?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:30 pm

Because the reply was to the thing I deleted. It wasn't a witty reply to the actual thread topic -- I don't delete those.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:48 pm

And what "thing" did you delete?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:17 am

yea what did you delete Lothar?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:37 am

Lothar is getting a little authority happy again. Maybe he needs to see how it feels to have a post deleted

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:17 am

What I deleted was a message from Avder that was intended to be flamebait. It read something like "Lothar has wet dreams about straw men", and based on his PM, it was clear he intended for it to distract from the discussion. Rather than respond and let the thread go off topic, I decided it would be best to simply remove that and the off-topic response to it.

By the way: Birds, I'd have appreciated if, when you decided to make my moderating style an issue yet again, you'd have started this new thread yourself rather than posting this in the old thread and dragging it off topic. It's a pain to split threads.

And if I post something off-topic like that, feel free to delete it. I could probably use a smack in the head once in a while.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:25 am

i've got a whip apparently, so what time should me and goob expect you?

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:30 am

See why I wanted to switch with you birds? I want no part of this.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:38 am

I want part in this so someone can stand up for others posts being deleted. It's silly and seems to cause more contreversy than leaving the offending posts alone.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:54 am

birdseye is a mod?

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:05 am

That's the rumor although I've seen very little evidence to support it.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:06 am

Of course my post was meant to be inflammatory. Thats what the objective of heckling is. But it was also meant to point out that youre becoming quite dependant and broken-record-like with your staw man accusations. You, Lothar, have gone beyond brick wall in more than one area. I had no intention of dragging the thread off topic. I expected one or two counters to my post, of which Dcrazy provided one, and then I expected it to resume normally, which it did, before you deleted my post the second time.

How you publicly interperet the pm I sent you is your choice. The reason I didnt send a second one was because its apparent you will accept no input or criticism of your moderating style, you'll just discard it all and remain die-hard. I find it peronally insulting that both the first and second time you deleted my post you neglected to send a PM. I certainly would have welcomed the news of my posts deletion a little bit more openly if you had done this. I may have even allowed myself to see from your point of view. But what I observed was nothing more than you flexing your mod muscles. So as it stands right now I cannot get my head far enough up my @$$ to see from your point of view on this matter.

Heckling is going to be something that goes on in any forum where conflicting view points clash. Deal with it. What you did today was take a post criticizing you personally and delete it. From my point of view, thats you saying to the rest of the forum that heckling you is not allowed. Yet there is plenty of heckling going on in other threads between different people, whats different here? Are you afraid of being heckled, Lothar? If you were to strictly enforce a no heckling policy, a sizeable portion of this forums posts would need to be deleted. Somehow I dont see you doing that, so why delete mine? If you dont like my heckling of you, dont respond to it. As far as I'm concerned, I've beaten you because I got under your skin enough through that one small post that you retaliated with whatever means were at your disposal. I got a responce. Didn't anyone ever tell you that the best way to make a heckler go away is to learn how to ingore them completely? Learn to be the duck and let the water wash right off you. Maybe if you had left my post, it would matter f*** all and I wouldnt even care right now. Oh well, no sense wondering about what could have been.

Its not as if anyone here is going to go on a ++postcount spree by heckling (well...*eyes the crowd with narrowed eyes*). I certainly dont intend to. But I see no reason why those of us who sit and observe from the peanut gallery shouldnt be allowed to throw a tomato at the speaker once and a while to shake him up. Disruptions are a natural part of any open debate. Congress vs. Parliment, remember. I'm not the only heckler in this forum. You wanna oppress me, you better oppress them as well.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:41 am

From Fusions thread:

"I think the AWB ban was meant to keep guns out of whacko's hands woodchip, sort of like yours. I am willing to be your one of those people that keeps a handgun in the glove compartment in case someone cuts you off in traffic. Then you can really teach them right?" Zurdick

So this isn't flamebait? Consistancy...where's the consistancy?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:14 am

No it's not flamebait Woodchip. It's an accurate representation of you. That's the only thing I can figure from someone who wants the ban on assault weapons to expire. We're not talking about handguns or rifles, we're talking about guns designed to kill. Just strikes me a little off kilter. I gave Barry a little heat because he likes guns but in all honesty, it's his right to buy guns if he so chooses. But there should be some kind of limitation, assault weapons should not be on the streets for people like you to buy. Simple enough?

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:37 am

kufyit wrote:And what "thing" did you delete?

it's not like he misplaced or "altered" air national guard records.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:02 am

- nothing to add, wishes could delete own post -

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:37 am

Zuruck wrote:No it's not flamebait Woodchip. It's an accurate representation of you. That's the only thing I can figure from someone who wants the ban on assault weapons to expire. We're not talking about handguns or rifles, we're talking about guns designed to kill. Just strikes me a little off kilter. I gave Barry a little heat because he likes guns but in all honesty, it's his right to buy guns if he so chooses. But there should be some kind of limitation, assault weapons should not be on the streets for people like you to buy. Simple enough?

Too bad you couldn't answer the question I posed. If you could you would understand the sheer idiocy of the bill...but then the bill was written so idiots like you would feel "safer".

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:39 am

My heh to Vader wasn't deleted tho, so now I dont know who I am 'heh'ing

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:00 am

Gooberman wrote:My heh to Vader wasn't deleted tho, so now I dont know who I am 'heh'ing

It's OK to 'Heh' yourself, it won't really make you go blind. Just wash your hands when your done though.

Back to the non-topic at hand:
We need Rican back so people will have a target for their pent up rage, either that or they should go out and get laid more often

Bonz · Post by **Bonz** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:28 am

Zuruck wrote:No it's not flamebait Woodchip. It's an accurate representation of you. That's the only thing I can figure from someone who wants the ban on assault weapons to expire. We're not talking about handguns or rifles, we're talking about guns designed to kill. Just strikes me a little off kilter. I gave Barry a little heat because he likes guns but in all honesty, it's his right to buy guns if he so chooses. But there should be some kind of limitation, assault weapons should not be on the streets for people like you to buy. Simple enough?

heh, I was under the impression all guns were designed to kill. A 22 pistol will kill you as quick as an
AR 15 will. Woodchip is right, Obviously you don't fully understand what your even talking about

This assault weapons ban doesn't stop you from owning an assault rifle, it does make it illegal for certain mods though.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:47 am

Manchester United drew with Bolton today, crappy result, but at least Van the man is fit.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:36 pm

That's why I'm fed up and think I should be allowed to own a nuke. Nukes don't kill people, people do

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Zuruck: a handgun isn't designed to kill a person? What do you expect to happen? the bullet bouncing off someone?

but anyways...

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:44 pm

Oh my God you guys are worse than a bunch of old nannies...