The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 What are we arguing about here? The LAW says that you cannot make a direct threat against the President of the United States. Going by the document Highland presented, that's as clear as day. But then again -- Failed Mascot didn't do ANYTHING of the sort. He went from saying, in an indirect - almost sarcastic manner - that "one can hope" something happens. Following that, he changed his statement to "he wouldn't shed a tear." He never said he was threatening the President. He never even implied such a thing. Despite Highland attempting to convince people of a non-existent line, hoping that such a thing happens is NOT against the law. It's not smart. It's not nice. It's not any of those things. But it's not against the law. And if Mascot was banned on the basis of what he said being against the law, then the decision really should be reconsidered. Of course, if you're going to pull out the "banned for stupidity card", that opens another Pandora's Box of people who deserve the banning more than him. Either way you look at it, the decision here doesn't make much sense at all. This may have just been a case of rabbit ears. Hear the slightest thing that could be a bannable offense and pounce.
IllustriousOne Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Let's put the shoe on the other foot... If this was the Clinton years during the time when everyone and their brother was jumping the fence at the White House, would YOU think it was banworthy to talk about how glad someone would be if Slick Willy and Hillary got .45 caliber enemas? No. Laughable.
Vyce Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 He got banned for being an idiot. There are rules of this board about flaming in general which he wasn't respecting. Debating whether or not what he said is technically illegal or not is ridiculous - he was flamebaiting on a topic that is so taboo in our society that the line between "oh, he's just joking" and "no, he's serious" is about as blurred as it can be (for matters of, quite frankly, public policy). To be fair, I don't mind if he's unbanned - but like I proposed, a little vacation (let the mods decide how long) wouldn't hurt him.
The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The notion that assassinating the president of the United States would just make all our problems magically disappear was just plain nuts.
NYU Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The notion that someone could take his comment "One can hope" and completly misconstrue that into the idea of "FailedMascot is serious about wanting to see the President die" or "FailedMascot could very well be planning to kill George Bush" is plain nuts. Czech's comment about "rabbit ears" seems the most likely to me.
Styles Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The notion that someone could take his comment "One can hope" and completly misconstrue that into the idea of "FailedMascot is serious about wanting to see the President die" or "FailedMascot could very well be planning to kill George Bush" is plain nuts. Czech's comment about "rabbit ears" seems the most likely to me. It was offensive and beyond the bounds of decency for this board. The mods are allowed the discretion to ban if they feel someone is being offensive or any idiot. It could also be argued as trolling, as in a somewhat comedy thread about Michael Moore, a serious comment about hoping someone kills the President (when unfortunately that it at least a possible scenario in such a high volatile enviornment-I wonder how he'd feel if it really happened?) is not only off topic but meant to incite a reaction and it's not something that should even be joked about.
The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The notion that someone could take his comment "One can hope" and completly misconstrue that into the idea of "FailedMascot is serious about wanting to see the President die" or "FailedMascot could very well be planning to kill George Bush" is plain nuts. Czech's comment about "rabbit ears" seems the most likely to me. 1. No offense but FS does seem like he might be the type to act irrationally. 2. Hey, it's not like it's unprecedented.
Justice Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Wow, saw that post and saw that coming a mile away. I'm a bit torn on this: He didn't say he wanted to kill the President, though saying "One can only hope he gets a shot to the head" is pretty indicative of him actively wanting the death of the President. It's a stupid fucking thing to say, maybe deserving of a temporary ban, but I'm not sure a permanent ban is really necessary here. And, for the record, I hear this stuff way too much so I'm not really that offended at all. Stupid twats are fairly common if you haven't looked around in the world, and meeting one on the internet isn't all that surprising. Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Let's just look at it as is: He said stupid shit involving someone taking a sniper rifle to the President (Regardless of who the President is), and that sort of shit SHOULD be punished. I just might not agree on the severity.
teke184 Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 We just worked out a deal to come off of the total ban... He's going to apologize for what was said and will be limited to the OaOast folders. He now has read-access to this thread, although the permissions mask on his account should be restricting his reply-access.
Guest Smues Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 We just worked out a deal to come off of the total ban... He's going to apologize for what was said and will be limited to the OaOast folders. He now has read-access to this thread, although the permissions mask on his account should be restricting his reply-access. For the retarded among us (see also: me) what are the OaOast folders?
NYU Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Surprisingly enough, besides Teke asking if it would be fine if someone had made such a comment during the Clinton inauguration, this entire matter stayed away from turning into a partisan debate.
bob_barron Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Let him post everywhere but CE- he's fine in Sports
Vern Gagne Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 If you don't go with a total ban, why not just keep him out of CE?
teke184 Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 If you don't go with a total ban, why not just keep him out of CE? He specifically requested OaOast access and nothing else. I'll probably add Sports back in as well because he's doing no harm there that I know of.
The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 We just worked out a deal to come off of the total ban... He's going to apologize for what was said and will be limited to the OaOast folders. He now has read-access to this thread, although the permissions mask on his account should be restricting his reply-access. For the retarded among us (see also: me) what are the OaOast folders? Some folders named after a guy who was also rabbit-ears banned
Kahran Ramsus Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Let's just look at it as is: He said stupid shit involving someone taking a sniper rifle to the President (Regardless of who the President is), and that sort of shit SHOULD be punished. I just might not agree on the severity. Some things are above politics.
Styles Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 I would agree with the CE ban. Some people are just total idiots when it comes to discussing politics but are fine and entertaining in other mediums. He deserves to be banned here because he showed with that comment he can't maturely discuss current events, but he's apparently fine elsewhere so what the hell.
The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 I think we need to forget about all this fighting and concentrate on what's really important: making CronoT get rid of that sig picture.
Justice Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Surprisingly enough, besides Teke asking if it would be fine if someone had made such a comment during the Clinton inauguration, this entire matter stayed away from turning into a partisan debate. I'm not saying it was exactly mentioned, but the way the divide goes, it seemed like there were very partisan undertones. No offense, but I honestly see it being exactly reversed had it been Clinton, no matter what we say. Come on, we are CE Board people. We talk politics. Can we REALLY be trusted that much?
Kahran Ramsus Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 We just worked out a deal to come off of the total ban... He's going to apologize for what was said and will be limited to the OaOast folders. He now has read-access to this thread, although the permissions mask on his account should be restricting his reply-access. For the retarded among us (see also: me) what are the OaOast folders? Some folders named after a guy who was also rabbit-ears banned That was different. He was simply being an ass in the Sports Folder and we just got sick of him.
Vern Gagne Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Who is this poster your speaking of?
Styles Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Frankly, I'd like to see both sides shut the fuck up about the supposed 'partisan shit' behind this. I doubt Teke is acting on behalf of the Conservative Brigade here, and us conservatives need not act like he was acting insane or anything. Surprisingly enough, besides Teke asking if it would be fine if someone had made such a comment during the Clinton inauguration, this entire matter stayed away from turning into a partisan debate. I'm not saying it was exactly mentioned, but the way the divide goes, it seemed like there were very partisan undertones. No offense, but I honestly see it being exactly reversed had it been Clinton, no matter what we say. Come on, we are CE Board people. We talk politics. Can we REALLY be trusted that much? I don't think so, Justice. I'd like to think most of us are mature people who respect the President as the leader of our country regardless of affiliation and a person at worst, who does not deserve death wished upon them. I have no love for Carter but I surely wish him nothing but health and happiness for the rest of his life.
Mole Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 I didn't go to class for a day to protest my school closing down. Waste of my time.
The Czech Republic Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 We just worked out a deal to come off of the total ban... He's going to apologize for what was said and will be limited to the OaOast folders. He now has read-access to this thread, although the permissions mask on his account should be restricting his reply-access. For the retarded among us (see also: me) what are the OaOast folders? Some folders named after a guy who was also rabbit-ears banned That was different. He was simply being an ass in the Sports Folder and we just got sick of him. I'm like the lone member of the Anglesault fan club. The guy amused me in an Ann Coulter way.
Styles Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 Yeah, back to the original topic, my senior year in high school a bunch of liberal students (and teachers!) wer organising a "walk out" in the middle of school, I think around or before the Iraq war as a protest, and they were wearing these stupid anti-war patches. So my friend cooked up some homemade black armbands with "Saddam" in a circle and a cross through it and distributed them out as a counter-protest. My film studies teacher was like the organiser of the thing (she was practically a hippy politically and was very vocal in her anti-Bush sentiment) and she seemed to avoid looking at me and the others wearing the anti-Saddam bands. I vaguely remember the principal not wanting to get involved in the whole thing but can't remember if a walkout actually happened or if some compromise was actually reached. What is it with liberals and not wanting to work/learn anyway? Everything is a protest and a walkout and a demonstration...
BUTT Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 You know, limiting someone to the OaOast is probably would should have been done to Anglesault. I mean, it only makes sense.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The fact that many people here brought up what would happen if it was Clinton, shows that they're turning this into a "Conservative v. Liberal" thing. Proof is that all of the usuals have picked sides based on that. Is there a point to constantly pointing Michael Moore? You don't like him, we get it. This is fluff at it's best, or worst.
{''({o..o})''} Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 He didn't really do anything in it anymore as far as I know.
Kahran Ramsus Posted January 19, 2005 Report Posted January 19, 2005 The fact that many people here brought up what would happen if it was Clinton, shows that they're turning this into a "Conservative v. Liberal" thing. Proof is that all of the usuals have picked sides based on that. Is there a point to constantly pointing Michael Moore? You don't like him, we get it. This is fluff at it's best, or worst. Normally, but it became something far beyond Michael Moore.
Recommended Posts