The Current Events folder. It's a lot like Hitler.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I personally won't miss his turning every single thread into how liberals are somehow collectively stupid. Nor will I miss his jingoistic hateful bullshit and using sources just as misleading as the evil libs he decried.

[ISportsFan 0]

Sometimes moderators have to make tough decisions, and it appears this was one of those times. They had to make a choice on whether or not Mike was more of a detriment than an asset to CE and the board as a whole, and apparently their choice is that we're better off without Mike.

 

Since I'm not a mod, I can't really understand what goes on behind those closed doors. But, while I can't fault the mods for making a difficult decision, I do think it was the wrong decision. I got the same impression that kkk did from reading this folder so far -- Mike was banned because of something that happened a year ago, along with numerous minor, but cummulative, incidents since that point. If they were adding up, why not warn him?

 

If something was truly wrong, or if he did something extremely horrible, then banning without warning makes sense. But, when it's just a buildup of past experiences climaxing this week (which didn't seem out of the ordinary to me for CE), then someone needed to warn Mike before he was banned. Simply banning someone for 1 year of minor problems without letting him know what to stop is really weak, and not very proactive. It seems as if it was someone who the moderators agreed with more often, a warning and more lienency would have occurred. It feels like the mods wanted to get rid of him for quite some time (which is ok, but warn him so he can have the chance to change), and decided that without warning that it was time.

 

So, I respect that a decision was made, but I do not think the decision was the correct one.

 

Jason

[Slayer 0]

I must say this came totally out of left field with little to no real reason behind it other than a "we haven't liked him for the longest time" vibe. Mike and I were never really friends, and in fact I spent most of my first year arguing with him fairly often before realizing it was better just to let him be, interacting and occasionally joking with him in small doses. He could be long-winded, and engaged in ad hominem far too often, but he was hardly a detriment to the board for the most part.

 

It seems to me that the methods of banning nowadays are based more on the whims of the current crop of mods rather than any possible egregious offense by the banned. In the past, it was easy to know when posters were banned because it was usually preceded by a large flame war between the banned and other posters with mods mixed in here and there. Now it's like the message board equivalent of Paulie and Silvio taking a marked poster out into the woods and putting two in the head, leaving someone else to find the dead account and questions as to what the fuck happened.

 

 

 

 

 

...plus, how can there be justice on a message board where Mike is dead while INXS posts freely?

[bob_barron 0]

Mike just took "heated discussion" and turned it into "You're an idiot because you don't agree with my view, which is the right one."

 

I don't see how that's a bannable offence. He had strong opinions and presented them and defended them. Again- isn't TSM about that?

 

I would think that this would be a benefit for CE.  Now all the other posters who want to offer opinions on things can debate freely without having to fear Mike stomping in and taking things over (which you have to admit that he had a tendency to do).

 

People always had the option of ignoring Mike if they didn't want to argue him.

 

Mike was the complete picture of the intellectual elitism that CE "regulars" carry about themselves. A majority of these regulars happen to agree with Mike and find him an asset to discussion (read: ringleader who they can hide behind like kids with MD hiding behind the kid with scoliosis that has a pointy stick), so now those who didn't like Mike and wanted him banned that weren't regular posters are idiots and morons.

 

Not really. I don't really post too much in CE and just read the discussion going on there and I enjoy seeing Mike debate and go back and forth with people. The reason for his banning was really weak. He didn't do anything in CE this week, and that's what the reasoning seems to be.

 

Also, the Farenheit 9/11 thread is being brought up more by people who support him than those against him. Are you convincing us or yourselves?

 

Because that was Mike at his worst. Why wasn't he banned then? Why wait almost a year to ban him now? How does that make any sense?

 

You forget his bitching about Marney's self-imposed exile and slight overreaction, to put it gently.

 

That was in Hardcore Discussion, happened a long time ago and Mike was in the right. Should he be banned for that?

 

You forget his sole moment of vulnerability when he told his sordid tale of being shitkicked by his girlfriend, and then proceeded to lash out at everyone who commented in an unsympathetic way, despite his posting this on a public forum for all to see.

 

You're really reaching Kotz. This sounds like reasons not to like Mike instead reasons to ban him.

 

You forget the countless "complete idiot"s, "fucking moron"s, "retard"s, all in reference to whoever disagreed with him.

 

I thought flaming was allowed, particularly in CE. Banning him for being a dick is again, really reaching.

 

You forget how many people have said Mike drove them from CE, myself staying away for over a year before returning recently with the current trend towards less one-side-or-the-other crap.

 

That's your problem. I for one enjoyed reading Mike's back and forth debates wih people. Except for Robot Jerk since he was really terrible.

 

INXS is hilarious in his awfulness though.

 

He's a previously banned poster and much worse then Mike.

 

Fanofcoils is the guy that had the dream match thread right? That was a classic. pure hilarity. I hadn't laughed at something so much at tsm in a year.

 

His posts in the Apprentice thread were terrible.

 

 

Also, Robot Jerk and Shadow are still posting here.

 

It's funny how everyone talks about how Choken's ban was a long time coming, yet none of the mods have a problem with him still posting here.

[Vern Gagne 0]

As you were, soldiers (Did Mike ever have a title in the CB [was he even a member?], because if so, somebody’s getting a promotion.)

 

Mike was a field commander. Fitting that two great field commanders MikeSC and Col.David Hackworth both left us this week.

 

 

Jumps in his tank, and rolls out of the thread.

[Carnival 0]

We can add Carnivalizcoming to that list, too.

No Sell.

 

I'm not the one who dedicated a thread to flaming someone. I think thats a more ban-able offense then what mike has done recently.

 

Mike was an overbearing jerk. But he was fun to argue with. I will miss him in the TNa folder most of all.

[Guest Brian]

Just for reference, Mike has been warned in the past. Twice at least.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

What caused the previous warnings?

 

No Mike thread is complete without mentioning "subhuman monkeys". So I just mentioned it. Yeah.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Christ, the guy was pushing 30 and was still posting profusely on a messageboard. The banning will do him good.

 

=-Mike

[Guest Brian]

They were both flaming, IIRC. One was in CE, the other I was WWF. There was some in between. If he thinks someone's wrong, he can come down really hard on people. Like I said earlier, Mike being banned is not something that came out of the blue, I was a mod in the early days here and it was already discussed where we draw the line with him, what we let go because of where he generally posts, etc. I think one of the reasons Mike hasn't been banned, and one of the reasons it took long with Anglesault and Choken, is just becasue the mods don't like this kind of reaction.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

But threads in CE when Mike got involved usually ended up with him and one other person going on...and on....and on....and on dissecting each other's posts line by line by line for like two or three pages. That gets fucking tedious to read and completely turned me (and others probably) from posting in there with any regularity.

Actually, that is why I liked CE. Mike was entertaining.

 

Here are my favorite posters:

 

NoCalMike - nice guy

RobotJerk - only when talking in the movies and books threads

kkk - funniest poster ever

MikeSC - witty commentator

VitaminX - for some reason, his comments are interesting

Czech - come on, do I need a reason?

 

That's all I can think of now.

 

I don't think Mike should've been banned, as I've seen moderators themselves do far worse than anything I've seen him do.

[Styles 0]

That's even more pathetic then your reaction to FS's post a couple of months ago.

Oh, fuck you. You want to talk about a worthless poster? This guy takes the cake. I'm not afraid to stand up to him either because he has "tenure" because I likely have just as much if not more. You ask people if they have a life? All I ever see you do is go around insulting people or calling on people to be banned like it's the height of your day. If this is all beneath you, stay the fuck out of it.

[Styles 0]

I take back my former position, RobotJerk. Ban this guy, he's terrible, and he flamed me for no reason in CE...

EDIT: Forget it, I don't care, I'm removing myself from the situation and not posting in that folder anymore...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

For some reason, the overwhelming conservative bias in CE won't appear so overwhelming anymore.

 

Mike flaming an awful lot though, but still, he ain't the only one. Much flaming has gone on outside of hardcore discussion that wasn't a bannable offense, so I don't see the problem here. The only time I can remember anyone being banned for flaming was Loss and even then the same point stands.

 

Where do all these people go anyway? I can't imagine a guy like Mike that posts as often as he does to just stop posting on the internet now that he's not on here. He needs internet messageboard discussion, it's like his crack.

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

That's even more pathetic then your reaction to FS's post a couple of months ago.

Oh, fuck you. You want to talk about a worthless poster? This guy takes the cake. I'm not afraid to stand up to him either because he has "tenure" because I likely have just as much if not more. You ask people if they have a life? All I ever see you do is go around insulting people or calling on people to be banned like it's the height of your day. If this is all beneath you, stay the fuck out of it.

Want to fuck?

[Guest This Thread Is Ghey]

<----------------------------------------------

[The Niggardly King 0]

Oh well....

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I can understand why some folks might feel the guy needed to go. He WAS an asshole to alot of people but the important part was just how he really didn't need to be that way. But hey! The guy was alot of fun to fuck with.

 

I always thought his posts were entertaining as hell. The more he frothed at the mouth the harder I would laugh. This is coming from a guy who has had plenty of his posts derailed by the guy. All you had to say was some vaguely contrary thing and off he would go!

 

I will miss him.

[Special K 0]

OR you will be B4nz0r3d

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

Your overly dramatic picture interests me. Do you have a blog?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Memories post (thanks to the guy who made sure that search was faster, faster meaning 'takes less than 4 minutes')

 

Mike to me:

I can't even imagine a worldview like yours. It's like every stereotype of the left rolled up in a single person.

 

Mike to Rant:

Still menstruating? Well, explains the lack of intellect...

 

I decline to find a quote from June, July or August talking about how John Kerry was doomed.

 

Oh yeah, if you want to, you can always blame the "line for line" stuff on me.

[Special K 0]

You've never heard of Obey Giant CWM?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

FYI, Marney does still read the board. She just doesn't want to post, although that changes based on the day.

[BUTT 0]

Memories post (thanks to the guy who made sure that search was faster, faster meaning 'takes less than 4 minutes')

 

Mike to me:

I can't even imagine a worldview like yours. It's like every stereotype of the left rolled up in a single person.

 

Mike to Rant:

Still menstruating? Well, explains the lack of intellect...

 

I decline to find a quote from June, July or August talking about how John Kerry was doomed.

 

Oh yeah, if you want to, you can always blame the "line for line" stuff on me.

I'm sure you can find a good quote about how John Kerry's words killed more Americans than he could have ever saved.

[Slayer 0]

That's even more pathetic then your reaction to FS's post a couple of months ago.

Oh, fuck you. You want to talk about a worthless poster? This guy takes the cake. I'm not afraid to stand up to him either because he has "tenure" because I likely have just as much if not more. You ask people if they have a life? All I ever see you do is go around insulting people or calling on people to be banned like it's the height of your day. If this is all beneath you, stay the fuck out of it.

My body temperature significantly dropped when I read what Slapnuts wrote...

[Some Guy 0]

I know who banned him and I can't see a single reason why.  They would make nearly identical posts in the TNA folder, usually with Mike posting first and the Mod in question never posted in CE that I saw. The Mod, who I like and who's wrestling knoweldge I respect has made "warn worthing" posts in the past.

... and the Mod in question never posted in CE that I saw.

 

So ? Doesn't stop 'the Mod in question' from reading the posts Mike made, not just in CE but in other forums too.

I didn't see this post until now and I will respond to posts as I see them, so if I'm asking questions that have been answered then I apologize in advance.

 

I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. Have you ever warned him publically or privately?

 

The Mod, who I like and who's wrestling knoweldge I respect has made "warn worthing" posts in the past.

 

I don't doubt that if someone was annoyed enough about any specific things the Mod posted, that they would have complained to someone. As far as I know, nobody complained. If you see future posts that are 'warn worthing', feel free to complain about them.

 

I'd rather just reply to the post than whine to a Mod or whine to a Mod about a Mod, which would get me nowhere anyway. I've see you repeatedly post about what a piece of shit Kevin Nash is and I see it as no different than Mike saying that Moore is one, especially in a topic about Moore, such as the Farenheit 9/11 thread.

 

It wasn't one specific thing that Mike did that saw him get banned. It was the culmination of a lot of things.

 

Was he ever warned?

 

NY Untoucable

Some Guy, you better read the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread over again.

 

There has NEVER been such a blatant derailing of a thread before. People were simply not allowed to discuss Moore's film without Mike screaming about how untrue the facts were. This was not a thread in the Current Events folder. This was a thread in the Movies/Television folder. People should be allowed to discuss the movie based on its documentary style, entertainment value, cinematography, and yes, on the facts it presented. Mike did not allow any of that. I really felt he should have been banned right at that point, but others didn't agree. Oddly, his banning has happened now, when he hasn't been nearly as much of a nuisance.

 

If one makes the case that Mike's banning has been a long time waiting, that Fahrenheit 9/11 thread is proof enough.

 

I'll let the bolding and italizing show the contradiction in your post. GO reread my post, I read the thread and pointed to the posts that instigated what little flaming there was and it was not Mike. Just be honest, you wanted a big circle jerk about the film and when Mike came along it fucked up the happy-go-lucky Bush bashing thread you wanted. Mike went on to make several posts about the facts of the movie. You seem to forget that and want to invent a situation that never happened. If there were several threads about 9/11 in CE already why wasn't the one in the Movie Folder closed? It was certainly redundant and was bound to spark a debate, the very nature of Moore's film spurs debate.

 

First of all, there were enough threads dedicated to Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Current Events folder at that time. More than enough. They dealt with the factual issues behind it, the politics behind it -- why, we even got the chance to view countless jokes about Michael Moore's weight. Great. And if you look through enough of these threads, you will see Mike made his opinion known on Fahrenheit 9/11 umpteenth times. There was not a person that ventured into the Current Events folder that did not know how Mike felt about the movie. He made it crystal clear in the threads dedicated to Fahrenheit. He made it crystal clear in the threads that had nothing to do with the movie. That's all fine and good.

 

And none of the other people who posted in the Movie Folder thread made their opinion known in CE?

 

But then his insanity started spilling over into other folders. The thread created in the Movies/Television folder for Fahrenheit 9/11 did NOT need to be infested with Mike. As I said, the thread was there to discuss other issues. The cinematography of the film. The editing. The pacing. The humor. The facts behind it, sure. But people should have had the ability to discuss the documentary itself without necessarily limiting the entire discussion to its politics.

 

You act as though the facts behind a suposed documentary are an after thought. You wantd a circle jerk, Mike showed up, and now oyu want to cry about it.

 

Along comes Adolf Mike.

 

Yup, comparing someone to Hitler is a sure way to maintain a peaceful thread.

 

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

-=Mike

 

Oh, there we go. Intelligent. As you can see, he didn't even TOUCH upon the topic of Fahrenheit in that post. He chose to extract a portion of a sentence from Ebert's review and make that his post. But not before topping it off by calling the reviewer a "fucking moron" and eloquently signing off with his name. Desperately off-topic and disagreeable, just in an attempt to take the thread off-track immediately. His second post in the thread, and Mike was already turning into a monster. But let's continue.

 

Ebert defended The Reagans and defended Moore's movie, both were left wing hatchet jobs. Someone else brought up Ebert, Mike gave an example of Ebert's bias and then called him a fucking moron. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Hey Mike, have you seen the movie?

 

Don't have to see it. The things I mentioned are mentioned by EVERYBODY who saw the film, so it's safe to say that they're in there.

-=Mike

 

Oh, nice. We're going to call a movie complete garbage, although we never even took the time to see it. And here's the kicker here: If Mike never actually saw the movie, then how would he know what's factual and what's not in it? Why, he goes onto other websites to view the information. To view what Moore said and how others dispelled it. And then what does he do with that information? He comes here to reiterate what he just read. They weren't even his thoughts! He decided to hijack the thread with ideas that weren't even his thoughts! How could he dispel the movie with his own thoughts if he never took the time to watch it?! I wouldn't be surprised if he copy and pasted all his rebuttals to the film.

 

Not having seen the movie doesn't mean that he can't comment on it. He obviously read up on it. Would his argument have been stronger had he seen the movie? Sure. Is it invalid because he didn't? No.

 

NoCalMike tries to tell Mike that they're just trying to discuss the movie itself, without necessarily discussing its politics. Its politics has been discussed countless times already, so now it's time for those who want to to just discuss the movie. Mike's lovely response? The ever famous....

 

This gets filed under "tough shit".

 

"Sure, he's a lying sack of shit --- but he's OUR lying sack of shit"

-=Mike

 

Uhm... Mike made one post and then someone posted Ebert's defense of the facts of the film, thus turning the thread into a political debate. I'd repeat the "circle jerk" line but I think you get my point. It was perfectly OK for anybody not named MikeSC to make to make a post defending the movie but it's not for Mike to decry it? Hypocracy and horseshit.

 

Sass

But, yeah, this banning was years in the making like AS and Choken One's. It was talked about but nothing was ever followed through. I think there were about 3 major episodes late last year where the push for Mike's banning amongst the staff members reached a fever pitch. Sides were drawn. One of the main episodes of contention was his antics in the Mikey Moore F9/11 threads. That thread *really* made it hard for me to go ahead and let Mike get axed by the staffers who felt he was totally out-of-line within that thread. I defended Mike when IllOne wanted to ban him during his Random Banning sessions but this time I couldn't. We let him stay. Now, I'm willing to call a spade a spade and cut our losses that we've had with Mike.

 

Maybe you'll answer the question: Was he ever warned?

 

Jobber

Mike was the most belligerent bully this forum has ever seen. I got a lot feelings that he didn't care about what he was talking about in a lot of threads, but simply was voicing opposition to troll. Such as the dozen or so gay marraige threads where he "didn't care" about gays or gay marriage but demanded that you wow him with a reason that gay marriage should happen. Dude, if you don't care, why should someone seek your approval?

 

That's a perfectly valid position to take on the issue. One can be ambivilant to the result but want to know why people think that certain people should be allowed to do certain things. Did he ever get an answer?

 

PK

But threads in CE when Mike got involved usually ended up with him and one other person going on...and on....and on....and on dissecting each other's posts line by line by line for like two or three pages. That gets fucking tedious to read and completely turned me (and others probably) from posting in there with any regularity.

 

So let Mike and that one other person have their fun and post in another thread. It's not that hard. If a thread being too long or difficult for you or anybody else to get into then pick another thread. No one said you had to even read it, well I suppose you do because your a Mod but that's your job. Banning someone who makes post by post rebuttals because you don't want to read them is pretty stupid. PK, I know you didn't ban him.

 

Mike just took "heated discussion" and turned it into "You're an idiot because you don't agree with my view, which is the right one."

 

I would think that this would be a benefit for CE. Now all the other posters who want to offer opinions on things can debate freely without having to fear Mike stomping in and taking things over (which you have to admit that he had a tendency to do).

 

You guys were afraid of Mike tearing you a new one? That's kind of sad.

 

Kotz

Mike was the complete picture of the intellectual elitism that CE "regulars" carry about themselves. A majority of these regulars happen to agree with Mike and find him an asset to discussion (read: ringleader who they can hide behind like kids with MD hiding behind the kid with scoliosis that has a pointy stick), so now those who didn't like Mike and wanted him banned that weren't regular posters are idiots and morons. That's a terrific way to undermine your arguments, people. Also, the Farenheit 9/11 thread is being brought up more by people who support him than those against him. Are you convincing us or yourselves?

 

So in other words, "let's ban him to dumb down the folder because we can't keep up with him."

 

As far as the Moore thread, I made my points already.

 

You forget his bitching about Marney's self-imposed exile and slight overreaction, to put it gently.

 

Gee, I can't imagine why someone would be upset over the Mods running Marney out of here by editing her posts and generally fucking with her.

 

You forget the countless "complete idiot"s, "fucking moron"s, "retard"s, all in reference to whoever disagreed with him.

 

No one has ever done that before, nope, never.

 

You forget the many other times it's been brought up and discussed and argued about by the Staff and posting public itself. For supposed lovers of freedom and democracy to the degree they'll execute bannable behavior for years, a majority movement against of of them becomes "mob rule?" Okay then.

 

Show me a majority of posters who wanted him gone.

 

You forget how many people have said Mike drove them from CE, myself staying away for over a year before returning recently with the current trend towards less one-side-or-the-other crap.

 

Poor baby. It seems that you don't like Mike more because he hurt your feelings than anything else he's done.

 

I don't give a shit about how well someone types so long as they're understandable, and Mike is the greatest cultivator of a false air of intelligence, using a large vocabulary and a condescending attitude for any living creature that didn't agree with him. Without search engines and proper wording, he'd never be considered more than the sticky wad inside of the Kleenexes being clutched by his little followers. It's the elimination of the second greatest poison I've seen here behind Anglesault, who also exhibited 80% of the same qualities.

 

So, Mike gets impuned for actuallt researching his posts, typing well, and having a good vobaculary. Yup, BAN PLZ~!

 

Rob

Mike was probably the most stubborn person around the board.

 

Did Mike ever convince you to change your mind on an issue? I tend to doubt it, wouldn't that make you equally stubborn?

 

Getting into discussions with him was not a great idea for some. For myself, I didn't care. It was pointless for me to continue discussions with him, but it's not like I had something more important to do.

 

So, it was too hard for people to debate him but you didn't care? OK.

 

Here's a few Mike-related things I remember (not counting the long thread I put in NHB)

 

#1 - The NAACP is as bad as the KKK (which was a huge logic reach)

 

Sure, but much more reasonable than "Bush=Hitler."

 

#4 - Judges make laws all the time

 

What's the problem with that statement?

 

Brian

Just for reference, Mike has been warned in the past. Twice at least.

 

How long ago?

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

He's gone. Let's move on.

[Sass 0]

Yeah, Mike was warned.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I know who banned him and I can't see a single reason why.  They would make nearly identical posts in the TNA folder, usually with Mike posting first and the Mod in question never posted in CE that I saw. The Mod, who I like and who's wrestling knoweldge I respect has made "warn worthing" posts in the past.

... and the Mod in question never posted in CE that I saw.

 

So ? Doesn't stop 'the Mod in question' from reading the posts Mike made, not just in CE but in other forums too.

I didn't see this post until now and I will respond to posts as I see them, so if I'm asking questions that have been answered then I apologize in advance.

 

I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. Have you ever warned him publically or privately?

 

The Mod, who I like and who's wrestling knoweldge I respect has made "warn worthing" posts in the past.

 

I don't doubt that if someone was annoyed enough about any specific things the Mod posted, that they would have complained to someone. As far as I know, nobody complained. If you see future posts that are 'warn worthing', feel free to complain about them.

 

I'd rather just reply to the post than whine to a Mod or whine to a Mod about a Mod, which would get me nowhere anyway. I've see you repeatedly post about what a piece of shit Kevin Nash is and I see it as no different than Mike saying that Moore is one, especially in a topic about Moore, such as the Farenheit 9/11 thread.

 

It wasn't one specific thing that Mike did that saw him get banned. It was the culmination of a lot of things.

 

Was he ever warned?

 

NY Untoucable

Some Guy, you better read the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread over again.

 

There has NEVER been such a blatant derailing of a thread before. People were simply not allowed to discuss Moore's film without Mike screaming about how untrue the facts were. This was not a thread in the Current Events folder. This was a thread in the Movies/Television folder. People should be allowed to discuss the movie based on its documentary style, entertainment value, cinematography, and yes, on the facts it presented. Mike did not allow any of that. I really felt he should have been banned right at that point, but others didn't agree. Oddly, his banning has happened now, when he hasn't been nearly as much of a nuisance.

 

If one makes the case that Mike's banning has been a long time waiting, that Fahrenheit 9/11 thread is proof enough.

 

I'll let the bolding and italizing show the contradiction in your post. GO reread my post, I read the thread and pointed to the posts that instigated what little flaming there was and it was not Mike. Just be honest, you wanted a big circle jerk about the film and when Mike came along it fucked up the happy-go-lucky Bush bashing thread you wanted. Mike went on to make several posts about the facts of the movie. You seem to forget that and want to invent a situation that never happened. If there were several threads about 9/11 in CE already why wasn't the one in the Movie Folder closed? It was certainly redundant and was bound to spark a debate, the very nature of Moore's film spurs debate.

 

First of all, there were enough threads dedicated to Fahrenheit 9/11 in the Current Events folder at that time. More than enough. They dealt with the factual issues behind it, the politics behind it -- why, we even got the chance to view countless jokes about Michael Moore's weight. Great. And if you look through enough of these threads, you will see Mike made his opinion known on Fahrenheit 9/11 umpteenth times. There was not a person that ventured into the Current Events folder that did not know how Mike felt about the movie. He made it crystal clear in the threads dedicated to Fahrenheit. He made it crystal clear in the threads that had nothing to do with the movie. That's all fine and good.

 

And none of the other people who posted in the Movie Folder thread made their opinion known in CE?

 

But then his insanity started spilling over into other folders. The thread created in the Movies/Television folder for Fahrenheit 9/11 did NOT need to be infested with Mike. As I said, the thread was there to discuss other issues. The cinematography of the film. The editing. The pacing. The humor. The facts behind it, sure. But people should have had the ability to discuss the documentary itself without necessarily limiting the entire discussion to its politics.

 

You act as though the facts behind a suposed documentary are an after thought. You wantd a circle jerk, Mike showed up, and now oyu want to cry about it.

 

Along comes Adolf Mike.

 

Yup, comparing someone to Hitler is a sure way to maintain a peaceful thread.

 

"The Reagans" was MILDLY critical?

 

Ebert is a fucking moron.

-=Mike

 

Oh, there we go. Intelligent. As you can see, he didn't even TOUCH upon the topic of Fahrenheit in that post. He chose to extract a portion of a sentence from Ebert's review and make that his post. But not before topping it off by calling the reviewer a "fucking moron" and eloquently signing off with his name. Desperately off-topic and disagreeable, just in an attempt to take the thread off-track immediately. His second post in the thread, and Mike was already turning into a monster. But let's continue.

 

Ebert defended The Reagans and defended Moore's movie, both were left wing hatchet jobs. Someone else brought up Ebert, Mike gave an example of Ebert's bias and then called him a fucking moron. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Hey Mike, have you seen the movie?

 

Don't have to see it. The things I mentioned are mentioned by EVERYBODY who saw the film, so it's safe to say that they're in there.

-=Mike

 

Oh, nice. We're going to call a movie complete garbage, although we never even took the time to see it. And here's the kicker here: If Mike never actually saw the movie, then how would he know what's factual and what's not in it? Why, he goes onto other websites to view the information. To view what Moore said and how others dispelled it. And then what does he do with that information? He comes here to reiterate what he just read. They weren't even his thoughts! He decided to hijack the thread with ideas that weren't even his thoughts! How could he dispel the movie with his own thoughts if he never took the time to watch it?! I wouldn't be surprised if he copy and pasted all his rebuttals to the film.

 

Not having seen the movie doesn't mean that he can't comment on it. He obviously read up on it. Would his argument have been stronger had he seen the movie? Sure. Is it invalid because he didn't? No.

 

NoCalMike tries to tell Mike that they're just trying to discuss the movie itself, without necessarily discussing its politics. Its politics has been discussed countless times already, so now it's time for those who want to to just discuss the movie. Mike's lovely response? The ever famous....

 

This gets filed under "tough shit".

 

"Sure, he's a lying sack of shit --- but he's OUR lying sack of shit"

-=Mike

 

Uhm... Mike made one post and then someone posted Ebert's defense of the facts of the film, thus turning the thread into a political debate. I'd repeat the "circle jerk" line but I think you get my point. It was perfectly OK for anybody not named MikeSC to make to make a post defending the movie but it's not for Mike to decry it? Hypocracy and horseshit.

 

Sass

But, yeah, this banning was years in the making like AS and Choken One's. It was talked about but nothing was ever followed through. I think there were about 3 major episodes late last year where the push for Mike's banning amongst the staff members reached a fever pitch. Sides were drawn. One of the main episodes of contention was his antics in the Mikey Moore F9/11 threads. That thread *really* made it hard for me to go ahead and let Mike get axed by the staffers who felt he was totally out-of-line within that thread. I defended Mike when IllOne wanted to ban him during his Random Banning sessions but this time I couldn't. We let him stay. Now, I'm willing to call a spade a spade and cut our losses that we've had with Mike.

 

Maybe you'll answer the question: Was he ever warned?

 

Jobber

Mike was the most belligerent bully this forum has ever seen. I got a lot feelings that he didn't care about what he was talking about in a lot of threads, but simply was voicing opposition to troll. Such as the dozen or so gay marraige threads where he "didn't care" about gays or gay marriage but demanded that you wow him with a reason that gay marriage should happen. Dude, if you don't care, why should someone seek your approval?

 

That's a perfectly valid position to take on the issue. One can be ambivilant to the result but want to know why people think that certain people should be allowed to do certain things. Did he ever get an answer?

 

PK

But threads in CE when Mike got involved usually ended up with him and one other person going on...and on....and on....and on dissecting each other's posts line by line by line for like two or three pages. That gets fucking tedious to read and completely turned me (and others probably) from posting in there with any regularity.

 

So let Mike and that one other person have their fun and post in another thread. It's not that hard. If a thread being too long or difficult for you or anybody else to get into then pick another thread. No one said you had to even read it, well I suppose you do because your a Mod but that's your job. Banning someone who makes post by post rebuttals because you don't want to read them is pretty stupid. PK, I know you didn't ban him.

 

Mike just took "heated discussion" and turned it into "You're an idiot because you don't agree with my view, which is the right one."

 

I would think that this would be a benefit for CE. Now all the other posters who want to offer opinions on things can debate freely without having to fear Mike stomping in and taking things over (which you have to admit that he had a tendency to do).

 

You guys were afraid of Mike tearing you a new one? That's kind of sad.

 

Kotz

Mike was the complete picture of the intellectual elitism that CE "regulars" carry about themselves. A majority of these regulars happen to agree with Mike and find him an asset to discussion (read: ringleader who they can hide behind like kids with MD hiding behind the kid with scoliosis that has a pointy stick), so now those who didn't like Mike and wanted him banned that weren't regular posters are idiots and morons. That's a terrific way to undermine your arguments, people. Also, the Farenheit 9/11 thread is being brought up more by people who support him than those against him. Are you convincing us or yourselves?

 

So in other words, "let's ban him to dumb down the folder because we can't keep up with him."

 

As far as the Moore thread, I made my points already.

 

You forget his bitching about Marney's self-imposed exile and slight overreaction, to put it gently.

 

Gee, I can't imagine why someone would be upset over the Mods running Marney out of here by editing her posts and generally fucking with her.

 

You forget the countless "complete idiot"s, "fucking moron"s, "retard"s, all in reference to whoever disagreed with him.

 

No one has ever done that before, nope, never.

 

You forget the many other times it's been brought up and discussed and argued about by the Staff and posting public itself. For supposed lovers of freedom and democracy to the degree they'll execute bannable behavior for years, a majority movement against of of them becomes "mob rule?" Okay then.

 

Show me a majority of posters who wanted him gone.

 

You forget how many people have said Mike drove them from CE, myself staying away for over a year before returning recently with the current trend towards less one-side-or-the-other crap.

 

Poor baby. It seems that you don't like Mike more because he hurt your feelings than anything else he's done.

 

I don't give a shit about how well someone types so long as they're understandable, and Mike is the greatest cultivator of a false air of intelligence, using a large vocabulary and a condescending attitude for any living creature that didn't agree with him. Without search engines and proper wording, he'd never be considered more than the sticky wad inside of the Kleenexes being clutched by his little followers. It's the elimination of the second greatest poison I've seen here behind Anglesault, who also exhibited 80% of the same qualities.

 

So, Mike gets impuned for actuallt researching his posts, typing well, and having a good vobaculary. Yup, BAN PLZ~!

 

Rob

Mike was probably the most stubborn person around the board.

 

Did Mike ever convince you to change your mind on an issue? I tend to doubt it, wouldn't that make you equally stubborn?

 

Getting into discussions with him was not a great idea for some. For myself, I didn't care. It was pointless for me to continue discussions with him, but it's not like I had something more important to do.

 

So, it was too hard for people to debate him but you didn't care? OK.

 

Here's a few Mike-related things I remember (not counting the long thread I put in NHB)

 

#1 - The NAACP is as bad as the KKK (which was a huge logic reach)

 

Sure, but much more reasonable than "Bush=Hitler."

 

#4 - Judges make laws all the time

 

What's the problem with that statement?

 

Brian

Just for reference, Mike has been warned in the past. Twice at least.

 

How long ago?

[Art Sandusky 0]

^^ What intellectual elitism?

 

Oh yeah, and Czech, you can leave if you don't like this place. You do nothing but bitch about the state of the board anymore, so just go if it's so awful.