The Consequences of Banning - Page 5 - OzChess

**Axiom** · 09-22-2010, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

hi a/c

The explanation is that I knew it was quota time again over at the N.etlogistics site and the ACF Officials have to make numbers.

After ac they might struggle to find anymore , as they seem to have successfully sucked the very life out of that forum .

**antichrist** · 09-25-2010, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Axiom

After ac they might struggle to find anymore , as they seem to have successfully sucked the very life out of that forum .

too many right wingers and religious zealots

**Axiom** · 09-25-2010, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by antichrist

too many right wingers and religious zealots

what ??
you mean only 4 right wingers and zero religious zealots .

no the problem is the lack of variety of angles of input .

**Just2Good** · 09-25-2010, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

The explanation is that I knew it was quota time again over at the N.etlogistics site and the ACF Officials have to make numbers.

Yeah, but they should have made their quota by banning Rincewind who falsely claimed Jono was a Nazi sympathizer and never apologised for the remark. That to me seems a far more serious banning offence than speak'a'ing like dis!

**antichrist** · 09-30-2010, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

Yeah, but they should have made their quota by banning Rincewind who falsely claimed Jono was a Nazi sympathizer and never apologised for the remark. That to me seems a far more serious banning offence than speak'a'ing like dis!

Even it was a false claim then good on him, but it is not as bad as calling him a creationists - that really defamatory.

09-22-2010, 07:10 PM	#61 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Were They Careful What They Wished For ? Originally Posted by MOZ hi a/c The explanation is that I knew it was quota time again over at the N.etlogistics site and the ACF Officials have to make numbers. After ac they might struggle to find anymore , as they seem to have successfully sucked the very life out of that forum . __________________ "Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

09-25-2010, 01:47 AM	#62 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Axiom After ac they might struggle to find anymore , as they seem to have successfully sucked the very life out of that forum . too many right wingers and religious zealots

09-25-2010, 02:35 AM	#63 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	wrong Originally Posted by antichrist too many right wingers and religious zealots what ?? you mean only 4 right wingers and zero religious zealots . no the problem is the lack of variety of angles of input . __________________ "Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

09-25-2010, 08:06 AM	#64 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ The explanation is that I knew it was quota time again over at the N.etlogistics site and the ACF Officials have to make numbers. Yeah, but they should have made their quota by banning Rincewind who falsely claimed Jono was a Nazi sympathizer and never apologised for the remark. That to me seems a far more serious banning offence than speak'a'ing like dis! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

09-30-2010, 07:16 PM	#65 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Just2Good Yeah, but they should have made their quota by banning Rincewind who falsely claimed Jono was a Nazi sympathizer and never apologised for the remark. That to me seems a far more serious banning offence than speak'a'ing like dis! Even it was a false claim then good on him, but it is not as bad as calling him a creationists - that really defamatory.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: