Re: SYSOPS: Hawk is on a political rant. Can you stop him please? : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

NOW i know WhY dIETer used such a funky and WIERD tYpINg style.... the man WAS so fRIGGin' enlightened abOUt THE diverse IDIOCITY that inhabited THE forum.

aN Epiphany is a rush.


You are banned

OoPs!!! aNOnYMYzeR.cOM is banned

NOW WHERE can i post tHIs? HeLP me dIeTeR please?


I think this waste of banwidth is disgraceful. If Hawk wants to post a few threads on how TERRIBLE Bush is and how WONDERFUL AlBore is, that's fine. But when he freaks out like this and takes over the entire board, can't he be STOPPED?


Posted By: Dennis Olson (Ezboard)


I can only speak for myself - this is certainly not "official!"

By and large, many threads and posts are shared about the terrible-ness of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. While this is not done by any one poster, there is a cumulative effect produced, of course.

I have no problem with one or many posters countering this with other threads, providing that it is not done solely with the purpose of provoking the community and trashing the forum itself.

Unfortunately, since I am not yet omnipotent, determining whether such is the case with Hawk's posts about George Bush is very difficult. I would personally not appreciate thirty or forty threads per day posted in this way, but we are not talking "per day" but only the last twenty-four hours.

Contrary to popular mythology by some about this board, the sysops have no desire to delete threads or ban posters unless this becomes an obvious necessity.

That said, believe me, we do discuss various aspects of the forum, including the patterns of certain participants, as that becomes necessary.

Anyway, let's not make this thread a referendum about Hawk. With due respect for the opinions of the community (as you know, we sincerely solicit such and do take them seriously), this isn't a popularity contest.

Posted By: RussBigDog (Administrator)


-- me AND (dIEter@re.nOT.wanTEd), March 25, 2000


Since when is a political rant a bad thing?

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 25, 2000.


A political rant is not desirable when the rant moves in any direction OTHER than the one YOU condone. Actually, Hawk DID start a bunch of threads on politics, and these threads DID provide a balance to the multitude of anti-current-administration threads started by several others on the EZBOARD. I give the guy credit for bucking the "system".

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 25, 2000.

Okay, I admit, I don't "get it". I went and read the thread in question. No one has been banned. What does this have to do with dIEter? Or Anonymizer?

-- (Flumoxed@Duh.2000), March 25, 2000.

Thanks Anita. :-)

Actually, once Dennis understood what I was doing, it didn't seem like it bothered anyone. Robert Cook challenged me to do it, so I gave him what he asked for. The Clinton-bashers seem to have temporarily disappeared for a while until those threads are moved off of the board. They don't mind bashing Clinton, but it isn't quite as effective when they're are equally disturbing threads about Bush right next to theirs. Some people are planning to vote for Bush just because they didn't like Clinton. Isn't that like the expression .. "cutting of your nose to spite your face". It looks like I may have woken a few of these up, who might now consider not voting at all, since the entire political system is such a disgrace.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 25, 2000.

Flumoxed is VERY much like flummoxed, IS it not? yEs, it is. JOIN the club.

SOME pEoPLe DO understand, but OBVIOUSLY you and me dON't.

I caN only understand MY OWN ePIphaNY!!!.

Must go back to my rush.


-- me AND (dIEter@re.nOT.wanTEd), March 25, 2000.

Anyone here remember that old Star Trek episode? The robotic humanoids had Spock, Kirk, Scotty, etc captive, and the crew defeated the robots with good old human illogic?

Kirk: "I always lie, everything I say is a lie."

Robot: "But if everything you say is a lie, and you say that everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but if you are telling the truth then you are lying, but if you are lying you are telling the truth..." (Smoke curls from robot's ears)

Now consider Hawky:

It looks like I may have woken a few of these up, who might now consider not voting at all, since the entire political system is such a disgrace.

Robot: "But if you wake them up so that they don't vote the political system would be a mess. But if the system is a mess they will not vote which makes the system a mess which makes them not vote..." (Smoke curls from robot's ears)

-- Uncle Deedah (, March 25, 2000.

My Dear Mr.Hawk,

Sir you both amaze and sadden me..To hold up one who flounts not only the law of the land (but the christian moral ethic upon which this land was founded)! To proclaim that dishonety is a valued asset! To anounce to your peers that your concept of right and wrong has a political agenda! Mr. Hawk, sir! Shame eternaly upon you sir..

When it becomes a "slight" infraction of political ethics, to not only acept campaign money from a foreign power! But to actively go out and seek said monies from those foriegn powers / influences! Then sir...It is time to elect others! End of Subject!

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"


-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), March 25, 2000.

If I wanted to be a troll, I'd take Shakey's style. He's such...a cliche. Really. "Sir! You are wrong, sir!. I am righteous because I am, sir!"

But then, Uncle Deedah is so much more...outlandish. Who's right? Who's the coolest? Hard to decide.

-- Troll Wannabe (no@name.somewhere), March 25, 2000.

...but the christian moral ethic upon which this land was founded...

Some may take offense at that. PC would require 'religious' in place of 'christian,' perhaps.

Perhaps just 'moral ethic.'

That is not to say that politicians have morals, or that they don't.

Funny this, the christian bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

To vote for a politician, you must judge which one is more capable.

But, to be a good christian you should not judge people, and this country was founded on 'good christian moral ethics.'

But you have to judge the politician wannabes and vote on the one you think is most capable.

What to do! What to do!

Nap time....

-- taking two pain relievers (wakeme@the.morning.after), March 26, 2000.

Hear what "Shakey" AKA Cal Talit said last year...

Get your guns, your beans and your Bibles out. When UN and NATO troops make their move be prepared to resist their satantic push for world domination. Ferret out all non-christian traitors. Lock and load, and close ranks!"

Cal Talit (, November 25, 1999

-- Y2K Pro (, March 26, 2000.


You said exactly what I meant. We are on the same page on this one.

-- semper paratus (here_with@my.pals), March 26, 2000.

Ummm, Y2K Pro? Actually, Cal Talit was a troll. Trust me on this, let's just say I know it for a fact. Shakey was NOT Cal Talit.

-- (secrets@to.keep), March 26, 2000.

My Dear Y2K Pro,

Sir if my memory has served me correctly. I do not believe that you and I have crossed "paths" so to speak...Untill now, that is!

For a major player of the Trolldom, to call me a troll. Is asininty at it's height. But on par your your past record, it would seem. Your content as well as subject matter over the past year makes it certain that your orginal "intent" of not making any credible contribution to this, or any other forum, is still in force. And to further diginify your remarks and lack of civility is a waste of my time...

"As for me...I shall finsh the Game"!


-- Shakey (in_a_buner@forty.feet), March 26, 2000.

Cal Talit and Shakey have much in common; an inability to construct a simple sentence, blind devotion to their Y2K hopes, a hatred of the guvmint and a double-digit IQ. Paranoia unleashed and a bible in their hand could describe either one of them.

-- Y2K Pro (, March 26, 2000.

Anita and Y2K Pro said it very well for me.

-- gilda (, March 26, 2000.

Vintage Hawk. Say what you want to about Hawk, but he keeps things from getting boring. I can't believe that they challenged him to do this. Silly them. Give'em H*ll Hawk.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, March 26, 2000.

I got two things to say, about two Posters, that I have witnessed over time. Now, I may be wrong (what again?), but I am sticking my human stupid neck out, for these two posters. Let me start with Hawk, there have been others to post as his name, but they were not in fact he/she. The Original Hawk had a kind soul, and he offered a hypothesis, none ever had dared. His invitation was kind, from beginning to end. I saw his kind human nature, time after time. I have witnessed some strange poster, suddenly arrive amd post start to denounce some fabricated Post, they say Hawk had done. I could never view the supposedly Post. Suddenly, the name "Hawk", became mud, because this stranger "said so". Oh well, all new comers, just write off any posts Mr/Ms Hawk says, because of the other untruth. The other Truth I would like to address, carries the handle of Mr. Shakey. Sir/Madam, I reconize you as one true human to another. I think/feel you to be a fellow soul. If you are, I will keep you in my miserable human prayers. If you are not a kind fellow soul, then may the Bird of Paradise shit on your head.

-- Ya Win Some (Somey@don', March 26, 2000.

God please no, Russ; don't ban Hawk.

We might have to put up the arse-sniffer full time here.

Puhleeze! Don't DO that to us!

-- (no@more.hawk), March 27, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ