OTFR you said on May 23:

[al-d, I've deleted the new thread you started and pasted the content on this one. Starting a new thread/topic for each religious idea that comes to your mind is considered spamming by me. Please stick to one thread until people start to complain it's too combersome to load. Each thread you start are on the topic of Jesus/religion, one or two such new threads a week should suffice. Thank you. OTFR]

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), May 23, 2000.

So far Mr. Quotably Quoted Andy Ray has posted 23 times on the IDENTICAL subject since his second post Quotably Quoted #2 - 000510 (Andy Ray, andyman633@hotmail.com, 2000-05-10) with the latest post today Quotably Quoted #24 (Andy Ray, andyman633@hotmail.com, 2000-06-12)

Doing the math May 10th - June 12 with 23 posts on the IDENTICAL topic, divided by 33 days averages roughly FIVE posts a week covering the same topic. May I add that this is well outside of your guidelines given to Al-d. The only difference is/was his posts were/are religious in nature.

SPAM is SPAM no matter what it says on the outside of the can!

-- I'm For (Truth in Advertising@How 'bout U OTFR?.com), June 12, 2000

Answers

Didn't you tell AR it was all okay? Post all she wants?

-- I thought (it_didn't_m@atter_to_you.at_all), June 12, 2000.

Actually, the problem with Al-d seemed to be not his posting, but his tendency to start a new post for each thought that came into his mind. For a while there, he (or she) was doing many posts per day. He seems to have since seen the error of his ways -- now, it appears he posts only once a day at most. This is reasonable. I do not agree with Al-d, but as long as he is being reasonable I doubt if anyone here will make him unwelcome.

Andy Ray seems also not to be abusing the system. He posts one message at a time, and as you say he does so at most an average of five posts per week. That, also, is reasonable.

Plus, while you may not enjoy what Andy Ray says, at least his messages have some informational value. I, at least, enjoy reading them.

Now, the question that puzzles me the most -- why do a few people here get so upset by people like Andy Ray, Flint, Decker and the like. Y2K is over, people. All that's left is a (potentially) interesting exploration regarding why things happened as they did.

And NO -- I live in Minnesota, home of Hormel, makers of SPAM (proudly made in Austin, MN). It's not real SPAM unless it says so on the can!

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 12, 2000.

I'm for,

I got pretty bent for some dumb reason about AR's repeat posting too, but in the end said "who cares". May you find the same tranquility. That being said, I still intend to take as many cheap shots at him and al-d as come to mind for it. :-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 12, 2000.

I'm with E.H. Porter on this one, one post a day isn't abuse, whether by Al-d, Andy Ray, or whoever.

And one thing Flint and I discussed the other night was forum rules, whatever they are, they should be posted (as they are here) AND fairly applied. What isn't good is to change the rules as we go along to "weed out" posts/posters we don't like. "Moving" rules will give plenty for people to gripe about, rules that are "fixed" and fairly applied can't be argued about with much success, so I propose that this be considered for this forum.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 12, 2000.

Factfinder:

I think I agree with you about the rules, but not quite with the emphasis you choose.

"Moving rules" is a Bad Thing, but not really the nature of the rules problem. The problems were (1) Application of unstated rules; and (2) very selective application of stated rules.

In general, the stated (and fixed) rules must be congruent with the goals of the judge(s). The rules on this forum seem (to me) intended to encourage wide open discussion, and discourage anything that would tend to inhibit that discussion. Furthermore, it seems there's a (to me) welcome bias toward letting people post -- there are lines in the sand, but it's damn hard for people to step over them. OTFR seems content to let us choose our destiny. If we choose to let the fur fly, so be it.

On the old forum, the stated rules weren't relevant to the judges' goals, which were to (1) Maximize fear; and (2) punish "enemies". As a result, the stated rules were merely pretexts to be cited where they could be stretched to apply to these goals, and ignored if they couldn't. You'll notice that on EZboard, when the censors were challenged ("what rule did these people break?"), they chose to drop the rules entirely rather than attempt any explanation. A "rule of men, not law" is much easier when there is no law.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 2000.

FactFinder,Flint,

Very good points yaw'll,I agree whole-heartedly.Especially with you Flint "A "rule of men, not law" is much easier when there is no law." I like that ALOT and it deserves some think time.

Thanks.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 13, 2000.