posted April 07, 2001 02:02               

I don't see it with relation to this thread.
How does suggesting modifing code or promoting better site knowledge equate to "trolling"? Of course, I have no frame of reference. Perhaps one of you "in the know" can explain to me without being so cryptic.

I am also concerned with use of the invective. Which, as opposed to "flaming" is always on-point and never vulgar. Used with wit and disipline, it is a valuable tool in spirited conversation. Any comments?

My computer's still half-broke. But I had to post this. These things really bother me. I am a gentleman, and any opinion of me to the contrary is a matter of concern. But I am also thick skinned when it comes to well intentioned criticism or playful teasing; I don't cotton to PC speech rules.

posted April 07, 2001 02:36               

* I am now an official administrator. I require the password to the briefing room.
* I want all my threads that were moved put back where I originally intended them. This is yet another example of all the corruption. Why does nobody protest this?
* I am now in charge of TrekToday. I make the polls, I determine how many people have voted for what, I write the columns. You'll thank me later.

You may not realize that I am the salvation of this board! The people - all the people who are too timid to post against the corrupt administration - I represent them, and they love me!

tshrike, you will not post here again.

This board is stupid. The moderators here censor what I say, moving to another forum, not keeping it where I originally intended. In fact, this board should not even have moderators because they are bad. I should be the only moderator, and when I do become the only moderator, you will thank me. Do not suck up to the current moderators - I know you are, because I know everything that goes on!

------------------
Admiral Leyton
Creative Staff
Star Trek: Renaissance Project

posted April 07, 2001 05:25               

If any mod or admin wants to know my opinion of the job you are doing, please have Christian forward the e-mail I sent him. I'd cut and paste it here, but I axed it prior to my now sidetracked upgrade. In short, the word AMAZING was used.

But, truth be told, I'm an engineer. It's in my nature to take everything apart and try to reconfigure it. However, as I oftimes do, I didn't ask enough questions about how things are currently done before spouting my mouth off.

On the other hand: Had you guys given me some straight talk out of the gate, rather than leaving me to interpret all of your inside jokes, it would have saved us all a lot of time.

posted April 07, 2001 17:54               

------------------
I call it as I see it, don't be offended by my honesty. -Tiberius

posted April 09, 2001 17:50            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tiberius:
Being one to have made my share of mistakes on this board. I will recognize that people make mistakes, its ok to forgive them as long as they make some sort of effort to gain forgivness. I am not siding with either person here just saying that as long as someone wants to change then they should be given the chance to try. As for RED QUACKER, toast he is and toast he shall stay IMO.

---

Your opinion is not so unusual: forgive the people you like, and let the ones you don't like stay toast.

posted April 09, 2001 20:59            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tshrike:
A recent thread I started drew suggestions that I was a reincarnation of the infamous Red Quacker. I assure you I am not. While I didn't read any of RQ's posts, I did read the 24hr ban thread, and I guess some transgressions were particularly egregous.

---

posted April 10, 2001 00:15            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tshrike:
Well that's interesting, The Line: Kind of like a neo-nazi preacher that incites teenage boys to go out and murder jews?

---

tshike, your last analogy really suprised me because you've made some good contributions elsewhere. RQ did not incite anyone to go out and harm persons in another group based on prejudice, or even anything of the sort. What RQ did was bait certain persons to attack him and in the process demonstrate certain foibles. In my book, he's less a Neo-nazi preacher than a Eugene Debs.

posted April 10, 2001 18:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by phoenixfire:
Bad analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phoenixfire:
RQ was more like a neo-nazi preacher who angered Jews into attacking neo-Nazis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phoenixfire:
No, Neilson, before you start talking about how Quacker didn't try to incite people to violence, that's not what I meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phoenixfire:
RQ did have some racist overtones, though.

---

posted April 10, 2001 19:34            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neilson:
More than overtones at times. His comments regarding blacks were often over-the-top. I don't believe a word of it though, nor do I believe that he's Native American. He was merely baiting people, I think, and doing it pretty effectively.

---

posted April 10, 2001 19:48            

Trident: You are correct. The mistake was mine. I juxtaposed a bit in my memory this thread. http://trekbbs.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000773.html
Thanks for calling me on that.

[This message has been edited by Neilson (edited April 10, 2001).]

posted April 10, 2001 21:01            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tshrike:
Thanks Neilson, and I agree. But there are those that would prefer no one ever read him, discuss him, or even utter the name.

---

That's true, and they should feel free to neither read him nor open threads with RQ in the title.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tshrike:
As opposed to your Eugene Debs analogy; how about Anwar Sadat?

---

Not sure that I follow that one. I can kind of see it (taking a position that got him killed) but it doesn't work too well for me in that I think of him as a peacemaker at heart, at least the post-7-Days-War Sadat. Could you play the analogy out a little more for me?

posted April 10, 2001 23:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neilson:
tshrike: I think you're right that people who are not discussing RQ have no need to read RQ. However, to the extent that people declare opinions about RQ, I think those persons would be served by scanning a bit of his writings. Wouldn't you agree?

---

posted April 11, 2001 17:15            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neilson:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by phoenixfire:
[b]Bad analogy.

---

posted April 11, 2001 18:39            

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Line:
It's true. With the extent Quacker has impacted the board his posts are practically required reading, like the FAQ. He's also a good example of what can happen if you don't keep updating the Policy.

---