Wow, just wow.....later folks.

[FSSL]

You never gave the comprehensive answer to my question about the "moderating decisions"/philosophy until today.  Anything else is speculative, sketchy, and presumptive on your part, at minimum.

Since I didn't remember the question and I pursued it by asking other members while you were away, doesn't that show enough initiative on my part?

It took me time to get an opportunity to compose it and write it.

So... are you ready to shake hands on this and move on?

I don't expect you to agree with me... But, I do expect you to understand that Ransom and I are both committed to LIGHT moderation. I  never gave you a warning. I didn't even ban you. All we did was stop the discussion that was going nowhere. If that is too heavy-handed, then it is a matter of perspective.

Shake on it?

I have to let my daughter finish some work on my computer and I need to wash the dishes.

 

[ALAYMAN]

... and the content of information would have been?

Well, if it would have been Tom Brennan (whom I know personally) or several others on here I also know, or just somebody with credibility and sensibility and discernment, like Smellin Coffee et al, I would trust their judgment and believed that Torrent was just blowin' smoke.  I would have asked them to do just what I said, and that was to reel him in to hold him accountable for his words.  There's a host of ways that could have been chosen to handle the matter through such means, which would have diffused things.

  If you really felt that statement was an actionable threat, as I pointed out in my new sticky thread, the right course of action is to go to the authorities, not other anonymous people.

That's your opinion.  Biblically, I like to live peaceably with all men, and to diffuse the situation without involving legal authorities is the right Biblical approach, especially many of the people on here who might vouch for him prospectively are not really anonymous at all (other than have a screen name which is not their real name).  As I said previously, I know several folk on here personally, and many others though I don't have a personal relationship outside of the forum, I trust that their actions would be Biblically honorable to mediate the situation to make sure there wasn't an escalation or serious physical threat.

Here is your PM (with my quote) at 9:23 pm

FSSL on May 05, 2013, 09:20:26 PM
I deleted the negative rep you gave Torrent today.
I also deleted the negative rep he gave you.
Hopefully we can move along!

Alayman: I don't like the decision, but, it's fair across the board, so okie-dokie.

I am more than willing to move along bro, but that punk kept pushing buttons over a period of weeks or more,  and I had NEVER EVER responded directly or indirectly to him.  I ignored his numerous negative sniping comments attempting to drag me into a fight, until I figured enough was enough.  Please just see it through the proper contextual and chronological apparatus, that's all I ask.

You felt like the focus of my answer was to your "hopefully we can move along!", when my assent (okie dokie) was to your action of removing all negative reps from both posters.  I disagree with that action, because it provided a historical framework and context for the dispute, but "kowtowed" to your authority.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Since I didn't remember the question and I pursued it by asking other members while you were away, doesn't that show enough initiative on my part?

I do appreciate your post and sticky clarification, but my assertion of "anything else is speculative, sketchy....." chronologically regards your claim that I should have understood your philosophy prior to the sticky you posted today.

So... are you ready to shake hands on this and move on?

As long as Torrent sticks to discussing things of substance it will be a thing of the past, but if he jumps in sniping and ankle-biting (which is what precipitated this in the first place) then I will dish it back.  And keep in mind, I never wrote anything remotely construed to be a physical threat.  In that regard, when I returned fire to him I broke no rules.  In asking others to reel him in and hold him accountable, making a modest effort to ensure that his claim to not be anonymous, I found it to be an innocuous request (not "bandwagoning" ).

I don't expect you to agree with me... But, I do expect you to understand that Ransom and I are both committed to LIGHT moderation.

Ransom locking my thread which asked for explanation for the philosophy of moderation is ANYTHING BUT "light".  And his claim about me saying he was "insanely liberal" pertains to his refusal to edit a poster (who also makes it a habit to bring me up via ad hominem constantly) who spoke about orgasms.

Is orgasms appropriate conversation on this forum?

I  never gave you a warning. I didn't even ban you. All we did was stop the discussion that was going nowhere. If that is too heavy-handed, then it is a matter of perspective.

Shake on it?

I have ultimately no problem with how you handled things (though I disagree with the manner in which you did), and have no beef with you.  It *is* your house and your rules after all.  I understand how that works.  I am welcome to go elsewhere for any reason you deem appropriate, regardless of my opinion.  Ransom locking the thread regarding my question about the criteria for locking was WAAAAAY out of line, and you not acknowledging that is problematic in my book.

I have to let my daughter finish some work on my computer and I need to wash the dishes.

I thought men married dishwashers????





<ducking>

 

[Ransom]

ALAYMAN said:

As long as Torrent sticks to discussing things of substance it will be a thing of the past, but if he jumps in sniping and ankle-biting (which is what precipitated this in the first place) then I will dish it back.

He hasn't mentioned you, even indirectly, for three days.

I thought you'd be happy to know that. Feel entirely free now to move on to more profitable complaints, secure in the knowledge that there's no need to keep bearing a grudge.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes. Ransom and I came to the same decision even without consulting each other.

I do not want posters to feel that they can get private information of any sort. That is what those threads communicate.

I respect your protection of people's privacy completely.  The only thing I want to reiterate is that I wasn't mining for his private info at all.  I can't make that more plain.  I was simply attempting to validate his claim that he/she was/is not anonymous.  That claim was made by Torrent in the very context of his/her calling out rsc2a (who Torrent also constantly hounds) for being anonymous.  That's some irony.  If Torrent has people on here (who I also respect) that could have said he was harmless, that is a far better approach (Biblically) than involving secular authorities.

A call out to everybody, and anybody is not the right approach. If your life is in danger, get the police... not HACkers... definitely not HACkers (hehehe)

Torrent has stopped.

Shake?

As I've said, I have ultimately no beef with your level of concern and rationale for attempting to prevent what you saw as a possible escalation.  In that vein, as long as Torrent ceases with the ankle-biting, I'll drop the subject and call it Fred.

 

[ALAYMAN]

ALAYMAN said:

As long as Torrent sticks to discussing things of substance it will be a thing of the past, but if he jumps in sniping and ankle-biting (which is what precipitated this in the first place) then I will dish it back.

He hasn't mentioned you, even indirectly, for three days.

I thought you'd be happy to know that. Feel entirely free now to move on to more profitable complaints, secure in the knowledge that there's no need to keep bearing a grudge.

This issue <heavy-handed moderation> was a concern for other people as well, and that was what this thread was created for.  Others have talked about this in the last four days while I have simply lurked to see how things would play out.  If the forum will be moderated in a smarmy and crappy way like you did when you capriciously locked my last thread, I'd gladly permanent absent myself from such dung. 

And to repeat, I've got no problem with FSSL's motives. 

Yours, not so much.

 

[ALAYMAN]

My dishwasher is still teaching. We are moving up state (Oklahoma) tomorrow morning so school is still going on. I just found out we used up our 6 gallon hot water already.

I thought you like to "rough it".  Get the camp-fire going for boilin' some water. 

You are still welcome here.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

If you want I can make all of this disappear.

Thanks, but I'd prefer it stay, if you don't mind.


And if you want conversation in it to end, just lock it.

 

[qwerty]

Wonder in Ransom is the forum owner....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My dishwasher is still teaching. We are moving up state (Oklahoma) tomorrow morning so school is still going on. I just found out we used up our 6 gallon hot water already.

I thought you like to "rough it".  Get the camp-fire going for boilin' some water. 

You are still welcome here.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

If you want I can make all of this disappear.

Thanks, but I'd prefer it stay, if you don't mind.


And if you want conversation in it to end, just lock it.

I hope you do stay. I respect and appreciate you...on and off the forum!
As I posted earlier, I thought you had a point, but over-reacted just a little.

Out of all of this, to learn Ransom is a moderator and possibly owner is shocking to me....I thought it was Over It! 

 

[JrChurch]

....smarmy...

How odd, that is the EXACT word that came to mind when I read Ransom's post.  I guess you bring out the smarminess in people. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

As I posted earlier, I thought you had a point, but over-reacted just a little.

Overreacted?  OVERREACTED???  WHAT IN THE !%#@%@!%^$%& IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!!!!!!


CONSIDER YOURSELF DEFRIENDED FROM FACEBOOM PAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ransom]

JrChurch said:

How odd, that is the EXACT word that came to mind when I read Ransom's post.  I guess you bring out the smarminess in people. 

He makes me excessively flattering?

 

[qwerty]

Out of all of this, to learn Ransom is a moderator and possibly owner is shocking to me....I thought it was Over It! 

http://whois.domaintools.com/fundamentalforums.org

No, the real owner..

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Out of all of this, to learn Ransom is a moderator and possibly owner is shocking to me....I thought it was Over It! 

http://whois.domaintools.com/fundamentalforums.org

Braggart! 

 

[rsc2a]

No, the real owner..

The Illuminati?

 

[qwerty]

No, the real owner..

The Illuminati?

The dimminati.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Oh that one... I am the real Alayman!

Is that a threat? 

Identity fraud?

 

[JrChurch]

JrChurch said:

How odd, that is the EXACT word that came to mind when I read Ransom's post.  I guess you bring out the smarminess in people. 

He makes me excessively flattering?

Not quite.  Smarmy,  as in insincere sanctimony.  Must be the recognized definition of midwesterners. 

 

[Ransom]

Not quite.  Smarmy,  as in insincere sanctimony.  Must be the recognized definition of midwesterners.

Ah. Well, whenever someone accuses me of insincerity, I always sleep much easier if I just consider the source first.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

JrChurch said:

How odd, that is the EXACT word that came to mind when I read Ransom's post.  I guess you bring out the smarminess in people. 

He makes me excessively flattering?

Not quite.  Smarmy,  as in insincere sanctimony.  Must be the recognized definition of midwesterners.

Maybe smarmy is a compliment in Canada.