An up or down vote to have the Nazi Gullible Fool removed from moderator status.
OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given Shemp's trolling vitriol lately, I have to wonder why I'm here > -- playing by rules he can exploit because he loves to thumb his nose > at them -- but if I'm to defend myself from such exploitation by > bending the rules also and striking back in the same manner, then I am > reduced to his level of immorality. > > Case in point: Shemp gets to use my name in a post's title with words > that indicate a very serious issue, a negative remark, is being touted > about me, then, just from a legal/defensive standpoint, I must > necessarily examine his statements to protect myself from slander. > This then is the abuse of Shemp -- he must be monitored because he's > so often incorrect about one's "real story," and thus "he wins" in > that he has a way to force others to read his scurrilous and abusive > posts. > > I think that using a person's name in a post's title -- at the least > -- should have a much higher standard than we presently have here. It > gives me the creeps to think Shemp's over there figuring out another > lie and gleefully rubbing his hands together knowing the emotional > burdens he's placing on individuals here and the group in general. > The creeps, cuz, well, he's sick and we're just letting him puke in > front of us without any concern for his mental health. This is our > bad if we just let this guy yell fire in the theater of our minds. > > If I were to put my creativity into such abuse, and I've done this > type of writing here and gotten tsk tsked for doing so, well, is there > any doubt that I could come up with 35 titles per week that would jerk > the chain of anyone here? It's a simple cheap trick to be offensive > -- anyone can fart in an elevator, but in this elevator, apparently > Shemp gets to fart but anyone else would be lambasted for it. > > Sample titles that a person must open: "Shemp seen on Pedophile Watch > List Web site" or "Fairfield Ledger Headline: Nab busted for crack > lab in MUM trailer" or "Off-world's weight now over 600 pounds" and on > and on I could just make up lies -- or worse, I could tell truths that > would force others to read posts -- again just from a legal/defensive, > common sense, standpoint. > > Yeah, it's understood that a public message board allows for "anything > goes" to some degree, but shouldn't we be offended when one of us so > clearly is here only to make people angry? > > How about a kangaroo court here -- say, seven members get to be the > "mean person punishment team," and anyone can bring a matter to them > as one might to the Supreme Court. The seven members can take the > case or not, but if any four of them pipe up that the person in > question is an abusive troll, then Rick must abide by that decision > and dump this person. Rick gets to pick the seven members he thinks > are most likely, judging by their posting history to be fair judges. > The court can be approached by having the word "court" in one's post's > title. > > What ja tink? > > Edg > PS -- I did the advanced search, put Shemp's name as author, selected > "in the last week," and I got a list of 50 posts for Shemp. Figured > he must be very much over, but now it seems like I just didn't know > how to work that advanced search; sorry my bad. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > He's got 7 more to go this week, according to Yahoo. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Rick, I'm officially telling you that Shemp seems to be way > > > over his posting limit. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > > > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 4:32 PM > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] What's the difference between Rick Archer > > > and the > > > > People's Republic of China? > > > > > > > > > > > > China doesn't have a 35-post per week limit when they're > > censoring you. > > > > > > > > I didn't impose that limit arbitrarily. It was established after > > > much group > > > > discussion. > > >
