Notice to "Burnaby49"

[pigpot]

Can you please show me where I have broken forum guidelines please?

[Burnaby49]

Can you please show me where I have broken forum guidelines please?

Please be more specific. That is far to vague a comment to reply to in any detail.

To start with we have no "guidelines". We've had complaints about that in the past when we've taken action, such as deleting an inappropriate avatar. Questions about how that violates our rules or guidelines. This is not a democracy so moderators don't have to justify every action against a public standard. The best way to describe it is that we take administrative actions in response to posters, such as yourself, on a case by case basis.

In your case we moderators decided, as a group, that your constant flood of disruptive posts required moderating action. Since they were largely on the Canadian and UK forums and I'm the only Canadian moderator I was given the responsibility of approving/disapproving your Canadian posts. Arthur, as our sole UK moderator, handles your UK postings. I have no idea what criteria he uses in respect to your posts, that's his concern. The majority of your postings that I've disapproved have been because of;

1 - gratuitously criticizing other posters. You have an obvious vendetta against one of our posters. I won't allow you to pursue it here.

2 - Vague open questions which are clearly attempts to troll.

Keep in mind that we have a very small group of active moderators and there is no real structure to Quatloos. So actions are often essentially arbitrary based on a single moderator's opinion. I don't discuss your posts with anyone else before I allow or disallow them; I review them and decide. So the "guidelines" that you fall under are essentially my personal judgment on your postings. You might feel that you are unfairly treated because you are not allowed to post comments that other, unmoderated posters are free to make. Probably true but that's the result of your past actions. And, as I've said, Quatloos is a small private website. We don't have to follow a formal, documented set of guidelines and weight every one of your posts against it. So, unless you are either banned or get taken off of moderated status, you are stuck with me. And I, unfortunately, am stuck with you.

[pigpot]

The majority of your postings that I've disapproved have been because of;

1 - gratuitously criticizing other posters. You have an obvious vendetta against one of our posters. I won't allow you to pursue it here.

2 - Vague open questions which are clearly attempts to troll.

Could the same not be said about posters here who have openly insulted me using "cursive" script. My posts have been more than gratuitously been criticized.

There is no vendetta as I don't follow or "troll" anyone so you don't have to allow it or disallow it. I used to follow "jargonbuster" over on the "WFS" and "JREF" but "It" never wanted a real internet / script war and retreated to a quiet place. I feel no need to "follow" anyone here as no-one has empirically proved me or the facts I issue wrong.

"Vague" is again your opinion.

I am only being logical and factual "Burnaby49". If you aren't then I'd ask what is the purpose of this website. It seems that all that is being offered here is legal opinion which I find worthless.

Anyway, I thank you for your time and considered responses. Previous ones have accused me of "cursive" script which I have used elsewhere but not once here.

Again, thank you.

[pigpot]

It seems that I am penalised here for disagreeing with the summation of what posters present here as "fact". Are you stating that this is not a site for others to disagree and discuss the issue of said disagreement. Otherwise this is just a site where rinse and repeat happens. I disagree with you, you don't allow my post type thing. How do people progress by using such a method. I mean you could be correct and I got the whole nature of "Statutory Law" thing wrong. Unless we talk I can't even begin to assess how I'm wrong on the matter though. If it is expected for all to accept the way things are because that's the way of things then that's not going to happen as the natural progression is; why should it? I we employed that method we'd still be in the stone age. It is the very fact that humans do question things because that is an innate part of what we are and most definitely do.

Based upon this the man with the axle who wouldn't share it with the man who had the wheel made the wheel redundant. It was better don't you agree when I had my own thread and didn't disturb others and these others could leave the "troll" alone.

[Burnaby49]

Frankly I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "cursive script". If previous responses have accused you of using this they weren't made by me unless "cursive script" is some kind of code for something else entirely. As you can see I'm befuddled by that aspect of your response. So your comment'

Could the same not be said about posters here who have openly insulted me using "cursive" script. My posts have been more than gratuitously been criticized.

Is meaningless to me because I have no understanding of what you are saying.

You said;

There is no vendetta as I don't follow or "troll" anyone so you don't have to allow it or disallow it

That's clearly bullshit because you obviously have some sort of demented vendetta against ninja. I've disallowed numerous posts where you've ranted against him for no supportable reason. And not just here, I know that you've done it elsewhere.

On to;

"Vague" is again your opinion.

Entirely right. But, as I've tried to beat into your head, my opinion is what you are stuck with. Don't like it? Post elsewhere. I won't miss you.

I am only being logical and factual "Burnaby49". If you aren't then I'd ask what is the purpose of this website. It seems that all that is being offered here is legal opinion which I find worthless.

If you find legal opinion worthless (I assume you mean legal decisions) then this clearly isn't the site for you because I consider legal opinion the most valuable contribution I make here. I spent thirty-five years as an accountant and income tax auditor and I focus my world-view through that. You obviously follow my postings and you must have noted that, by and large, they relate to trials and analysis of legal decisions. It is my opinion that your personal beliefs, and mine, and everybody else's, are worthless if not supported by jurisprudence. Russell Porisky believed that he wasn't taxable as a "natural man". Well he's now facing serious jail time as a result of that belief because "legal opinion" thought otherwise. Everybody has their dreams of how the world should work but the harsh reality is that if the court's don't support that dream it is worthless. And I'm not allowing you to use Quatloos as a venue to babble on about the perfect world you envision if you can't supported it by any real-world court decisions. Dream elsewhere.

I consider my main contribution here to be my court reports and my analysis of the decisions that result from the trials I attend. You may think that worthless but the defendants in the cases that I cover obviously think otherwise. In the past week two different judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia have imposed publication bans on my reporting. These were both essentially personal publication bans to stop me reporting trial proceedings on Quatloos. Both were at the request of the defendants regarding trial hearings that I recorded but now can't post. In one case the judge personally questioned me in open court to confirm that I understood the implications of his publication ban on my reporting. So I'd say that, at a minimum, the defendants of the cases I cover don't share your opinion about the importance of my discussion of legal opinion on Quatloos.

For those few, apparently very few, readers who might possibly think that "legal opinion" is a valid topic here on Quatloos and might be interested in more information on the topic of my publication bans it is only a matter of timing. Once the trials are done the bans are lifted and I'm free to report whatever I want. I'm still attending the trial hearings and scribbling away in the back. So I'll be posting it all eventually.

[Burnaby49]

It seems that I am penalised here for disagreeing with the summation of what posters present here as "fact". Are you stating that this is not a site for others to disagree and discuss the issue of said disagreement. Otherwise this is just a site where rinse and repeat happens. I disagree with you, you don't allow my post type thing. How do people progress by using such a method. I mean you could be correct and I got the whole nature of "Statutory Law" thing wrong. Unless we talk I can't even begin to assess how I'm wrong on the matter though. If it is expected for all to accept the way things are because that's the way of things then that's not going to happen as the natural progression is; why should it? I we employed that method we'd still be in the stone age. It is the very fact that humans do question things because that is an innate part of what we are and most definitely do.

Based upon this the man with the axle who wouldn't share it with the man who had the wheel made the wheel redundant. It was better don't you agree when I had my own thread and didn't disturb others and these others could leave the "troll" alone.

I'm getting overwhelmed by Piggy's postings. He posted this before I'd had a chance to reply to his previous posting. It's one in the morning so I'll consider this later. I hadn't realized piggy would be a future responsibility when I agreed to be a Quatloos moderator.

[wserra]

It seems that I am penalised here for disagreeing with the summation of what posters present here as "fact".

It could only seem that way to someone who isn't paying much attention. Lots of people have posted here who - unlike you - have been primary targets of criticism, and they're still able to do so. One of those is your idol Marc Stevens. He is still free to post here without moderation. And Stevens is a profiteer who revels in internet guru-dom. You're just a nudnik.

Content, however dumb it may be, has nothing to do with why we moderated those few we have.

Are you stating that this is not a site for others to disagree and discuss the issue of said disagreement.

Nope. Happens every day.

I mean you could be correct and I got the whole nature of "Statutory Law" thing wrong. Unless we talk I can't even begin to assess how I'm wrong on the matter though.

We are, and you do. And we're perfectly willing to "talk", as we show constantly. But, as Burnaby wrote, we are not willing to put up with someone who berates other posters and who trolls ceaselessly.

[wserra]

I hadn't realized piggy would be a future responsibility when I agreed to be a Quatloos moderator.

No one expects the Pottish Inpigsition.

[AndyK]

Massive fine for warped Python reference.

[obadiah]

I don't know. Spam, spam, spam, spam could describe Pigpot's posts...

[pigpot]

There is no vendetta as I don't follow or "troll" anyone so you don't have to allow it or disallow it

That's clearly bullshit because you obviously have some sort of demented vendetta against ninja. I've disallowed numerous posts where you've ranted against him for no supportable reason. And not just here, I know that you've done it elsewhere.

Firstly. You have got it so wrong. If I wanted to pick apart anyone it would be "Arayder", after "jargonbuster" who is a complete tool. "nijna" Really. He should be tough enough to defend himself but he is so weak, his arguments are flimsy at best .

Are you saying "ninja" can't develop something of his own? How "Governmental" of you as you look after people. Lovely! Anyway I see this as a far more just method of debate. I haven't got to the later comments but I did see "Wes's" red lettered nom de plume, so I'll take it that the "Big" man is into the debate (not to detract from "Burnaby49", as I do think that he carries so much philosophical weight here) . Carry on. I'll look at the rest soon but I wanted to reply and I think it's responsive that I do so to those that have chosen to be elected.

I bid you a good day.

[pigpot]

Frankly I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "cursive script".

"Swearing / cursing / etc".

[pigpot]

It seems that I am penalised here for disagreeing with the summation of what posters present here as "fact".

It could only seem that way to someone who isn't paying much attention. Lots of people have posted here who - unlike you - have been primary targets of criticism, and they're still able to do so. One of those is your idol Marc Stevens. He is still free to post here without moderation. And Stevens is a profiteer who revels in internet guru-dom. You're just a nudnik.

Content, however dumb it may be, has nothing to do with why we moderated those few we have.

Are you stating that this is not a site for others to disagree and discuss the issue of said disagreement.

Nope. Happens every day.

I mean you could be correct and I got the whole nature of "Statutory Law" thing wrong. Unless we talk I can't even begin to assess how I'm wrong on the matter though.

We are, and you do. And we're perfectly willing to "talk", as we show constantly. But, as Burnaby wrote, we are not willing to put up with someone who berates other posters and who trolls ceaselessly.

"My idol" "Marc Stevens" the very man you shy away from. He's no idol of mine. You "statists" are taking someone else. You keep making false evaluations.

[wserra]

"My idol" "Marc Stevens" the very man you shy away from.

"Shy away"? Oh, you mean such as in this thread on this board. Or this one. Or maybe you mean this thread on Stevens' own board. Or this one, over there too. Or this one, also in Stevens' backyard. Amongst those five threads, I must have made close to 30 posts.

I'd say you have a non-standard definition of "shy away from".

He's no idol of mine. You "statists" are taking someone else. You keep making false evaluations.

And that's it. Nothing in response to anything I wrote, just trying to start an argument.

And that's why he's moderated.

[The Observer]

Just to chime in here, since pigpot seems to think he is under a personal vendetta.

All of the moderators can see your posts while they are in Burnaby's queue. I have seen a number of them myself. And frankly, 99.44% of the ones that Burnaby disapproves, I would have disapproved as well. And that is despite the fact that I don't like Burnaby very much because (1) he is retired and I still have to work, (2) he has indirectly criticized my choice of beers and ales, and (3) he is Candian or something like that. The point is that your posts do nothing to contribute to conversation, they are only engineered so that you can argue about nothing in particular and take potshots at those who disagree with you. In addition, sometimes your posts make no sense at all in terms of syntax and logic.

And as pointed out, Quatloos is not some democratic institution where you have rights. This is an abusive dictatorship where all of the moderators are constantly looking for a post to hammer for any reason. Not because we are naturally mean and bitter (I am, but that is the exception) but because we are bored silly since there are very few posts to hammer throughout the year - but you are certainly keeping the moderators interested even if Burnaby and Arthur get first crack (another sign how abusive this dictatorship is - flat-out monopolies being established!).

And you need to understand that if you get a post through on the rare occasion, if you are postulating nonsense, we are going to allow people to rebut and mock your position. If you can't handle that and support your position with logic and evidence (and you usually can't - you typically resort to moving to the mud pond) then you should be considering that maybe this is the inner you realizing that you are on the wrong side of the issue.

So you basically have three choices, pigpot. You could change your approach and tailor your posts so that they can be read, understood and responded to with reason instead of vitriol. Or you could realize that you are not going to make headway here due to (1) your unwillingness to change and (2) our statist mindset, and just stop coming here. Or you could just keep doing what you have been doing and remain frustrated. Abusive dictatorships love having lots of frustrated prisoners, it is just more opportunity for us to do what we do so well.

[JamesVincent]

Wait, wait, I too want to complain about Burnaby. That bastard has never sent me any free beer or shared any of his super secret, super potent concoctions with me. He also never came to visit me when he was in New York, I don't want to hear no crap about 1,100 miles away, that's just an excuse. As far as on this forum he...... wait a minute, I know he did something..... oh yeah, HE COMMENTED ON ONE OF MY THREADS! How dare he just come along and comment, he acts like he can do stuff and things. I think we should hang him from the yardarm if he doesn't straighten up.

[Burnaby49]

Frankly I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "cursive script".

"Swearing / cursing / etc".

Yes, I believe I have deleted or disapproved some of your posts for that.

[Burnaby49]

Wait, wait, I too want to complain about Burnaby. That bastard has never sent me any free beer or shared any of his super secret, super potent concoctions with me. He also never came to visit me when he was in New York, I don't want to hear no crap about 1,100 miles away, that's just an excuse. As far as on this forum he...... wait a minute, I know he did something..... oh yeah, HE COMMENTED ON ONE OF MY THREADS! How dare he just come along and comment, he acts like he can do stuff and things. I think we should hang him from the yardarm if he doesn't straighten up.

1,100 miles? I wouldn't have walked across the street. I was far, far too busy in McSorley's to bother with the likes of you;



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McSorley% ... _Ale_House

[Burnaby49]

There is no vendetta as I don't follow or "troll" anyone so you don't have to allow it or disallow it

That's clearly bullshit because you obviously have some sort of demented vendetta against ninja. I've disallowed numerous posts where you've ranted against him for no supportable reason. And not just here, I know that you've done it elsewhere.

Firstly. You have got it so wrong. If I wanted to pick apart anyone it would be "Arayder", after "jargonbuster" who is a complete tool. "nijna" Really. He should be tough enough to defend himself but he is so weak, his arguments are flimsy at best .

Are you saying "ninja" can't develop something of his own? How "Governmental" of you as you look after people. Lovely! Anyway I see this as a far more just method of debate. I haven't got to the later comments but I did see "Wes's" red lettered nom de plume, so I'll take it that the "Big" man is into the debate (not to detract from "Burnaby49", as I do think that he carries so much philosophical weight here) . Carry on. I'll look at the rest soon but I wanted to reply and I think it's responsive that I do so to those that have chosen to be elected.

I bid you a good day.

I did a bit of editing on this Piggypost before approving it. Not the text but formatting. He screwed up the quotes.

I haven't been deleting your ninja related posts because you disagree with his positions or opinions but because you have been attacking him personally. I'm not going to allow you to vent against other posters. Whether he is "tough enough to defend himself" is irrelevant. I haven't asked him if he wants me to approve or disapprove your postings about him. The decision is mine, not his, and it's an easy decision.

[Burnaby49]

And that is despite the fact that I don't like Burnaby very much because (1) he is retired and I still have to work, (2) he has indirectly criticized my choice of beers and ales, and (3) he is Candian or something like that.

The envy, resentment, and bitterness aimed at me are the motivators that keep me participating as a moderator.