The forum rules are little different than lacrosse rules. You can read more within this forum. If you are assessed a penalty, this is the only forum you can post within.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
For those unfamiliar with the above poster, it’s wise to ignore his dishonest passive-aggressive pleadings and ‘advice’.
He wishes nothing more than to ban anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of tone.
Zero respect for free speech and dialogue.
He monitored Joes posts like it was his job…which it’s clearly not. He told Joe to not post in the politics thread, even though joes posts are significantly more well received than his own (which come to think of it, might explain his desire to ban Joe).
And of course instead of having any thoughts of nuance to punishment, which literally 99% of us agree with, his weak-kneed conclusion is ‘Joe deserved it’.
Joe should not have jawed the Admin. We all agree. He knew he’d be hit with a flag. The question is, is 270 days appropriate? I think a tinier punishment is more equal to the crime, and as effective.
Losing Joe on Fanlax for 9 months is a massive loss to the community. Except of course for those who want him gone.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
For those unfamiliar with the above poster, it’s wise to ignore his dishonest passive-aggressive pleadings and ‘advice’.
He wishes nothing more than to ban anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of tone.
Zero respect for free speech and dialogue.
He monitored Joes posts like it was his job…which it’s clearly not. He told Joe to not post in the politics thread, even though joes posts are significantly more well received than his own (which come to think of it, might explain his desire to ban Joe).
And of course instead of having any thoughts of nuance to punishment, which literally 99% of us agree with, his weak-kneed conclusion is ‘Joe deserved it’.
Joe should not have jawed the Admin. We all agree. He knew he’d be hit with a flag. The question is, is 270 days appropriate? I think a tinier punishment is more equal to the crime, and as effective.
Losing Joe on Fanlax for 9 months is a massive loss to the community. Except of course for those who want him gone.
Complete trolling blather by PB here. As usual. As ever.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
For those unfamiliar with the above poster, it’s wise to ignore his dishonest passive-aggressive pleadings and ‘advice’.
He wishes nothing more than to ban anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of tone.
Zero respect for free speech and dialogue.
He monitored Joes posts like it was his job…which it’s clearly not. He told Joe to not post in the politics thread, even though joes posts are significantly more well received than his own (which come to think of it, might explain his desire to ban Joe).
And of course instead of having any thoughts of nuance to punishment, which literally 99% of us agree with, his weak-kneed conclusion is ‘Joe deserved it’.
Joe should not have jawed the Admin. We all agree. He knew he’d be hit with a flag. The question is, is 270 days appropriate? I think a tinier punishment is more equal to the crime, and as effective.
Losing Joe on Fanlax for 9 months is a massive loss to the community. Except of course for those who want him gone.
Complete trolling blather by PB here. As usual. As ever.
Did you have a comment on Joe’s punishment? Just as a helpful guideline: this thread is titled ‘JoeMauer89’.
If not, isn’t your post the very definition of a troll? Literally adding zero to the actual topic. I’m not the topic.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
For those unfamiliar with the above poster, it’s wise to ignore his dishonest passive-aggressive pleadings and ‘advice’.
He wishes nothing more than to ban anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of tone.
Zero respect for free speech and dialogue.
He monitored Joes posts like it was his job…which it’s clearly not. He told Joe to not post in the politics thread, even though joes posts are significantly more well received than his own (which come to think of it, might explain his desire to ban Joe).
And of course instead of having any thoughts of nuance to punishment, which literally 99% of us agree with, his weak-kneed conclusion is ‘Joe deserved it’.
Joe should not have jawed the Admin. We all agree. He knew he’d be hit with a flag. The question is, is 270 days appropriate? I think a tinier punishment is more equal to the crime, and as effective.
Losing Joe on Fanlax for 9 months is a massive loss to the community. Except of course for those who want him gone.
Complete trolling blather by PB here. As usual. As ever.
Did you have a comment on Joe’s punishment? Just as a helpful guideline: this thread is titled ‘JoeMauer89’.
If not, isn’t your post the very definition of a troll? Literally adding zero to the actual topic. I’m not the topic.
Listen, your post has really very little to do with Joe, who plainly blew his top and got a penalty for it. Your post is an extracurricular effort to demean MDLaxfan. So just stop and leave the posting to adults.
admin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:41 pm
64 Minute (128 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 16 at 7:50 PM EST.
128 minute (256 Day) Penalty. You'll be released on March 12, 2023 at 2:45 PM EST.
This has reached the point of absurdity. The punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
I would recommend finding a different way to do this. It feels juvenile and petty at this point.
Yup, like Clinton's Three Strike Law. Took another set (many) of eyes to fix that.
The first Prez to visit a prison fixed that but this guy doesn't much care how others
(many) see it.
Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here.
Agreed.
As someone who has never violated any of the rules other than the unwritten rule against having the audacity to question the admin, the geometric progression of the penalties seems a bit severe. But, I barely finished third grade so what the heck do I know.
Maybe it could be simply multiplicative (i.e. 4th violation x 2 day ban = 8 day ban)
I think the point of the geometric is that the poster is well informed of the potential outcome, and that it gets worse exponentially.
The first offenses are easy to make, an error in judgment, a lack of experience with the rules perhaps, a momentary lapse, a warning occurs, and if done again then a punishment is meted out...no big deal at first, slap on the wrist, but as the punishments get materially worse, there's an increasing reluctance (hopefully) to commit the violations again...the alternative would be removal entirely after some number of offenses.
The point is to not have folks breaking the rules again and again and again, and to remove the "graffiti" of offensive posts...I don't think an arithmetic progression gets that accomplished nearly as effectively.
The challenge, of course, is where to draw the line on what is an offense and what isn't...bottomline, if admin gives a warning, then the obvious thing to do is ease up, not argue.
I really appreciate Joe's contributions on the Lax threads, but he's repeatedly proven unable to restrain himself when participating on the Politics threads. His best defense is to simply stick to the threads other than Politics. It's a choice. It's too bad that his own choice removes him from the Lax threads as well.
For those unfamiliar with the above poster, it’s wise to ignore his dishonest passive-aggressive pleadings and ‘advice’.
He wishes nothing more than to ban anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of tone.
Zero respect for free speech and dialogue.
He monitored Joes posts like it was his job…which it’s clearly not. He told Joe to not post in the politics thread, even though joes posts are significantly more well received than his own (which come to think of it, might explain his desire to ban Joe).
And of course instead of having any thoughts of nuance to punishment, which literally 99% of us agree with, his weak-kneed conclusion is ‘Joe deserved it’.
Joe should not have jawed the Admin. We all agree. He knew he’d be hit with a flag. The question is, is 270 days appropriate? I think a tinier punishment is more equal to the crime, and as effective.
Losing Joe on Fanlax for 9 months is a massive loss to the community. Except of course for those who want him gone.
Complete trolling blather by PB here. As usual. As ever.
Did you have a comment on Joe’s punishment? Just as a helpful guideline: this thread is titled ‘JoeMauer89’.
If not, isn’t your post the very definition of a troll? Literally adding zero to the actual topic. I’m not the topic.
Listen, your post has really very little to do with Joe, who plainly blew his top and got a penalty for it. Your post is an extracurricular effort to demean MDLaxfan. So just stop and leave the posting to adults.
MD should be ignored. He’s had a jones for Joe for a long time, bunny-boiler monitoring his posts and demanding he not post on the politics thread.
So far as my posts here, I am careful to always discuss the topic, which is Joes punishment. It comes as zero shock that folks like yourself (who are on the opposite side of Joe’s politics) are content to lose a valuable voice for 270 days; in fact you beg for that. Many of us feel the punishment is excessive and have asked the Administration to reconsider. We’d do the same for you if it was you in Joe’s shoes, knowing full well you’d never return the favor.
No, you're pretty much wrong about that. I think Joe has a lot to offer on the lacrosse side of the ledger. And when he gets into the politics stuff, he tends to blow a gasket and I -- and MDLax -- always tell him he should consider taking it down a notch. Joe feels strongly about things; I get that. But he always fights folks on a super-personal level, calling them arrogant jerks and worse. I actually think the duration of his suspension is too long. In any event, you've admitted sufficiently here that the target wasn't Joe's suspension; it was to excoriate MDLax. So piss off.
Petey, You made this about you.
We get it, you don't like being in the penalty box.
How long was your last penalty, 32 days? 64 would be next?
32 is 4 "strikes"; how many should one get?
But you don't want to be held accountable, right?
Your primary issue is trolling, lying and disinformation, designed to inflame, directly against the rules...you are not alone, but you are one of the most flagrant abusers of that rule.
BTW, when I say you are flagrant abuser of the trolling rule, that's borne out by your punishment rate. When I say you lie, I've shown you those lies specifically and directly, again and again. Thus, my assessment of you is accurate. By contrast, directly above you lie again about my intentions re Joe. Disagree with me, fine, but don't lie about me.
I have zero issue with disagreement, it's a discussion board, we're not supposed to always agree. But lying and spreading other's lies, simply to insult and inflame, is not discussion.
Joe is not a troll IMO; he has a quite different issue.
Joe's a constructive, and often informative, Lax poster, especially on the women's side. Also contributes in some of the other non politics topic threads.
He gets riled up when he participates in the politics side, insulting and attacking others rather than actually making his points. He's repeatedly told us that he knows that he has trouble controlling himself, and that he intends to simply refrain from the Politics threads...and he does refrain for stretches of time. I merely try to remind him of that intention, when he returns, as it's become so predictable that if he engages, he'll soon 'lose it'...and that's a shame as he indeed would be otherwise an interesting participant.
If there was a way to put him in the penalty box cutting him off only from the Politics thread for progressive periods of time after a breach of the rules, for his own good, that'd be what I'd prefer. I don't think admin has that option, technically, but if he did, that might be the best for all.
In contrast, Petey, you keep telling us you're not going to post until after November, but you obviously can't help yourself either. Trolls gotta troll, I guess.
Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:10 pm
No, you're pretty much wrong about that. I think Joe has a lot to offer on the lacrosse side of the ledger. And when he gets into the politics stuff, he tends to blow a gasket and I -- and MDLax -- always tell him he should consider taking it down a notch. Joe feels strongly about things; I get that. But he always fights folks on a super-personal level, calling them arrogant jerks and worse. I actually think the duration of his suspension is too long. In any event, you've admitted sufficiently here that the target wasn't Joe's suspension; it was to excoriate MDLax. So tick off.
What are you talking about???? I posted that I wanted the admin to reconsider, a couple other posters agreed. I agreed with them. Then and only then, your boy MD invites himself in, first saying to me ‘you would’ (no comment on the subject matter, similar to yours), then a second post which was passive aggressive wobbly ‘Joe deserved it, if only he’d have listened to me’.
Meanwhile Joe despised him.
I wouldn’t have ever brought MD into the convo, as both my first and second post demonstrate. It’s only you clowns who come in after the fact to tell others your predictable nonsense. All we ask is you stick to the subject, but you have this overwhelming need to focus on people not even part of the discussion.
Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:10 pm
No, you're pretty much wrong about that. I think Joe has a lot to offer on the lacrosse side of the ledger. And when he gets into the politics stuff, he tends to blow a gasket and I -- and MDLax -- always tell him he should consider taking it down a notch. Joe feels strongly about things; I get that. But he always fights folks on a super-personal level, calling them arrogant jerks and worse. I actually think the duration of his suspension is too long. In any event, you've admitted sufficiently here that the target wasn't Joe's suspension; it was to excoriate MDLax. So tick off.
What are you talking about???? I posted that I wanted the admin to reconsider, a couple other posters agreed. I agreed with them. Then and only then, your boy MD invites himself in, first saying to me ‘you would’ (no comment on the subject matter, similar to yours), then a second post which was passive aggressive wobbly ‘Joe deserved it, if only he’d have listened to me’.
Meanwhile Joe despised him.
I wouldn’t have ever brought MD into the convo, as both my first and second post demonstrate. It’s only you clowns who come in after the fact to tell others your predictable nonsense. All we ask is you stick to the subject, but you have this overwhelming need to focus on people not even part of the discussion.
It's correct that you chimed in, as you've done many, many times before, on the subject of suspensions. You wrote simply: "Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here."
You didn't address anything about Joe, just your desire to not have geometric penalties.
I don't think you care a hoot about Joe, in specific. I do. Truly.
Nor do you care about anyone else on here, IMO. Just your aggressive need to spread BS and vitriol at others, and about others...you are not alone in your dislike of one sort or another of perceived enemies, but you are close to singular in the sheer volume of flat out misinformation and downright lies. Truth matters not at all to your posting.
So, yes, I noted that "you would" in response to that post.
I then responded, separately, to the specific topic. My opinion. You characterized my opinion with a lot of personal attacks and flat out lying, but that's your typical way of addressing anything that disagrees with your need to dump at others. Anything with actual consequences for your behavior.
Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:10 pm
No, you're pretty much wrong about that. I think Joe has a lot to offer on the lacrosse side of the ledger. And when he gets into the politics stuff, he tends to blow a gasket and I -- and MDLax -- always tell him he should consider taking it down a notch. Joe feels strongly about things; I get that. But he always fights folks on a super-personal level, calling them arrogant jerks and worse. I actually think the duration of his suspension is too long. In any event, you've admitted sufficiently here that the target wasn't Joe's suspension; it was to excoriate MDLax. So tick off.
What are you talking about???? I posted that I wanted the admin to reconsider, a couple other posters agreed. I agreed with them. Then and only then, your boy MD invites himself in, first saying to me ‘you would’ (no comment on the subject matter, similar to yours), then a second post which was passive aggressive wobbly ‘Joe deserved it, if only he’d have listened to me’.
Meanwhile Joe despised him.
I wouldn’t have ever brought MD into the convo, as both my first and second post demonstrate. It’s only you clowns who come in after the fact to tell others your predictable nonsense. All we ask is you stick to the subject, but you have this overwhelming need to focus on people not even part of the discussion.
It's correct that you chimed in, as you've done many, many times before, on the subject of suspensions. You wrote simply: "Admin: is there a way to rethink ‘punishment’ other than this method? I agree with JB and Dmac here."
You didn't address anything about Joe, just your desire to not have geometric penalties.
I don't think you care a hoot about Joe, in specific. I do. Truly.
Nor do you care about anyone else on here, IMO. Just your aggressive need to spread BS and vitriol at others, and about others...you are not alone in your dislike of one sort or another of perceived enemies, but you are close to singular in the sheer volume of flat out misinformation and downright lies. Truth matters not at all to your posting.
So, yes, I noted that "you would" in response to that post.
I then responded, separately, to the specific topic. My opinion. You characterized my opinion with a lot of personal attacks and flat out lying, but that's your typical way of addressing anything that disagrees with your need to dump at others. Anything with actual consequences for your behavior.
Unreal. The level of shameless dishonesty in the post above is nauseating but too predictable.
Whose posts do you think worked Joe into a lather? Who do you think Joe accused dozens of times of being unbearably arrogant? Of being offensively pedantic? To stop telling Joe once and for all where and when to post? Who on this website did Joe practically beg to shut up and simply discuss the topic without being personally so condescending?
Who would that have been? The guy who supposedly ‘cares’ about him.
The guy who doesn’t come to the “JoeMauer89” thread to ask the Admin to reconsider (rather he comes to first cry that I agree with other posters that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime). The guy whose posts are the reason Joe got repeatedly agitated and ultimately suspended.
yup; your dishonesty is well documented.
You are merely characterizing me as such, though nothing I've said is inaccurate.
Yes, Joe attacked me again and again, quite out of the blue, and some of those attacks got him in trouble. Same for others he attacked. I responded each time to simply tell me and anyone else he chose to attack personally what specifically he disagreed with and why. Just tell us what his views were and why. He, typically, though not always, refused to engage on the actual topic.
He and I corresponded as well by PM, and IMO he's a good guy, well-meaning. But he has issues controlling his emotions.
For some reason he would flip out when reading others' posts on various topics in the Politics thread. Coronavirus thread was his most prolific area, and it seemed to incense him terribly that other posters wanted to discuss that topic, often critically of those peddling medical disinformation, whether on scam-like 'therapeutics' or about the vaccines. And what seemed to most incense him were those who thought that various public health measures intended to reduce spread were important. All valid areas for potential disagreement, but he typically wouldn't actually discuss the topics themselves, instead just attacking the other poster personally. He would capitalize words (shouting) and get very directly personal... again, quite out of the blue.
My advice was to simply avoid the threads where others' discussions bothered him so much that he just couldn't control himself. And, at times, he indeed stayed out of the discussions, while engaging well in other areas.
You are an entirely different kettle of fish. I think you know full well how much of jerk you are being and take delight in doing so, and I think you know full well when you are flat out lying and/or spreading untrue disinformation. All partisan, all troll, all the time.
a fan is far more patient than I am in showing you exactly where you are lying, exactly where you are hypocritical, over and over and over again. I've come to the conclusion that you are simply not to be trusted to engage honestly. So, I'm less patient.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:27 am
yup; your dishonesty is well documented.
You are merely characterizing me as such, though nothing I've said is inaccurate.
Yes, Joe attacked me again and again, quite out of the blue, and some of those attacks got him in trouble. Same for others he attacked. I responded each time to simply tell me and anyone else he chose to attack personally what specifically he disagreed with and why. Just tell us what his views were and why. He, typically, though not always, refused to engage on the actual topic.
He and I corresponded as well by PM, and IMO he's a good guy, well-meaning. But he has issues controlling his emotions.
For some reason he would flip out when reading others' posts on various topics in the Politics thread. Coronavirus thread was his most prolific area, and it seemed to incense him terribly that other posters wanted to discuss that topic, often critically of those peddling medical disinformation, whether on scam-like 'therapeutics' or about the vaccines. And what seemed to most incense him were those who thought that various public health measures intended to reduce spread were important. All valid areas for potential disagreement, but he typically wouldn't actually discuss the topics themselves, instead just attacking the other poster personally. He would capitalize words (shouting) and get very directly personal... again, quite out of the blue.
My advice was to simply avoid the threads where others' discussions bothered him so much that he just couldn't control himself. And, at times, he indeed stayed out of the discussions, while engaging well in other areas.
You are an entirely different kettle of fish. I think you know full well how much of jerk you are being and take delight in doing so, and I think you know full well when you are flat out lying and/or spreading untrue disinformation. All partisan, all troll, all the time.
a fan is far more patient than I am in showing you exactly where you are lying, exactly where you are hypocritical, over and over and over again. I've come to the conclusion that you are simply not to be trusted to engage honestly. So, I'm less patient.
Again such a remarkably dishonest post. Just amazing stuff. I’m trying to not reply, but it’s unfair to Joe to let you try to get away with it.
First, his posts to you were not “attacks”. He was merely pointing out your ‘well-documented’ tone. A tone no one who isn’t a partisan Democrat particularly cares for, in case you haven’t noticed.
Secondly, it’s not his posts that ‘got him in trouble’, you did. You poked the bear time and time again. Instead of simply saying, yeah maybe you’re correct I do come off as slightly ( ) arrogant, maybe I should change’, you doubled down.
Whether you reported him or asked others to report him is between you and god.
What’s crystal clear is if it wasn’t for you and just you (no one else; don’t loop others in here), Joe Mauer would be here today. Please think about that.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:30 pm
yeah, that's how accountability works in your world, Petey...
Joes is a good guy, you are not.
In my world, you’d have been suspended from this site as often and as long as the people you’ve personally tried to get suspended. I don’t know if I’d file that under accountability so much as justice.
