Here is a situation I haven't come across before.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly.
Which makes your removal of the posts based on them being too snarky and nonsensical even more suspect. Face it, You had a personal involvement with the OP and it pissed you off when someone made a snarky comment and so based on anger, you outed where they work. That's the bottom line.

Okay, I admit it. The OP and I are involved in a torrid affair. There are many salacious details that I would happily divulge if I only knew the sex of the OP so that I could get the details right. But, the OP will tell you that what I lack in ability I make up for in enthusiasm.

Your pop psychology is amusing but far from the mark. If you were able to achieve a modicum of reading ability, you would have seen my explanation over and over again. A response such as "fire here immediately" was nonsensical. It's not an insult, so even were it directed at my secret lover (who I am desperately hoping is female), why would I care? I focused on it because I thought it was a spambot test post. I realized it was not, but deleted it any way. Why? Because it was stupid. Is that a good reason? I don't know and I really don't care. End of story.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Again, learn to read. I have no relationship with the OP and don't even know who it is. I don't go "post by post", but clicked on the thread because I thought it might be interesting. I remove multiple spams per day. Sometimes 20-30 at a time. You probably don't see much spam because by the time you wake up on the west coast, I've been up for hours removing it.

How about you try comprehending instead of JUST reading?

I love that you're attacking me like a 3 year old, "Learn to Read", If you could get past your ego, you'd SEE that I am reading, but I dont believe what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly.
Which makes your removal of the posts based on them being too snarky and nonsensical even more suspect. Face it, You had a personal involvement with the OP and it pissed you off when someone made a snarky comment and so based on anger, you outed where they work. That's the bottom line.

Okay, I admit it. The OP and I are involved in a torrid affair. There are many salacious details that I would happily divulge if I only knew the sex of the OP so that I could get the details right. But, the OP will tell you that what I lack in ability I make up for in enthusiasm.

Your pop psychology is amusing but far from the mark. If you were able to achieve a modicum of reading ability, you would have seen my explanation over and over again. A response such as "fire here immediately" was nonsensical. It's not an insult, so even were it directed at my secret lover (who I am desperately hoping is female), why would I care? I focused on it because I thought it was a spambot test post. I realized it was not, but deleted it any way. Why? Because it was stupid. Is that a good reason? I don't know and I really don't care. End of story.

You do care, because you keep replying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

The poster of the "inane" and "mayo" messages participated in the second thread and was aware that inappropriate messages were not desired, yet returned to this thread to post her two messages. You also posted an additional snarky response.

Where is the line between snarky and inappropriate, jsteele? How am I, as an infrequent poster, supposed to know what is and what is not appropriate? You posted my info based on ONE POST I made and some incorrect inferences. I'm not a habitual disrupter that merits that kind of treatment. You didn't explore any other methods of instruction/correction before doing that. I don't think I have a RIGHT to post here. Let's get that straight once and for all. You have it in your head that my friend and I are in cahoots. The fact is that my friend asked me to check out this issue and get my thoughts. I visited the Censorship thread and then I visited the Avon thread, and left my posts. There was no concerted effort to cause problems. It was simply one person linking a friend to a thread. I'm my own person and my friend is their own person. The disparity in the messages we are writing here should be enough to illustrate that. Try to keep things separate and don't place guilt by association.

jsteele wrote:
There are two, perhaps three, posters from the Pacific Northwest who have posted in this thread. What is the chance of three users from the other coast independently stumbling across the same thread on an obscure website in Washington, DC? The chance is close to nil. Originally, I thought it was possibly a single user. Heck, I thought you people spent your free time in your garages playing grunge music. How the hell would I know that trolling DCUM had become so popular out there? Maybe next year I will hear about the trend on NPR?

Here's the scoop: 2 of us are in PNW, the other friend is in DC. Make sense now? I would have thought with all of your info on message origination you would have been able to figure that out. But AGAIN, why is our location an issue? Why won't anyone answer that? It's not an insult, if that's what you're thinking. Every time you or someone else mentions it (seemingly in a derogatory manner), you further the impression that outsiders are unwelcome.

jsteele wrote:
As for the "banker", your points are being heard. They just are not all that persuasive. Your complaint is that your "right" to post snarky messages is being impinged. The reason that other posters are not supporting you is not because they don't hear your message. It is not because I have intimidated them into silence. It's that virtually no snarky messages are ever "censored" on DCUM. Anyone who has been here any length of time knows that DCUM is nearly overrun with snark. Far more of our users would like to see more moderation rather than less.

So why are we even having this discussion? What was posted was snark and it wasn't due to spambots. You got it in your mind that there is some conspiracy between my friend and I (leave the 3rd person out...they are not involved in this) and decided to punish me for doing what is allowable for others? You didn't DEFINE what is inappropriate in the Censorship thread. In fact, you're exceedingly vague about what is and what is not appropriate. Maybe just once admit that it is unclear and give the benefit of the doubt?

jsteele wrote:

Can you answer one question? What is it that you hope to get out of DCUM beyond the opportunity to ridicule our members and how would posting snarky messages further than interest?

I'm curious about your use of the term "member". What constitutes a member on this site? As far as I can tell, the OP was posting anonymously and I was replying in the same way. So, if I signed up for an account, would I then get treated differently? All I'm asking for, Jeff, is clarity. I'm not asking you to change things. I just want to know how narrow the field is. As far as what we hope to get out of DCUM, it's the same as anyone else hopes to get out of it and I don't think any more explanation than that is needed. We come for information and entertainment; THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.

[Anonymous]

Banker, you're not going to get him to agree with you. Let it go.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:


No, posting the place of business was my way of highlighting the absurdity of your trolling. How ridiculous that two posters from the West Coast -- one of them even employed by a bank -- would waste their time trolling an innocuous thread on a DC parenting website.

What we choose to do with our time is our decision, jsteele. I'm sure if you could look up the info on other posters that you'd find that, GASP, time was being wasted. Again, another bogus argument on your part. Our proximity to DC and our professions are IMMATERIAL. Since when is one's profession an requirement to post on this site?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm curious about your use of the term "member". What constitutes a member on this site? As far as I can tell, the OP was posting anonymously and I was replying in the same way. So, if I signed up for an account, would I then get treated differently? All I'm asking for, Jeff, is clarity. I'm not asking you to change things. I just want to know how narrow the field is. As far as what we hope to get out of DCUM, it's the same as anyone else hopes to get out of it and I don't think any more explanation than that is needed. We come for information and entertainment; THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Obviously, your intent is to be a troll. I was correct about that from the beginning. Nothing else is really important. Rant away.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, all reasonable people on this site know you're right and appreciate all you do.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm curious about your use of the term "member". What constitutes a member on this site? As far as I can tell, the OP was posting anonymously and I was replying in the same way. So, if I signed up for an account, would I then get treated differently? All I'm asking for, Jeff, is clarity. I'm not asking you to change things. I just want to know how narrow the field is. As far as what we hope to get out of DCUM, it's the same as anyone else hopes to get out of it and I don't think any more explanation than that is needed. We come for information and entertainment; THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Obviously, your intent is to be a troll. I was correct about that from the beginning. Nothing else is really important. Rant away.

Okay, so your definition of being a troll is discussing a topic? So, then you're just as much a troll, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banker, you're not going to get him to agree with you. Let it go.

You are probably right. But a lot of worthwhile things would not have been accomplished if "letting it go" was the last course of action. Oh wait...that only applies to worthwhile things. Nevermind. Thank you for your input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, all reasonable people on this site know you're right and appreciate all you do.

Now, we will all wonder if this is sincere or just because that poster doesn't want her private information to be revealed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm curious about your use of the term "member". What constitutes a member on this site? As far as I can tell, the OP was posting anonymously and I was replying in the same way. So, if I signed up for an account, would I then get treated differently? All I'm asking for, Jeff, is clarity. I'm not asking you to change things. I just want to know how narrow the field is. As far as what we hope to get out of DCUM, it's the same as anyone else hopes to get out of it and I don't think any more explanation than that is needed. We come for information and entertainment; THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Obviously, your intent is to be a troll. I was correct about that from the beginning. Nothing else is really important. Rant away.

Ridiculous answer, Jeff. The ends justify the means, is your argument. Probably convinces those members who are satisfied with you sanitizing the site for them but not so much for someone that Coming to DCUM for information and entertainment is "trolling"? What have I been doing the past 2 days in this thread? Is discussing this issue trolling? What I've been arguing is very relevant to this site. You don't answer any questions about what is and what is not appropriate. You just settle on "these people are trolls" despite the fact that they (we) are discussing an issue with you. I just don't get where the boundaries are and you're not doing a great job of explaining them DESPITE your update to the FAQ. And if what you say is true, then why not ban me? I don't have a problem with that. It'll completely validate my take on this site being provincial but it would probably just be good to remove temptation for me to reply. I'm all for it. Grant my wish.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to say but I think you've lost a lot of good users on this site due to these actions, Jeff.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say but I think you've lost a lot of good users on this site due to these actions, Jeff.

Oh no. Death of DCUM predicted (by knowledgeable West Coast analyst). News at 11:00 (except on the West Coast of course).

[Anonymous]

I am an east coaster and I agree with the pp 13:45