He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership. (Reply #15)

In the discussion thread: Dear Skinner, when may we expect Manny Goldstein back? [View all]

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:22 AM

pnwmom (103,847 posts)

15. He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership.

You should acquaint yourself with them.

And the only people who can determine this are the site owners. And they made the decision months ago.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

173 replies	Author	Time	Post
Dear Skinner, when may we expect Manny Goldstein back? [View all]	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	OP
K&R.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#1
Or at least Third Way Manny	jberryhill	Mar 2016	#2
No. He wasn't out because of 5 hides. He was PPR'd.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#3
Bullshit. nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#4
Ditto the bullshit.	SoapBox	Mar 2016	#5
3x	Depaysement	Mar 2016	#13
+10,000 nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#56
Bull.	840high	Mar 2016	#8
.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#14
The same could be argued about more than a few who have returned from purgatory.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#16
Those MIRT members that planned off-site to get members hidden here should have been PPR'd	polly7	Mar 2016	#28
And of course requests to do so were met with the sound of crickets.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#31
Yes.	polly7	Mar 2016	#33
"I'd love to turn Bonobo or cali into the quivering little chickenshits they are."	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#32
I have to admit, I have complete contempt for those people and always will after seeing their	polly7	Mar 2016	#35
I have to ask:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#36
Well, I don't imagine the alert-stalking is going to do much, if so	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#52
And this one .......	polly7	Mar 2016	#63
Wow.	progressoid	Mar 2016	#65
yikes, I need each and evveryone of these people on my ignore list.	Cobalt Violet	Mar 2016	#129
As far as I know, Skinner has never banned anyone for what they said off site.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#166
No, folks allowed back under the new rules were alert-stalked into time outs. Mannie was banned.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#48
He was banned for	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#50
That is not why he was banned.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#71
Well that is what is says on his transparency page.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#93
Actually that is why he was banned.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#167
No mostly they were jerks who earned their hidden posts by being jerks.	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#67
The admins have obviously noticed a partisan bent to the hides.	joshcryer	Mar 2016	#91
I know that Manny was banned.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#125
^^^ What SunSeeker Said ^^^	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#92
Sunseeker has been corrected on what (s)he said.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#96
And so have you. n/t	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#100
No, all I have seen are assertions, not arguments.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#105
I thorougly love Manny's sense of humor.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#123
And hence the question begs to be asked: when will he be invited back?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#132
Where is kelliekat? Alert-stalked away also. nt	Jitter65	Mar 2016	#154
OOPS	Omaha Steve	Mar 2016	#6
Bring Manny back	NJCher	Mar 2016	#7
posted without comment or reply.	revmclaren	Mar 2016	#9
It speaks of overreaction:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#25
Very true	Duckhunter935	Mar 2016	#155
You must have been lurking for the 2008 PUMA movement	pintobean	Mar 2016	#163
it certainly says a lot about the admins	redruddyred	Mar 2016	#39
No. He wasn't suspended because of hides. He was banned,	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#10
No shit he was banned. NO, he didn't deserve it, as much as he threatened the	polly7	Mar 2016	#11
He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#15
Nah, he wasn't.	polly7	Mar 2016	#20
If it's so obvious, then why are you disputing their decision? nt	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#21
Because I think it was 'wrong', why do you think?? nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#23
despite this the rule is bizarre	redruddyred	Mar 2016	#62
No he was not, quote where he was then	Duckhunter935	Mar 2016	#156
He was PPRed. There's no coming back unless he personally pleas his case with Skinner.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#12
So did Trumad, but he is back for an encore.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#17
To the best of my knowledge, Trumad was never PPRed.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#18
Well, he was a Clinton supporter, so I guess a PPR was too much to ask even then.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#19
Oh brother!	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#24
I didn't realize he was gone. I don't keep score.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#136
Trumad is back???????	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#131
So did CajunBLazer, by posting verbatim Jew-hate from a neo-nazi site	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#26
Good point,	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#29
Was that poster PPRed?	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#30
No, they were not, and that's kind of the point I'm making	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#40
Then you have no point to make.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#61
Arbitrary rules that are oft allowed to be defied on personal bias is no way to run a kingdom	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#86
You are free to leave if you don't like it.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#99
I'd prefer a community with stable, predictable standards of conduct from all sides	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#109
I wonder whether your analysis is correct.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#128
We would certainly welcome it.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#134
Not All Bernie Supporters	ProfessorGAC	Mar 2016	#168
or L0oniz. or NYC_SKP	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#22
Yes, they too, of course. Manny was just the first name that came to my mind.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#27
+10,000 nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#55
+1	MissDeeds	Mar 2016	#118
Also. I would like to have them back.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#138
Wait, NYC_SKP has been nuked? n/t	Turborama	Mar 2016	#153
He was banned, not suspended.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#34
Which in itself speaks of a double standard.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#37
He was banned for a cause. Bernie or bust type stuff.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#41
Which during PRIMARIES is not disallowed. By the way:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#44
Skinner posted a clarification	bravenak	Mar 2016	#49
When "arbitrary" now means "biased"	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#53
This place is status quo	bravenak	Mar 2016	#68
Anything that favors your preferred candidate, eh?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#72
I am not emotionally tied to a candidate.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#76
Nope. nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#66
It is on his profile.nt	bravenak	Mar 2016	#70
See post # 57 please.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#74
Here	bravenak	Mar 2016	#75
Do you even read before replying?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#83
Not my call.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#88
But the primaries aren't over yet!	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#98
I know.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#104
OK, great. Seems a reasonable position. Would you then agree	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#107
Okay.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#113
I remember exactly what was posted. It was a bad ban.	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#81
Do you mean to ask if I would have banned him?	bravenak	Mar 2016	#85
Not at all what I meant. But I do agree. nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#144
No. He was in violation of a clear standard. Read the terms of membership.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#45
^^^THIS^^^	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#54
Ah, NO! Please see post # 57	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#60
The standard is clear. The violation was not:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#57
You missed this part:	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#79
At the time, it was (and still is) uncertain Clinton would be that candidate/ nominee	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#87
It is only permitted if the poster leaves the door open about changing his mind.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#150
You Better Believe It!	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#97
We don't believe it, because there is nothing to back up that claim.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#101
You know, you could take it up with Skinner in ATA. That's what it's for. I get that you're trying	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#106
Yes, this is applying public pressure. Well spotted.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#108
Good luck with that!	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#111
skinner appears to have trashed ATA	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#114
Oooh, you just made me spray tea. (LOL)	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#115
Sadly, time to call it a night	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#119
I'm in a different time-zone, so allow me to keep up the good fight.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#122
NSS!! nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#38
What?	bravenak	Mar 2016	#42
Lol! +1	BeanMusical	Mar 2016	#82
It certainly seems that some TOS violators are arbitrarily ppr'd while others	bbgrunt	Mar 2016	#43
I have decided and it speaks of double standards.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#47
The establishment at their finest--much like DWS.	bbgrunt	Mar 2016	#58
The "establishment."	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#80
the above statement was brought to you by BIAS -	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#89
But if we set up websites of our own, it won't be any fun.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#139
This is a website promoting the Democratic party owned by an individual. It is not a Democracy.n/t	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#149
You are free to spend your time elsewhere if it bothers you so much. eom	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#69
So are you, there's always the cave, right? nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#77
is that where Moh lives after earning six or seven hides?	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#90
Probably. I'd guess mostly camped out in the hidden Grumble section. nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#94
Yeah, I mention these things because I'd rather be somewhere else.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#78
Manny was milder than the Rude Pundit	LiberalLovinLug	Mar 2016	#46
People that don't get satire must have it rough in the real world.	polly7	Mar 2016	#51
You don't get it.	delrem	Mar 2016	#59
F*CK David Brock, then.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#64
shrug. It's reality, Betty. Reality.	delrem	Mar 2016	#84
K&R nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#73
Heaven forfend....Dieu nous en garde !	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#95
It would be fair and even-handed.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#103
He's been banned (thankfully), not suspended. Different rules.	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#110
Banned arbitrarily. Different standards too, perhaps?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#117
Skinner IS the ultimate arbiter around here...thank god.	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#120
Ultimate, but even he has imperfections.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#124
There was nothing "arbitrary" about that decision.	NanceGreggs	Mar 2016	#126
Yes, it's clear that your side wants a monopoly on reprieves.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#145
Don't like the rules? Change forums! Arbitrary after 10~ years of disruption?	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#127
So you want us to give you Hell and a cold treatment too?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#147
THE MANNY HATERS CAN FUCK THEMSELVES	Skittles	Mar 2016	#102
Manny is gentle, kind, witty, ironic, imaginative, and enriched DU immeasurably.	senz	Mar 2016	#112
Senz, the kindness of your every word is wonderful.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#116
Illegitimi non carborundum	senz	Mar 2016	#121
Haha. You appeal to the latinist in me now:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#130
Wow, I'm impressed.	senz	Mar 2016	#140
Actually, I have Horace's collected works on the bookshelf: one very think volume.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#142
What psycho-babble codswhallop...Bwaahaaaaaa!	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#143
LOL! Well, I tried	senz	Mar 2016	#146
+100000000000000	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#148
Jesus Christ, get a room already!	randome	Mar 2016	#159
He was a troll - banned for TOS violation. n/t	Lil Missy	Mar 2016	#133
Let me repeat once more: the rule is clear, the violation was NOT at all clear:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#135
It clearly helps Republicans. Get over it.	Lil Missy	Mar 2016	#137
Here is something for you to get over:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#141
LOL...	SidDithers	Mar 2016	#151
Manny had an aversion to the likely...	Mike Nelson	Mar 2016	#152
Who says he wants back in here?	LiberalElite	Mar 2016	#157
God, the hero worship here is embarrassing sometimes.	randome	Mar 2016	#158
Manny is a racist. He was rightfully banned for his racist, and otherwise trolling. nt	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#160
That's not what he was banned for.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#165
Black posters were on the receiving end of that 'advocacy.' Targeted, alert stalked, etc. You	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#169
No argument at all there, and Bravenak is one of my most favorite people on this board!	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#170
And people want his racist ass back.....unbelievable. nt	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#171
In order to expect that you'd have to think the rule changes were about fairness and inclusivity	aikoaiko	Mar 2016	#161
His ban was for something other than violating the "rules" covered in yesterday's OP by Skinner.	George II	Mar 2016	#162
Reasons as stated by Skinner.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#164
Where did Skinner say he's allowing banned members back?	sufrommich	Mar 2016	#172
Locking	In_The_Wind	Mar 2016	#173

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.