RONJOR: WHY did you close the IE extinction thread?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by securityuser, Jan 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    I don't get it! The discussion was very good. Yes, it got a bit esoteric about what it means when someone thinks their protection in the past guarantees them protection in the future, but, I don't get ito_O??

    Why is it up to YOU to decide the thread had reached the "...end of its life." Good discussion like this should be PROMOTED over the silly news postings from secondary sources, so everyone can say, "Thanks Ron, good article!" Is that what you want here? REAL discussion gets locked while all of those links to magazine articles you post and the "neat" "good stuff" "thanks" posts stay up! Is that discussion to you? This is the WILDERS reputation on the net. Real discussion gets locked because we don't want hurt feelings, or this or that. Ron, what is your deal with nannying this site to death and locking good discussion threads while promoting silly fluff threads that links to magazine and newspaper articles. Personally, I think the site should BAN that or create a forum for it. Locking that thread was heavyhanded and needless.

    Now ----- hurry and delete this thread before anyone sees there is <<<<aghast!>>>> C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T !!!!!!!!!

    Shame on the heavy handed crap! COULD YOU EXPLAIN SIR RONJOR?
     
  2. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    I see you edited the locking post to say that "All the relevant arguments have been made." WOW! That's a pretty blanket statement!!! You must be one smart guy to know what all the relevant arguments are when it comes to an issue like that! That is not YOUR DECISION. Your comment is merely your opinion. I would like to have sen it continue. My guess is there might very well have been more "relevant arguments" made. I just don't get this kind of #$%*. And people wonder why some don't become members!
     
  3. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,721
    Location:
    Texas
    That is a quote from you contained in the thread.

    If the admins of this site decide that thread should be reopened, it will be.
     
  4. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    Had you READ the thread? I was referring to the esoteria that we had discussed the last three posts. I meant move on and get back to the (very good) discussion. Brother!
     
  5. dog

    dog Guest

    Well ... this isn't a democracy. We are here as "Guests", and as such we follow the house rules. Moderators enforce those rules. There is no requirement for an explanation. One, was provided ... and there will be no debate over the reasoning, plain and simple.

    Wilders' is fair and just. If you don't like the rules/environment hang your hat elsewhere.

    Steve
     
  6. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    Just forget it. This NANNY HEAVY forum is just not for me. Certainly don't reopen the thread on my account as I won't be here to read it.
     
  7. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    Hey "DOG" ----

    What RULES were violated? You are right, mods enforce the RULES. They shouldn't be making subjective decisions, like Ronjor, that "All the relevant arguments have been made." That's BS.

    "NO debate over reasoning".....In other words, Wilders isn't for the users, it's for the mods. When THEY get tired of a thread , no matter the involvement, they can close it? That's not what forum mods are for. They are for, AS YOU SAID, to enforce the rules.
     
  8. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,874
    Location:
    New England
    Good! Don't let the door hit you on the way out. :rolleyes:
     
  9. securityuser

    securityuser Guest

    That's a classy way of dealing with someone who thought something was done wrong. Dumbshit!
     
  10. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,874
    Location:
    New England
    Ah! And I thought you were leaving. Guess not. :rolleyes:
     
  11. dog

    dog Guest

    Not wanting to spur this on any more. But in regards to ...

    "Subjective"

    No much in the world is "black and white" ... almost everything is a shade of grey. 'Objective' is rather intangible ... everything is coloured by ones perspective/reality. There aren't many rules that are cut and dry, interpretation is usually the key ("Subjective" ). That just the way the world is.

    Have a pleasant day. :)

    Steve
     
  12. Firefoxguy

    Firefoxguy Guest

    Though I fully agree with the right of the admins to close whatever thread for whatever reason (or no reason) they want, I would like to answer the following question by Spanner.

    ~off topic discussion related to thread in question removed....Bubba~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2005
  13. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    @Firefoxguy
    Feel free to start a new thread with the info you wished to share....or PM spanner with the info edited from your post.

    Since this issue has been addressed by one of the site owners....this issue serves no further purpose.

    Enjoy your weekend one and all....TGIF :cool:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.