Why has john been banned?

[john]

All the off topic childish threads you were starting. And no where in that quote do I complain about "ALL THE THREAD WE ARE STARTING" I complain about starting a "million threads and hijacking the website." Rather than answering each others threads you were starting your own threads in a bizarre pissing contest. Thank you for proving my point as in the very post above I say "You want to talk about a topic, then start a thread with the appropriate title and discuss the point."

I even go as far as saying you can start a single thread and go at it all day long. There is no point in me starting a post to address Spencer (and Spencer only) to just have him, instead of replying, creating a new thread to answer me and me alone. If we did that all day long people would complain... but we wouldnt because we respectful of the other members of this forum

Never do I say that you cant continue to post all I asked on numerous occasions while reaching out to each of you personally in a civilized manner was to stop with the constant creation of personally directed and off topic threads.

I don't know what you were reading but it seems as though you have totally taken my sincere requests and turned them into what you thought was some kind of bullying or scolding when all I was doing was pleading with you guys to do what you obviously knew was the right thing even though you refused to do it.



I am sorry to say that I hardly feel "overmatched" and if anything I think it is good to let people know exactly what has happened here and let them judge for themselves. If there was something to apologize for, I would be happy to do so.

If you would like to continue down this road I will be happy to answer any questions you or anyone else may have.

Glad to see you are back enjoying the forums.

Now I will break up this post by Charles because he still unFing believable.

First he says this (and read this carefully):

"And no where in that quote do I complain about "ALL THE THREAD WE ARE STARTING" I complain about starting a "million threads and hijacking the website."

Now he is the only one besides maybe Havakasha who would say that this part "I complain about starting a "million threads and hijacking the website." was something different then him complainning about us starting thread after thread after thread. OMG, can you be anymore in denial of facts.

It is exactly the same as when I told him he sent me a threating email telling me if I did not stop picking on him then he would ban me. Now just like then anyone reading that email would say and have said that that is exactly what it looked like to them. Only Charles could not see that.



Holy crap only Charles could not see this for what it is.

"You guys want to go at it in a thread all day, that is fine with me. But you are not going to start a million threads and hijack the website. I have had 4 complaints so far today and I just don't have time for it."


He makes it a point to seperate this part and make a point about starting thread after thread after thread (ho I am sorry because Charles by himself will not get what I just said so I will put it this way: about starting a million threads).

He then says this:

"You want to talk about a topic, then start a thread with the appropriate title and discuss the point. If this continues I will simply give you guys a 1 week ban."

Once again he says dont start a bunch of threads talk about it in one thread.


Hey dumbass that is what I was telling you to do something about and if you would not then I would start to do the samething as Havakasha.



Now once again I will put the full PM up it is what it is it says what it says. Only a twit that is trying to cover his ass would try and say it says anything different then "STOP STARTING THREAD AFTER THREAD AFTER THREAD."


"You guys want to go at it in a thread all day, that is fine with me. But you are not going to start a million threads and hijack the website. I have had 4 complaints so far today and I just don't have time for it.

You want to talk about a topic, then start a thread with the appropriate title and discuss the point. If this continues I will simply give you guys a 1 week ban.

We are all adults here, this is as childish as it gets."


CHARLES YOU WERE NAILED TO THE WALL. That PM is very clear to everyone with a IQ over 100. You cant be anymore clear in what it says. Trust me, everytime you try to fight this PM it just proves my point about what I just said about you and why people left.

Your the only one that says that email was not a threat to stop picking on you. Just like your the only one that thinks that PM was not telling us to stop putting out thread after thread after thread.

[john]

You dont read. I explained how the economists i read consider Feb 1 as the first reading of unemployment under the new president Obama. That figure was 8.1%. You should read before you make charges especially since you were caught lying about 6% and a doubling of unemployment (8.1 to 9.8 aint a anywhere near doubling. Take up with the Chairmen of Dupont and Caterpillar among others about why this recession is unlike any other.)
Caught you Johnny boy. Sorry but i had to rub your nose in it. Still dissembling about it. Par for the course. Tellings so telling. LOL.

Bullshit Havakasha this is what you said: "I just read the unemployment rate was at 8.1% when Obama took office (it is now 9.8%). Like i said before unemployment always continues to head up after a recession ends."

Goto post 9:

http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2848

Like I said I amitted to a mistake as soon as I saw the post and checked it out it took all of minutes from the time you posted I made it, yet you cant and that is already a day after I put the link up showing the unemployment rates.

[Havakasha]

Your the only person who i ever met who can post something completely wrong like unemployment was "about 6 % when Bush left office" and say it has almost doubled since Obama took over, and somehow try to squirm out of it in a myriad of ways and blame the person who caught your distortion (lie?).

First you try to say that " at least i said 'about' and then you tried to argue Bush wasnt really in office from Nov to Jan 20 and then you claimed the month of December should be the one to count and then you claim Jan 1 as the date should count (or 7.6%.) and then you claim Obama caused unemployment to go up before he was in office because his policy prescriptions scared businesses and on and on and on. You never accept TRUE responsibility for being wrong yet you love to say all this crap about Liberals. Look in the mirror for once John
All i said was " i read it was 8.1%" And it was. On Feb 1 the first unemployment reading since Obama took office and Bush left office was 8.1%.

Now if you want to argue that Obama caused that jump between 7.6% and 8.1% in 10 days in office go right ahead sir. Actually you tried to blame the last few months rise in unemployment on Obama before he even took office.
Totally ignored the fact that unemployment always keep rising into recessions and AFTER they are over and that this is a unique recession by all metrics and by all that busniess leaders have said.
How about this John, since unemployment was 7.6 on Jan 1 and 8.1% on Feb 1 and since Obama took office on Jan 20 or about 2/3 of the way into the month why dont we say that unemployment was approximately 7.9% on Jan 20th or ABOUT 8%? LOL. Yes you admitted you were wrong (SORT OF in the inimitable John style) but you were way off on the % and even further off on the doubling charge.

And a man who has been caught distorting (lying) and who loves to claim other people are lying (read your comments on Charles just yesterday) should realize that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

Stop squriming and man up. You were wrong. You are more than capable of being wrong again.

[Havakasha]

P.S. When i said you dont read i meant it. I responded to your comment about my original post (" i read 8.1%") by explaining how i got the 8.1% figure from economists i had read. Look it up if you dont believe me. Dont make me go searching and prove you wrong again. LOL.

You want to argue about the argument and the argument about the arguing of the argument. and HAVE PEOPLE IGNORE YOUR ORIGINAL FACTUAL DISTORTION OR LIE. It aint working John! Your technique is NOT good debating form even though you brag about it. You end up looking desperate.

Enjoy your day i am off to the country to enjoy the fresh air and nature. I recommend you do it sometime too.

[john]

Charles: "I didnt forget. I still don't know how that was threatening."

Trust me your the only one. Hey dumbass the simple fact you threatened to ban me, MAKES IT THREATING, are you really that retarded.





Charles: "Really? Then why do you have such a problems with others and their ideals?"

Because lies are lies they effect others. Hence why Obama was elected. If the media would have reported on Obama like they did Clinton or Palin then there is no way Clinton would have lost.




Charles: "Its not easy to follow you or your points. They are often overly verbose and your original point often gets off track quickly. I apologize but I assure you, it is not easy to follow. I do my best to quote each of your points and answer them."

First I use clear examples and link to them to show exactly what your pattern is they are a direct link to your pattern. It is you that gos off on a tangent on that example. I have also told you and shown clearly how when you cut the crap out of a persons post as you do much gets lost (that is done on purpose in my opinion). I on the other hand directly answer each question with a disagreement or agreement. I will ether put the FULL QUOTE up or just answer each question if it is close to my reply so that people can goto your FULL post and read for themselves what was said. You dont ever see me cutting the crap out of your post like you do.



Charles: "But, you are still here so, I feel like I am the winner!"

Very funny, very funny.



Charles: "So, by your logic, for every person who emails me about you, there are 10 that do not say a word? Wow, that is a lot of people."

"I didnt question it because I was and I am still not concerned."



You really are a twit aren't you. You really dont see a difference between me (a poster) and you (the owner of the site). So yes my logic still holds true. The facts are the facts you lost a shit load of people at the first chance they had to jump ship. Hey dumbass heres another example for you: Do you remember all the complements you got from the very same people that left the first chance they had. Its called kissing ass.


Good for you and that is why you are who I said you are.





Charles: "I will do my best to shed more light on how this works... because clearly you don't understand and ignorant through of no fault of your own but... wordpress notifies us via email for each and every comment made. So, the minute the email arrives (and I check my email) I can see that you made a comment directed at me. At which time I can simply click the delete link."



Hey dumbass I dont have to know exactly how it works to know then each post is treated the same. Therefore the samething happened with the comments just above mine. It should have been simple enough to see those had nothing to do with SIRIXM. Once again dipshit you cant have it both ways. Here because you are a twit and I feel the need to show what a twit you are, I will explain: In the same amount of time it took you to see the first sentance of my post you could read at least as much of the other post and saw there was nothing in it that had anything to do with SIRIXM, THOSE COMMENTS WERE TO SHORT FOR YOU NOT TO SEE IT DIPSHIT.




Charles: "Please point to your exact point because I answered that what I thought was your point in that link. The other part you are leaving out for everyone is that there was a running context and private messages involved in what I was requesting of you. I have said it in the posts you think prove me wrong and continue to say, I have no problem with anyone posting as many threads as they like as long as they are on topic, I have never said different.


OMG, I did I put up the link to the thread where you were pissed about all the threads, I then put up the FIRST and ONLY PM you sent me on this subject about putting out so many threads. Any other PMs and post where not you getting on us about threads that were being put up but that we were using each others names in the titles in a insulting way. You are more then welcome to put up any threads or PMs that you said it was ok to put up a bunch of threads each day because I dont have any. SO PLEASE BRING THEM OUT. I bet we dont see any. By the way they all were on topic the topic is politics, DHAAAAA. You show me one thread that was put up by us that had nothing to do with politics. You must have forgot this:

"You guys want to go at it in a thread all day, that is fine with me. But you are not going to start a million threads and hijack the website. I have had 4 complaints so far today and I just don't have time for it."

Dhaaaaaa, hummmmm, dhaaaaaa, hummmmmm, dhaaaaaa



Charles: "I read it, I dont see your point. Again, I have answered your question and made my rebuttal.

How you can say that I cut and paste peoples comments is hilarious. I take your entire post and answer each and every point and quote you make on a point by point basis... missing nothing at all.

If you have any other issues, I will be happy to answer them all on a point by point basis as I have done throughout this entire thread.

I know that you like to fight and argue based on your own admission but if your issue is that you think that I said that you should stop posting a bunch of on topic threads, that is not the case. You can and should feel free to do so."


You just did ("cut and paste peoples comments") it to the point that you missed this:

"goto post 23, dhaaaaaaaa, dhaaaaaaa, I am Charles and I have been proven to be wrong but yet somehow I will say I was correct, dhaaaaaaaa."

That was DIRECTLY BELOW THE PART YOU CUT OUT, DUMBASS. So you must have because you just asked me to tell you what post to goto after I just told you in that post what post to goto, dhaaaa. I guess when you said this: "missing nothing at all." you forgot you missed when I told you what post to goto. Charles you look more and more retarded ever time you agrue this with me. I cant speak for others but common sense is telling me like myself people are LOL at you everytime I nail you with this stuff.


Now I just hope you dont change you mind again from the first PM you sent me on this subject. Because you know this thread is up and I will find it and be more then happy to repost it. Then again I am sure you are going to try and say, well I did not mean that you could put that many threads up.

[john]

P.S. When i said you dont read i meant it. I responded to your comment about my original post (" i read 8.1%") by explaining how i got the 8.1% figure from economists i had read. Look it up if you dont believe me. Dont make me go searching and prove you wrong again. LOL.

You want to argue about the argument and the argument about the arguing of the argument. and HAVE PEOPLE IGNORE YOUR ORIGINAL FACTUAL DISTORTION OR LIE. It aint working John! Your technique is NOT good debating form even though you brag about it. You end up looking desperate.

Enjoy your day i am off to the country to enjoy the fresh air and nature. I recommend you do it sometime too.

Havakasha, did you or did you not write this:

"I just read the unemployment rate was at 8.1% when Obama took office (it is now 9.8%). Like i said before unemployment always continues to head up after a recession ends."

I dont care what you put up first you do realize once you post it takes the thread to the top. That is what I look at and if I have time I work my way down that being what it is you had no problem posting the exact samething as you said before in different threads so why would you not do that here, I guess that is anyones guess the fact is you said what you said and that means you LIED yet you have not done what you have said I dont do (which I can prove here was yet another lie (goto post 3 and 5):

http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2853

Yet it has been almost a whole day I showed you had LIED and yet once again nothing from you except excuses, not of why you lied or were mistaken but of how you are still telling the truth. Truely unbelievable even after I gave you the link showing you also were wrong you still cant admit to it. So once again because you are a twit and cant get it, here ONCE AGAIN is the proof you were wrong:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

Now will you just say, I was wrong, and do what anyone that has been shown to be wrong and admit to it.

[Sirius Roadkill]

do you guys know where the term "dip shit" originated?

If you look on old engineering drawings of sewer lines . . you will often see sewer lines identified as "DIP" . . . which of course stands for "Ductile Iron Pipe" which is what they were made of before PVC

So in the field . . the engineers often referred to the sewer pipes as "dip" for short.

Now when the laborers had to replace the sewer lines (ductile iron pipe) . . . they were of course concerned with what to do with all of the "dip" shit . .

So there you are . . just a little commercial break . . please resume!

[SiriusBuzz]

Charles: "I didnt forget. I still don't know how that was threatening."

Trust me your the only one. Hey dumbass the simple fact you threatened to ban me, MAKES IT THREATING, are you really that retarded.

That wasn't a threat. I asked you to stop and told you what I would do if you didnt. When you continued, I gave you a time out. How else do I explain to you what you are doing is wrong and what will happen if you continue? You perceive that as a threat? That is me explaining policy. A threat might be something like... if you continue to be an agitator I am going to tell your wife that you cheated on her. That is not fair nor is it sensible nor is our policy here.

Google tells you that if you you try and use blackhat SEO they will ban your website. Is that a threat? That is simply their policy which they will make good on.

Not everyone is out to get you or fight with you. My comments were never meant to "scare" or "force" you to do anything. You can do as you please. I just had to tell you what we do here when people are a detriment to the community

Charles: "Really? Then why do you have such a problems with others and their ideals?"

Because lies are lies they effect others. Hence why Obama was elected. If the media would have reported on Obama like they did Clinton or Palin then there is no way Clinton would have lost.

That is fine... so what you are saying is that you do not believe in to each his own. Then why did you say it?

First I use clear examples and link to them to show exactly what your pattern is they are a direct link to your pattern. It is you that gos off on a tangent on that example.

I am sorry you feel that way. If you would like a clear answer to one clear question, I would be happy to answer that for you.

I have also told you and shown clearly how when you cut the crap out of a persons post as you do much gets lost (that is done on purpose in my opinion).

I have answered all of your posts questions point by point as I have done here. If you have any other questions or issues feel free to number them and I will prove to you that I have no intention of cutting anything out.

I on the other hand directly answer each question with a disagreement or agreement. I will ether put the FULL QUOTE up or just answer each question if it is close to my reply so that people can goto your FULL post and read for themselves what was said. You dont ever see me cutting the crap out of your post like you do.

The only thing I have done throughout this thread is quote every word of your and answer them on a point by point basis.

Charles: "But, you are still here so, I feel like I am the winner!"

Very funny, very funny.

No joke here. As bad as we suck and as much of an ignorant, lieing, "twit" that I am, you still choose to be here. That is awesome.

You really are a twit aren't you. You really dont see a difference between me (a poster) and you (the owner of the site). So yes my logic still holds true. The facts are the facts you lost a shit load of people at the first chance they had to jump ship. Hey dumbass heres another example for you: Do you remember all the complements you got from the very same people that left the first chance they had. Its called kissing ass.

I see a difference between an owner and a poster yes. I am not concerned about the exodus. As I said before, they bounced here, the bounced to a new site, and they will bounce again... that is the nature of the beast. I except it.

If people left because of me then you would have left by now as well. People left because they followed other people that they have been collaborating with long before they got here. I am ok with it man, it doesnt bother me. The website does just fine regardless of the status of the forums.

This is not how I earn a living, it was simply something I did to help the SATRAD community, if people choose to use it...great, if not... that is fine too.

Hey dumbass I dont have to know exactly how it works to know then each post is treated the same. Therefore the samething happened with the comments just above mine.

That is not correct. The posts above yours are out of context because they are clearly people responding to other people in some kind of thread of communication. Your post on the other hand was directly to me. It was simple to see.

It should have been simple enough to see those had nothing to do with SIRIXM. Once again dipshit you cant have it both ways. Here because you are a twit and I feel the need to show what a twit you are, I will explain: In the same amount of time it took you to see the first sentance of my post you could read at least as much of the other post and saw there was nothing in it that had anything to do with SIRIXM, THOSE COMMENTS WERE TO SHORT FOR YOU NOT TO SEE IT DIPSHIT.

I am sorry but that is not correct. Our commenting system on our website is threaded people could responded to a response of a response which is on topic. It is impossible to see.

Example: "I concur! Concur? Concur!" was posted the other day. Now is this on topic or off topic? Did the person before him say "I love peanuts" or did the person before him make a comment about the "Inno" I have no idea. I have to go read the thread to find out. I assure you, that was a real post and I had to go read the article to see what the hell he was "concurring" with.

I could go find a dozen more in no time at all. Half of the stuff that is written makes zero sense to me. Imagine taking a play script and scrambling the lines up, that is what I see via email.

OMG, I did I put up the link to the thread where you were pissed about all the threads, I then put up the FIRST and ONLY PM you sent me on this subject about putting out so many threads.

When I clicked the link I received a 404 error. The url has been truncated.
Try it for yourself http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthre...?t=2503&page=3

Any other PMs and post where not you getting on us about threads that were being put up but that we were using each others names in the titles in a insulting way. You are more then welcome to put up any threads or PMs that you said it was ok to put up a bunch of threads each day because I dont have any. SO PLEASE BRING THEM OUT. I bet we dont see any.

I never once said that you could not post a bunch of threads. So, why would I have said you can post a bunch of threads?

By the way they all were on topic the topic is politics, DHAAAAA. You show me one thread that was put up by us that had nothing to do with politics. You must have forgot this:

"You guys want to go at it in a thread all day, that is fine with me. But you are not going to start a million threads and hijack the website. I have had 4 complaints so far today and I just don't have time for it."

I did not forget and I stand by that. You can not hijack the website. I guess I should have been more explicit but in the context of the threads which were directed at you and have only, I thought my point was quite clear. If that wasnt enough, I messaged you both privately.

http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showpost...2&postcount=27
You said: So ether you do something or I will start back up with the new threads also. (which reads like a threat since I asked you not to do it and you are telling me you would do it anyway.
Then I said: There is nothing wrong with posting political opinions in the political section. Just because you dont like them doesnt make it wrong to do.

If that isnt me saying you can post all you want as long as its on topic, I dont know what is. If this is a matter of a miscommunication (although I dont know how I could have been clearer), I think it is abundantly clear now.

You just did ("cut and paste peoples comments") it to the point that you missed this:

"goto post 23, dhaaaaaaaa, dhaaaaaaa, I am Charles and I have been proven to be wrong but yet somehow I will say I was correct, dhaaaaaaaa."

That was DIRECTLY BELOW THE PART YOU CUT OUT, DUMBASS.

Post 23 is as follows.

http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showpost...9&postcount=23
This is where we merge all of the inappropriately-titled-childish-bantering from the last few hours.

How does that say that you can't post a bunch of on topic threads? Please explain.

So you must have because you just asked me to tell you what post to goto after I just told you in that post what post to goto, dhaaaa. I guess when you said this: "missing nothing at all." you forgot you missed when I told you what post to goto.

I most likely (I dont know because this thread has gone on forever and has taken me quite some time to reply to) left it out because as I said above, I dont see what your point is in what I post in #23.

Charles you look more and more retarded ever time you agrue this with me. I cant speak for others but common sense is telling me like myself people are LOL at you everytime I nail you with this stuff.

Really? Because everyone I have shown this has laughed at you. I have done everything I can to take the time to answer all of your questions and have done so in a civil manner whereas you continue to rant and have like a lunatic.

1. All: If I have been "nailed" please chime in and let me know.
2. Why you would want to continue to visit this website after you have made your feelings about me so clear really says something about you. OR is it that you just want to argue and that you know you are making a mountain out of a molehill because as you have admitted, you enjoy this kind of thing.

[SiriusBuzz]

I have said and will say again. If you have a particular single question you would like answered I would be happy to do so but this circular conversation and strawman argument is a total waste of time for both of us. I know you enjoy this stuff but I can think of a thousand things that would be more productive for me to do which actually matter in this world.

Thanks.

[JohnnyIrishXM]

ok,this was a 2 Bagger(Popcorn) discussion,,,lol
My 2 cents is Charles i remember distinctly your warning to lloyd and John about creating all these threads and John saying he complained to you in PM if you won't stop it he would not let the disinformation campasign started by lloyd to go unanswered..Your childish move of consolidating all the so called childish comments the last few hours was wrong to do imho and as far as deleting post's because too many by same person in a frow,i witnessed you doing it,can't remember who it was,tmaybe socal or Roadkill about 3-4 months ago,hence i posted on reply jokingly so it wouldn't happen again..
Noiw imo your fear of Lloyd and John highjacking your site,you are correct,it happened and is the talk of other sites as being very entertaining and only thing going on here,(except market watch,Bill) and you should have followed john advice and nipped in the budd when had a chance too Charles,too late now...
This is my unbiased opinion on subject...

Ho Bastard,starting thread on ways to beat down a liberal and not resort to calling names.....LOL John