Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Electric Chair, Nov 13, 2007.
You're laughing at me for "making him out to be a villain" and then equating a ban from an internet message forum to the death penalty? :icon_rofl:
Anyways, I don't know if it should be worth a permanent ban, that's their decision, all I know is it's not too shocking that he was banned.
No, but I might not allow them to have any cookies for quite some time.....which is a more adequate comparison to what EC got with the UT forum.
I think it may have started with a bias, but I think it had a lot less to do with the situation that he described to start the thread and a lot more to do with that it was LLV that he was linking.
I don't think so, it's increasing post counts :yes: :lol:
Oh yeah yuck it up. :lol:
Forever women or money was the root of all evil so now you get that **** off your back and leisure gets to carry that load. Fine. EFF him. I like it. :yes:
This sounds like a job for leisurelasvegas. :yes:
I would wager EC tells the Lizard to eatshit for a benjie. :flag::icon_banana:
I've never once denied the possibility of a bias, if you'd read my posts you'd see that already, but instead you read me pointing out the obvious (why he got banned) and immediately assume I'm Jeff Dillon himself trying to tell you all is right with the U-T forum.
Had EC approached the situation the correct way there probably would not have been a banning.
Slow news week.
But I never realized how much the collective inferiority complex around here would automatically make any pro-SoSD statement, even if it's a relatively neutral one, become an indictment against BT. You folks have firmly positioned yourselves in oppostion to them, so I should have expected it.
Oh, and I was a fan of EC. Was. Then he responded to my post.
That is what I think, EC got banned because the link was to your site :yes:
That is true. And a very good point KimPossible. I do not want to "kill" the soap opera aspect of all this.....because, honestly, this thread makes a very good read.......and I do my best to keep my nose out of UT topics over here on BT (other than a remark here and there:icon_tease......but what really happened is a crackdown from the UT administrators. We all know the rules over there in regard to advertising or posting links to alternate sites. It is very, very true that the moderators (including me) were not doing a great job at keeping that at bay. While not discussed in the public forum - believe me there has been a discussion between the UT and its Charger Moderators in regard to enforcing that rule across the board. That is why you saw that Sticky thread pop up after the fact. It was all being dealt with at the same time.
Any rate, I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long.
This type of stuff is not healthy for any forum.
Wrong. Actually, I was just admonished by them for getting involved on my own volition. But hey...you can believe what you want to believe.
And a pleasant side effect of being admonished was finding out what actually happened....and I was wrong about a "nasty comment." I'm cool with that.
Ask your boys EC and Shamrock what happened. They know EXACTLY what's going on....beyond their omniscient-sounding posts.
The most members online in one day was 175, 11-12-2007.
I'm sure they're trembling in their (jack)boots! :icon_rofl:
Again, you can believe what you want to believe.
Have a nice day.
Why the personal attack?? I haven't attacked you? maybe YOUR the one with the complex??
it was a personal opinion, you know just like the one your posting over here..
Also its not how many posters it the QUALITY of the posters. Trumpy , L,EC Shammy etc. ALOT of knowledge and opinions left that board so yeah I'm sure their is some nervousness going on over there. :yes:
It wasn't supposed to be personal. If the mods disagree...they can ban me!
It's all relative. Think about it.
Banning is something that is frowned upon over here, much more understanding. Our ethics are low remember :lol:
How was it not personal every quote you quoted was by me :lol:
No its not
Low ethics and low standards are not necessarily the same thing.
The UT's traffic numbers are fake, and I can provide a very good example to prove it.
Bolt Talk had 1008 replies in their Colts gameday thread.
UT had 1423 replies in their Colts gameday thread.
I won't even get into semantics about the percentage of people on this forum that have season tickets. We can just call that a wash between the two boards, although I have yet to see the gathering at the SDUT tailgater reach the epic proportions that the Bolt Talk tailgates do. Is there even a SDUT tailgater???? :lol:...
They skew the "members online" number. Once you log in there, you are logged in for a MUCH longer time than this forum. I know, because I have been at home, shut down my computer, driven to work, logged in as a multi and still saw "Electric Chair" as a "currently active" member, even though I was logged in as a multi.
Haven't you ever thought it was funny that when it says "Currently active members: 1,014" (or whatever), it's always the same 20-30 people posting? About the same number as here.
And as for their membership, the UT will always have the advantage because it caters to a wider range of reader representing all things news related, not just the local football team. Plus the Westerfield mess that put that forum on the map.
The UT lies about their traffic to- TADA!!!!! - increase advertising revenue. So please don't be a sucker and believe everything that you read. This site has almost caught up to the UT's Chargers Site. That is a simple fact.
DaronEdwards...hmmm, just a troll...
Too bad. Had me fooled there for a minute.
So now BT has low standards?? :lol:
Separate names with a comma.