Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Is Mr. Garry about to be banned from dizwell

Re: Is Mr. Garry about to be banned from dizwell

From: <hjr.pythian_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:12:30 -0000
Message-ID: <1181805150.841433.102620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


On Jun 8, 7:02 am, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:34 am, "fitzjarr..._at_cox.net" <fitzjarr..._at_cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 7:14 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 9:15 pm, cherrysister#1 <10g..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> > > You have waaaayyy too much time on your hands.
>
> > This is yet another outburst from Omlet, renamed. One more for the
> > killfile.
>
> > David Fitzjarrell
>
> Yes, I was deleted.

Actually, you weren't (and aren't).

If you had been deleted, your posts at Dizwell would now appear under the name 'Anonymous', but they do not do so.

Get your facts right, Joel: your account has been BLOCKED, not deleted. And it can be unblocked the minute you apologise for your ridiculous behaviour and your inability to follow posting guidelines. I am not holding my breath, however, in that regard.

> My last post, which hjr deleted was:
> Subject: Which IP Address?
> Body: (blank except for sig)
>
> The implication being that he doesn't realize I have posted from
> several IP addresses, some of which are dynamically assigned, and he
> is too stupid to know that. Obviously he isn't that stupid, but just
> as obviously (to me, anyways), is he was looking for any excuse to
> boot me.

I deleted a post of yours because of your failure to follow posting guidelines. I replaced your post content with a polite request for you to follow the guidelines in the future. Instead of you accepting that correction and posting appropriately, you decided that it was the WYSIWYG editor's fault. And then that I should have emailed you about the problem first. And then you decided to get "smart" about it and claim that for some mysterious reason I didn't want the original poster to know the vital Metalink reference you had originally supplied.

That is why your posting privileges at Dizwell have been suspended. It's entirely down to you, your behaviour and your attitude.

Had you simply previewed your own post; had you corrected your own post after it had been made; had you simply accepted the correction I made, you would still be a posting member of the site.

 >
> I don't think cherrysister#1 is omlet, the post and name are far too
> coherent. Not enough content to guess who it is. Come out, come out,
> whoever you are! :-) Could even be hjr... :-O I'm thinking it's
> just someone who thinks its all pretty funny/silly (as I would, were
> it not me on the receiving end, I wish I could care that little,
> actually).

I have no need to post here anonymously, Joel. Yet another delusional fantasy you appear to be suffering.

> I was really ticked about being the blog example of bad posting, but
> haven't particularly done anything about it. I do think it is pretty
> nasty to post something about someone and remove any possibility of a
> response. I call on anyone who links to his blog to remove the link,
> but don't expect anyone to care that much. I don't think it's in RSS
> feeds? (I don't use it, I don't know). If anyone knows of other
> discussions about this, please let me know - googling on my name in
> quotes should get you right to a page with an email address.

And all because you are the ONLY person who thinks posting entirely in bold is OK.

Sad, I call it.

> My speculation is Howard is going through some tough emotional times
> because of his employment situation, and taking it out on dizwell.com
> users.

Then you are an idiot and even more ignorant of actual facts than I took you for.

My *factual* assessment of the situation is that you think rules apply to everyone else but you and your ego can't stand being picked up on the fact that no, they actually apply to you too.

 I wish he would admit he isn't suited to be a moderator for
> such things, he has many good talents, but that isn't one of them.
> Instead, he passive-aggresively blames others just to get an excuse to
> get out of his self-imposed impossible situation. Well, now he's lost
> the passive part and is getting pretty aggressive, as he periodically
> does.

Very odd. There are posting guidelines. You didn't follow them. I pointed this out. You objected to me pointing it out. You continued to bait me. You get suspended.
That's all there is to it, actually. It's there in black and white, too.

>
> And all over the _format_ of a post! Well, those of you with Word
> available on a PC set up to dispaly dizwell properly, try this: Set
> your font to Bookman Old Style at a point size of 12. Type some
> stuff. Does that look bold? Try it with Times New Roman. Does that
> look bold? Now try those fonts at point size 10. Does that look
> bold?
>
> Well, when I have to use MS Office stuff, I set my point size to 12.
> To me, if everything on a dizwell post is bold, it looks more like my
> default Word stuff than, say, the stuff I'm typing right now into
> Google. So I barely noticed it, maybe thinking there's something odd,
> but not particularly caring. He knows what happened, even pointing
> out I probably cut and pasted a bolded metalink note and that set
> everything into bold. He then goes off the deep end, claiming I'm the
> only one who has a problem with this and that many other people do it
> wrong so he's going to close off posting.

So you barely noticed it. Fine. If you choose to tinker with the fonts in your browser so that you can't see bold text distinct from unbold, then that's OK with me. But when I point it out to you that others DO see a difference and that your posting style doesn't fit in with what everyone else is constrained to do, don't start getting all 'why are you trying to suppress this information' on me. You want conspiracy theories? Go to Dallas. You want to post to Dizwell, then follow the posting guidelines and don't start getting smart with me when I pull you up on violations of those guidelines, however "innocently" caused.

Unless you start mucking about with display fonts, the ones which Dizwell appears in by default do not confuse bold text with non-bold text. I do not, for example, use Bookman Old Style, nor Times Roman. If you set your browser to override the default fonts I do use (which are all sansserif and would appear as Verdana or Tahoma in a standard Windows browser), then that is your choice and it's one I respect. But if that then causes you to fall foul of posting guidelines which everyone else has to follow, then it becomes your problem.

>
> And so, I'm accused of thoughtless drive-by posting (could be a legit
> claim - but he never addresses any technical issue about my posts,
> just the formatting. And there isn't a problem with my advice, though
> since the post was deleted, we'll never know).

Your technical content consisted in a Metalink reference, which is still there, in plain sight, for anyone to read. Facts getting in the way of a good story once more, I fear.

 What no one sees is
> the several longer, more detailed posts I've made at times that Howard
> simply deletes.

No posts of yours which have confined themselves to matters of a technical nature have ever been deleted, and none ever would be. If Burleson himself posted a matter of technical fact, it would be there for all to read.

  oMy motivation is to help improve his site with
> specific constructive criticism, but he just takes it as attacks. So,
> either he needs to get some help, or he's just an asshole
> overcompensating for his deficiencies. Fine. Any doubt has now been
> removed.

In your own mind, Joel. In your own mind.

Just stick to the posting guidelines and technical fact. It's a simple enough formula.

>
> Thank goodness for unmoderated fora!

Yes, pesky thing that moderation... stops people from making anything they like up and claiming it as fact. Perish the thought indeed... Received on Thu Jun 14 2007 - 02:12:30 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US