I was BANNED!

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

They didn't like the cut of your jib, obviously.

Very out of order, to just kick you out without so much as a reason...even a contrived reason would have been something.

What's the name of the board...i have a mind to register and post similar posts as you did, just to see if i get booted out too.

Again... I will not disclose the site name (though I think it would be funny as hell if you did go and post...) since this is not about site-bashing, but merely an illustration of the knee-jerk fear (I guess it's fear) that led to such an absurd reaction.

reply to post by Amaterasu


The Hannity site did it to my first post!

Truth or facts mean little to some people in this world.

I believe you blew there mind with intelligent thought and since you where beyond their comprehension they thought it safe to eliminate the cause rather than the effect. You may have made their followers a little brighter than they cared for.

In short there was nothing that you wrote that merited any kind of banishment.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Well it was a "Conservative" sight. Therefore its likely that for the first article about Entropy, they simply scratched their heads not having a clue what it meant...science type words don't go over well with those types....they see such things as the product of 'liberal professor' types, and basically they just automatically hate things they don't understand...now had you mentioned that the Bible was more accurate than science they would have likely been all about the article. As for the other one, I see you mention wanting an end to poverty. Definitely not something Conservatives enjoy, since they see that as akin to Communism for some reason.

They must consider Entropy as representing "Chaos" from "Change" (change being anathema to conservatives by definition) and in reference to the second link; there are those who will kill and take property to "conserve" the status quo. Your threads must have been threatening to their core beliefs so you were labeled persona non grata.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by AdAstra

If they thought I ripped someone off, they were perhaps unobservant.

Yes, well, that's a common condition here.

Who cares? I just read the first of your contributions and flagged it.
I think it really is interesting.

LOL! Though it was not here but at the conservative forum that the lack of observation (if that was the issue) took place. I only had one such issue here on ATS years ago - I posted elsewhere and copied it to ATS as my own (since it was), only to have a mod put it in quotes with the link to where I originally posted. No biggie. I was "Amaterasu" there, too, so I figured the mod just failed in observation.

Acknowledged.
I still maintain it's a common condition around here, though. :-)

It is ismple. TPTB do not want to hear of a new party or rules.(Ross Perot).... They will do everything in their power to stop a revolution. Your first thread speak of an energy revolution which we all know that big oil runs the show. The second thread is about a new political party. Well, this is an easy one, just ask MLK Jr., JFK, hell even John Lennon. TPTB will not allow an Idea or "change" that will affect the outcome of "their" rule over us.

If you try to make the system look bad and sound educated about it, this is bad news for you. That kind of talk speaks revolution in the long run. Think about it.

S&F, I read the threads you posted and they were well thought out. this seems to be the problem here. Too thought out, if you know what I mean. You are probably on the FBI terrorist watch list for posting the second thread.

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Well it was a "Conservative" sight. Therefore its likely that for the first article about Entropy, they simply scratched their heads not having a clue what it meant...science type words don't go over well with those types....they see such things as the product of 'liberal professor' types, and basically they just automatically hate things they don't understand...now had you mentioned that the Bible was more accurate than science they would have likely been all about the article. As for the other one, I see you mention wanting an end to poverty. Definitely not something Conservatives enjoy, since they see that as akin to Communism for some reason.

They do indeed. I keep pointing out that Communism is a scarcity paradigm - one "pie" sliced evenly. The abundance paradigm is more many, many, many "pies" of which One may have as much or as little as One desires.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
They must consider Entropy as representing "Chaos" from "Change" (change being anathema to conservatives by definition) and in reference to the second link; there are those who will kill and take property to "conserve" the status quo. Your threads must have been threatening to their core beliefs so you were labeled persona non grata.

As I thought. Those conservatives must not like what I have to say. I'm thinking.

Thanks for you evaluation of the situation. Still... Remove the thread and give warning, eh? Geez.

Without having read the replies thus far ( I do apologize for this, but it's a hectic day in Heff-land ) I just wanted to add...

Banned means you, at least, got in. I applied for posting privilege on a few of these sites, about two months ago... You know the whole "a verification email will arrive shortly" kind of thing...

To this day... not a single verification email. Not one.

~Heff

Originally posted by AdAstra

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by AdAstra

If they thought I ripped someone off, they were perhaps unobservant.

Yes, well, that's a common condition here.

Who cares? I just read the first of your contributions and flagged it.
I think it really is interesting.

LOL! Though it was not here but at the conservative forum that the lack of observation (if that was the issue) took place. I only had one such issue here on ATS years ago - I posted elsewhere and copied it to ATS as my own (since it was), only to have a mod put it in quotes with the link to where I originally posted. No biggie. I was "Amaterasu" there, too, so I figured the mod just failed in observation.

Acknowledged.
I still maintain it's a common condition around here, though. :-)

Won't argue that. [smile] Thanks for the flag, BTW.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Without having read the replies thus far ( I do apologize for this, but it's a hectic day in Heff-land ) I just wanted to add...

Banned means you, at least, got in. I applied for posting privilege on a few of these sites, about two months ago... You know the whole "a verification email will arrive shortly" kind of thing...

To this day... not a single verification email. Not one.

~Heff

OMG. Well, I'm betting I'm going to find the same thing in the future. My email's blacklisted now. I'm giving it high odds, at any rate.

(They prolly let me in because I have been so exclusive until now and my email had not come to Their attention...)

Did you sign up to those forums and then had those very extensive essays as your first posts? Mods or Admins might've thought you were just trolling around or someone just there to flood the boards. Usually you even need to make a post before starting a thread.

No idea, man.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Did you sign up to those forums and then had those very extensive essays as your first posts? Mods or Admins might've thought you were just trolling around or someone just there to flood the boards. Usually you even need to make a post before starting a thread.

No idea, man.

Well, yes. I did. But again, it seems to me that common protocol is to warn - and then if further issues arise, to ban. Maybe I'm unclear on that score...

And I think it takes a very short bit of reading to determine there is substance in the information - or maybe I delude myself...

I'm just saying, 18 to 20 hours... Not over a weekend, even... And then taken down and me banned. I would think a mod would have looked at what I wrote and dispensed with it within four to six hours if they thought it was spam or such. And in that case, likely would have sent something that said it was spam, or something. I'm just saying the time it took, then the ban notice with no explanation or even, "See our rules here..." [shrug]

Some forums have an agenda, and if you go against that agenda you will get banned.

(been warned in another forum not to go against the ideals of the group - don't question, just agree)


You where likely in a neocon conservative forum.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Some forums have an agenda, and if you go against that agenda you will get banned.

(been warned in another forum not to go against the ideals of the group - don't question, just agree)


You where likely in a neocon conservative forum.

Dollars to donuts I was. Rush Limbaugh's name popped out at me there, so... Yeah.

I guess I went against their agenda - heh, I think I go against EVERYONE's agenda. LOL! I don't think I have an agenda except for others to help get this ball rolling. Beyond that, once it's going... I will sit back and smile at all the smiles I will see.

But is best just to leave it alone.

It is their forum, and it is there rules....they can do what they want with their forum. Just be informed not to go there again.

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Well it was a "Conservative" sight. Therefore its likely that for the first article about Entropy, they simply scratched their heads not having a clue what it meant...science type words don't go over well with those types

As to the attacks against conservatives, I consider myself conservative - we are all not closeminded individuals. As any other group, there are branches of said group.

reply to post by Amaterasu


If there were anything at all conservative about the forum that banned you, they probably got upset at your posts because they made them think.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
But is best just to leave it alone.

It is their forum, and it is there rules....they can do what they want with their forum. Just be informed not to go there again.

Oh, I fully agree. That's why I didn't start a site-bashing thread. And... It seems I can't go there again. [smile]

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Well it was a "Conservative" sight. Therefore its likely that for the first article about Entropy, they simply scratched their heads not having a clue what it meant...science type words don't go over well with those types

As to the attacks against conservatives, I consider myself conservative - we are all not closeminded individuals. As any other group, there are branches of said group.

I think we are talking neocon, actually. The word "conservative" is in their name, and that is what labeled them. As I said, Rush Limbaugh was listed there.