can group consensus ban a board member? [Archive]

phixion

01-30-2007, 11:35 AM

can it? because theres a certain boardmember(board charcter?) , who posts in his own thread everyday without any replies but his own. he also tends to include in his posts insane pictures followed by a string of words that i wouldnt consider sentences because they make no sense. anyway i dont think anyone here likes the person. so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. this new guy does none of that, he treats his threads like masturbation, hes the only one who seems to entertained by his own effort. so back to the original question: if we as a group dont want a person here can that be enough to ban him/her?

Squigs

01-30-2007, 11:37 AM

I'm sorry. <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/flush.gif" border="0" width="24" height="26" />

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 11:39 AM

im douggrasso, and i approve this post. that "certain board charactor" is so annoying i cant even think straight.

blakjeezis

01-30-2007, 11:39 AM

I'm gonna say no, but who the fuck am I?

BoondockSaint

01-30-2007, 11:39 AM

That man seems to bee busy pimpin' his own thread.

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 11:40 AM

like the Amish turning their backs, collectivly on someone.  nice.  is it horsepants?   i hope so.

EliSnow

01-30-2007, 11:40 AM

phixion wrote: can it? because theres a certain boardmember(board charcter?) , who posts in his own thread everyday without any replies but his own. he also tends to include in his posts insane pictures followed by a string of words that i wouldnt consider sentences because they make no sense. anyway i dont think anyone here likes the person. so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. this new guy does none of that, he treats his threads like masturbation, hes the only one who seems to entertained by his own effort. so back to the original question: if we as a group dont want a person here can that be enough to ban him/her?Have you ever heard of the saying that if you're playing poker, and you can't tell who the sucker is, it's you?  For some reason, I'm feeling like that now.Goddamn paranoia complex.  Earl, do we have any anti-paranoia pills back there?

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 11:42 AM

EliSnow wrote: phixion wrote: can it? because theres a certain boardmember(board charcter?) , who posts in his own thread everyday without any replies but his own. he also tends to include in his posts insane pictures followed by a string of words that i wouldnt consider sentences because they make no sense. anyway i dont think anyone here likes the person. so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. this new guy does none of that, he treats his threads like masturbation, hes the only one who seems to entertained by his own effort. so back to the original question: if we as a group dont want a person here can that be enough to ban him/her?Have you ever heard of the saying that if you're playing poker, and you can't tell who the sucker is, it's you?  For some reason, I'm feeling like that now.Goddamn paranoia complex.  Earl, do we have any anti-paranoia pills back there?trust me dude, it ain't you.

Jughead

01-30-2007, 11:44 AM

Ive only started 3 stupid thread's here and 2 I was drunk!! They dont count!!!

angelinad128

01-30-2007, 11:45 AM

phixion wrote: can it? because theres a certain boardmember(board charcter?) , who posts in his own thread everyday without any replies but his own. he also tends to include in his posts insane pictures followed by a string of words that i wouldnt consider sentences because they make no sense. anyway i dont think anyone here likes the person. so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. this new guy does none of that, he treats his threads like masturbation, hes the only one who seems to entertained by his own effort. so back to the original question: if we as a group dont want a person here can that be enough to ban him/her?Two words   Attention Whore.And yes they are annoying.

JPMNICK

01-30-2007, 11:45 AM

we should have something like this where if 80% vote yes, then it happens

Death Metal Moe

01-30-2007, 11:45 AM

CAN GROUP CONSENSUS BAN A BOARD MEMBER?I certianly hope not.

jetdog

01-30-2007, 11:46 AM

JPMNICK wrote: we should have something like this where if 80% vote yes, then it happens where's the poll?

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 11:48 AM

Death Metal Moe wrote: CAN GROUP CONSENSUS BAN A BOARD MEMBER?I certianly hope not.yeah i have a feeling my voting for this might come back to haunt me.but its a chance ill take if this guy can get banned.

Friday

01-30-2007, 11:48 AM

Clearly, my board ADD has reached a new level in that I have no idea who this could possibly be...gee ...  I hope it's not me.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/unsure.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />

blakjeezis

01-30-2007, 11:49 AM

80% of what, though? Total membership, that runs about 25,000 according to what Jon said to me the other day, so if you can get 20,000 members to dislike this person too, you're golden. Regular posters? That's probably closer to 100 folks, but where's the cutoff? Or the other option is just to open it up to a poll and whoever votes, votes, but that ain't fair and it ain't gonna happen. SO, I guess the answer is no, consensus is not enough to ban someone.

Jughead

01-30-2007, 11:52 AM

I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower

sailor

01-30-2007, 11:52 AM

BoondockSaint wrote: That man seems to bee busy pimpin' his own thread. your posts are sweet like honey, tho'

Team_Ramrod

01-30-2007, 11:56 AM

I wanted to see this ass gone along time ago. He is retarted and for some reason he is allowed to post the same things over and over.I would like to think that the only reason he isn't banned is because the mods are working like busy bees....man!And fuck that theory of 'ignoring posts and he will go away' it doesn't work and it's too frustrating to ignore.(You deal with me now!)

angelinad128

01-30-2007, 11:57 AM

The Midnight Ramrod wrote: I wanted to see this ass gone along time ago. He is retarted and for some reason he is allowed to post the same things over and over.I would like to think that the only reason he isn't banned is because the mods are working like busy bees....man!And fuck that theory of 'ignoring posts and he will go away' it doesn't work and it's too frustrating to ignore.(You deal with me now!)Who Can It Bee...?

ChimneyFish

01-30-2007, 11:58 AM

phixion wrote: so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. If you're going to sit there, and look me in the eye and say I contribute something to this board, you and me???? We're gonna have a problem.

Fezticle98

01-30-2007, 11:59 AM

I don’t necessarily agree with the idea of voting someone off. However, if there was ever someone who deserved it, it would be the fool in question.

johnniewalker

01-30-2007, 11:59 AM

I kinda understand this, they are the most confusing posts i've ever read.  Admins and mods remember your quarterly report is coming up!

BoondockSaint

01-30-2007, 12:00 PM

sailor wrote: BoondockSaint wrote: That man seems to bee busy pimpin' his own thread.  your posts are sweet like honey, tho' ewwwww.

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:02 PM

The Midnight Ramrod wrote: And fuck that theory of 'ignoring posts and he will go away' it doesn't work and it's too frustrating to ignore.You crack easily.. no wonder the credit card companies have been lusting after you.. <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" />

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:03 PM

johnniewalker wrote: I kinda understand this, they are the most confusing posts i've ever read.  Admins and mods remember your quarterly report is coming up! Quota time?

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:03 PM

jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone.  only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here.  when you would draw the line?  absolute power corrupts absolutly.

narc

01-30-2007, 12:04 PM

I have no clue who this is.

johnniewalker

01-30-2007, 12:04 PM

narc wrote: I have no clue who this is. Make fun of Travis, huh, you get a war!

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:04 PM

Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower  well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone.  only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here.  when you would draw the line?  absolute power corrupts absolutly.   oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it.

foodcourtdruide

01-30-2007, 12:05 PM

If he's just messing around in his own threads, and not ruining other threads.. i don't see what the big deal is.

phixion

01-30-2007, 12:06 PM

well i was thining that board members who have been here more than six months or so would get to vote. nothing against the new guys but someone could just create new accounts and skew the voting. and the only people that can be called into question are the new guys like 3 months or less.  and not even 80% ill bump it up 90 or even 95. cuz if there are 5% of our board members that actually like this questionable character then i do not know this board. thats just to throw it out there.i mean we all live here. im not saying we should who gets to come in the house. but we should get some level of power to say who gets to actually stay here.and moe if its any consolation id vote to keep you. first man to 10,000 will always get respect in my book.

Basedow

01-30-2007, 12:08 PM

BoondockSaint wrote: That man seems to bee busy pimpin' his own thread. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/happy.gif" border="0" />

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:10 PM

douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac.  i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest.  if you ban one you ban them all.  good or bad.  it cannot be both ways.  then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one.   after that it would be posters being banned for life.  while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible.  maybe, i dont know.

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:11 PM

douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic.  maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man.

PhishHead

01-30-2007, 12:11 PM

Don Stugots wrote: douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac. i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest. if you ban one you ban them all. good or bad. it cannot be both ways. then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one. after that it would be posters being banned for life. while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible. maybe, i dont know.  i say Ban Reillyluck and myself as we are just voices Stugots does.

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:12 PM

Don Stugots wrote: douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac. i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest. if you ban one you ban them all. good or bad. it cannot be both ways. then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one. after that it would be posters being banned for life. while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible. maybe, i dont know.  sure you can ban one and not all.  and was this a subtle attack at shittyhamburgers?  he's apologized already!

Jughead

01-30-2007, 12:13 PM

See told ya...ditto!!<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/drunk.gif" border="0" /> Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly.

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:13 PM

well how about some one teaches him how to post like a normal person and stop all this "donald trump- pimp of the century, i cant speak english" bullshit?i dont care if the dude stays or goes really, just dont jack off your own thread everyday when no one else is responding and dont start new ones saying the same thing as the last one.and for the love of god learn the quote tool!

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:14 PM

Don Stugots wrote: douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac.  i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest.  if you ban one you ban them all.  good or bad.  it cannot be both ways.  then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one.   after that it would be posters being banned for life.  while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible.  maybe, i dont know.  exactly.. to many provisions would be involved.

narc

01-30-2007, 12:14 PM

johnniewalker wrote: narc wrote: I have no clue who this is. Make fun of Travis, huh, you get a war! I can't help it if they blow!

CofyCrakCocaine

01-30-2007, 12:15 PM

phixion wrote: can it? because theres a certain boardmember(board charcter?) , who posts in his own thread everyday without any replies but his own. he also tends to include in his posts insane pictures followed by a string of words that i wouldnt consider sentences because they make no sense. anyway i dont think anyone here likes the person. so that got me to wondering can the fact that no one wants a person here, can that get rid of a member? cuz on a certain level i think of everyone on here as family, a little ronnie and fezzie fraternity if you will, and each person here makes thier own contributions from spoons excellent sports analysis, to yerdaddys hilarious political dissections. this new guy does none of that, he treats his threads like masturbation, hes the only one who seems to entertained by his own effort. so back to the original question: if we as a group dont want a person here can that be enough to ban him/her? Hey! This isn't about me is it?!?

johnniewalker

01-30-2007, 12:15 PM

narc wrote: johnniewalker wrote: narc wrote: I have no clue who this is. Make fun of Travis, huh, you get a war! I can't help it if they blow!I thought it was funny,  I just spouted out some bands and you were the one that called me out.

phixion

01-30-2007, 12:15 PM

and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of.

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:17 PM

RoseBlood wrote: Don Stugots wrote: douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac. i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest. if you ban one you ban them all. good or bad. it cannot be both ways. then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one. after that it would be posters being banned for life. while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible. maybe, i dont know. exactly.. to many provisions would be involved. sailor see what she said?  She is pretty, smart, funny and cool.  perfect.   Phishyphace dont ruin the bit.  no one knows.

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:18 PM

what if we just needed a minimum of "keep him" votes say 50 ,and only votes that count have to post their vote in the thread and no one with less than 10 posts or joined after yesterday counts?

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:19 PM

jughead: i like how you reverse the quote feature here, it always throws me off just a bit   ;)

ChimneyFish

01-30-2007, 12:20 PM

Now that I know who it is, this bastard should be banned for making me scroll horizintally.

sr71blackbird

01-30-2007, 12:21 PM

<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> I have an idea!  Why not have "douchebag points" and when a poster is being a douche, you PM a designated mod and if the complaint merits a douchebag point, the poster gets one.  If they get above a certian number of douchebag points, the elevation increases and if they go above an pre-determined threshold -- they are gone! <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" />     

This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 1-30-07 @ 4:24 PM

johnniewalker

01-30-2007, 12:22 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" />I have an idea!  Why not have "douchbag points" and when a poster is being a douche, you PM a mod or a designated mod and if the complaint merits a douchbag point, the poster gets one.  If they get above a certian number of douchbag points, the elevation increases and if they go above a threshold -- they are gone! <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> Wait a minute, who's the douchbag dealer?

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:23 PM

phixion wrote: and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of.  aww, thanks.  without that you'd get a lot of secret midnight votes to remove people 5-0.  :)  and as for whatever poster this might be, i don't care if they stay or go, but i think it's good that people be able to have a voice in what goes on here.

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:23 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> I have an idea!  Why not have "douchebag points" and when a poster is being a douche, you PM a designated mod and if the complaint merits a douchebag point, the poster gets one.  If they get above a certian number of douchebag points, the elevation increases and if they go above an pre-determined threshold -- they are gone! <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/topicicons/statement.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> This message was edited by sr71blackbird on 1-30-07 @ 4:23 PM i like it!

SinA

01-30-2007, 12:23 PM

phixion wrote: and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of. quorum.  and impeachment.  i'm for voting out people that make too many stupid/unfunny posts , unless it's me we're talking about.

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:25 PM

Don Stugots wrote: RoseBlood wrote: Don Stugots wrote: douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: jughead46041 wrote: I need to hear from the STU..whatever he says Ill go with ......cause Im a follower well, i think some poster do deserve to go the way of the phantom zone. only problem is that if you do it once, you will then have to do it to every board character here. when you would draw the line? absolute power corrupts absolutly. oddly, now im even more convinced we should do it. well, you cannot get rid of all board charac. i love when Franfromnorthbergen posts and you cant keep one and not the rest. if you ban one you ban them all. good or bad. it cannot be both ways. then who decides what is a funny/good one or a shitty one. after that it would be posters being banned for life. while i think one or two should be banned, i think its not possible. maybe, i dont know. exactly.. to many provisions would be involved. sailor see what she said? She is pretty, smart, funny and cool. perfect.  Phishyphace dont ruin the bit. no one knows.  and i'm not??!?

Jughead

01-30-2007, 12:25 PM

Who's the Douch bag dealer???...Made me laugh out loud .

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:25 PM

johnniewalker wrote: Wait a minute, who's the douchbag dealer?I'm telling Sheepy

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:26 PM

johnniewalker wrote: Wait a minute, who's the douchbag dealer?what about alkey?

sr71blackbird

01-30-2007, 12:26 PM

Hey, I don't get a good idea every day!

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:27 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: Hey, I don't get a good idea every day! no question about that!!

JustJon

01-30-2007, 12:27 PM

Or you could just contact a moderator and bring the person to our attention, like the thread of this individual's that was locked and given a warning this afternoon.My problem with any votign system is that it could be "gamed,"  where certain individuals may band together andjust start banning people they don't like and turning the site into their playground.

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:28 PM

sailor wrote: phixion wrote: and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of. aww, thanks. without that you'd get a lot of secret midnight votes to remove people 5-0. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" /> and as for whatever poster this might be, i don't care if they stay or go, but i think it's good that people be able to have a voice in what goes on here.  i too am for us having a voice in what goes on here but to me the next step would be banning regular posters too.  BTW, you are cute and smart, but funny?  all i will say is, you are no Marc with a C.  HAHHAAA.  i cracked myself up with that one, i think i peed in my pants alittle.  oh well.  HAHAHAHAAA

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:29 PM

Don Stugots wrote: sailor wrote: phixion wrote: and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of. aww, thanks. without that you'd get a lot of secret midnight votes to remove people 5-0. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> and as for whatever poster this might be, i don't care if they stay or go, but i think it's good that people be able to have a voice in what goes on here.  i too am for us having a voice in what goes on here but to me the next step would be banning regular posters too.  BTW, you are cute and smart, but funny?  all i will say is, you are no Marc with a C.  HAHHAAA.  i cracked myself up with that one, i think i peed in my pants alittle.  oh well.  HAHAHAHAAA i vote to ban stugots!            just kidding budday!

EliSnow

01-30-2007, 12:31 PM

JustJon wrote: My problem with any votign system is that it could be "gamed,"  where certain individuals may band together andjust start banning people they don't like and turning the site into their playground.Good point.  This is mikeyboy's playground, and you all will do well to remember that.  <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />

riverofpiss

01-30-2007, 12:31 PM

I could smell blood in the water from the "Guitarists Suck" thread,  what's going on here?

phixion

01-30-2007, 12:33 PM

My problem with any votign system is that it could be "gamed,"  where certain individuals may band together andjust start banning people they don't like and turning the site into their playground. i agree with you jon to an extent. but im talking like 90% with a minimum of like 300 votes as per sailors suggestion, i dont think you can skew that kind of voting.

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:33 PM

Don Stugots wrote: sailor wrote: phixion wrote: and it wouldn't be absolute power, but kinda the opposite of it. it would bee democratic. maybe a poll, but in addition to whatever % to ban we'd need a minimum number of total votes, man. great point, that i didnt think of. aww, thanks. without that you'd get a lot of secret midnight votes to remove people 5-0. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" /> and as for whatever poster this might be, i don't care if they stay or go, but i think it's good that people be able to have a voice in what goes on here. i too am for us having a voice in what goes on here but to me the next step would be banning regular posters too. BTW, you are cute and smart, but funny? all i will say is, you are no Marc with a C. HAHHAAA. i cracked myself up with that one, i think i peed in my pants alittle. oh well. HAHAHAHAAA  <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/banning.gif" border="0" />

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:35 PM

Don Stugots wrote:  i too am for us having a voice in what goes on here but to me the next step would be banning regular posters too.  BTW, you are cute and smart, but funny?  all i will say is, you are no Marc with a C.  HAHHAAA.  i cracked myself up with that one, i think i peed in my pants alittle.  oh well.  HAHAHAHAAA What's that you say? Marc with a C makes you wet? ewwwwwwwww

SinA

01-30-2007, 12:37 PM

phixion wrote: i agree with you jon to an extent. but im talking like 90% with a minimum of like 300 votes as per sailors suggestion, i dont think you can skew that kind of voting.it'll never happen.i'd bet my membership that this site can't get that much of a consensus, probably not even 300 votes on a poll.

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:39 PM

douggrasso wrote: what if we just needed a minimum of "keep him" votes say 50 ,and only votes that count have to post their vote in the thread and no one with less than 10 posts or joined after yesterday counts? what about this? you couldnt scam that could ya? 50 votes to stay?

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:39 PM

you are all banned now.  all of you except for all the lovely ladies.  it will be just them, me and Gvac.  ahhhhhh. 

blakjeezis

01-30-2007, 12:41 PM

Know this now, if there was a member who was getting voted off, even if it was someone against whom I had a personal grudge, which has never happened, I would vote for that person to stay. Essentially you're saying you want to ban people because you don't like them. The endgame of banning people for being a douche, or unfunny, or repetitive, or self-serving or anything else that isn't a violation of the site rules reeks of the cool lunch table.  I've been around these parts for a fairly long time, assholes have come and gone, as they always will. Some will stick around for a while, some even give up their wicked ways and become productive members of the board family. The mods have pretty good instincts on the bannings and vacations and whatnot, generally speaking, and they kip the riff-raff to a minimum. Let then worry about it. If someone is doing or saying something you don't like, bring it up to one of them. They know, well with the exception of Jon, they know what they're doing.  I snuck into the Staff Room once and while everyone else was discussing a serious issue of the day, Jon had a blindfold on and was walking around with a stick with a rubber crutch tip on the end of it. Apparently Pants tells him they're playing some kind of pinata game, and then they just turn him loose. The crutch tip is so he doesn't hurt anyone, or himself.

Dougie Brootal

01-30-2007, 12:41 PM

Don Stugots wrote: you are all banned now.  all of you except for all the lovely ladies.  it will be just them, me and Gvac.  ahhhhhh.  you'll never get away with this!

sailor

01-30-2007, 12:42 PM

SinA wrote: phixion wrote: i agree with you jon to an extent. but im talking like 90% with a minimum of like 300 votes as per sailors suggestion, i dont think you can skew that kind of voting.it'll never happen.i'd bet my membership that this site can't get that much of a consensus, probably not even 300 votes on a poll. yeah, people don't like to vote.  one recent poll almost 1200 people viewed, but only 124 voted so far.  and if you add the PiMB option, that's good for 5-10% normally.

phixion

01-30-2007, 12:43 PM

i'd bet my membership that this site can't get that much of a consensus, probably not even 300 votes on a poll. thats my pointt sinA. if someone has done enough to sway 300 people one way or another, then it may warrant a banning.im not saying it should be used lightly, it should be used with supreme discretion and only whn necessary. like with the person in question honestly i dont believen theyve broken any rules here, i just find him extremly annoying. and i cant stand that i cant go into the entertainment thread without donald trump pimp of the century being in the top 5 every fucking day. and not because anyone else added anything to it, but because he likes jerking off in his own threads.

phixion

01-30-2007, 12:49 PM

Know this now, if there was a member who was getting voted off, even if it was someone against whom I had a personal grudge, which has never happened, I would vote for that person to stay. Essentially you're saying you want to ban people because you don't like them. The endgame of banning people for being a douche, or unfunny, or repetitive, or self-serving or anything else that isn't a violation of the site rules reeks of the cool lunch table.  I've been around these parts for a fairly long time, assholes have come and gone, as they always will. Some will stick around for a while, some even give up their wicked ways and become productive members of the board family. The mods have pretty good instincts on the bannings and vacations and whatnot, generally speaking, and they kip the riff-raff to a minimum. Let then worry about it. If someone is doing or saying something you don't like, bring it up to one of them. They know, well with the exception of Jon, they know what they're doing. be more like biff and less like josh.iim not saying anyone who has been here for any length of time should even be called into question uless they break the rules. its strictly for new people. like i really have loved most of the new canadian members their a hoot. thye arent annoying. like in that spoon vs moe fight (sorry but that really is the best reference to use) spoon made some valid points about moe, but that being said i love moe, i wouldnt want him gone, and hes done enough for such a long period of time that he s immune to geting banished.

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 12:49 PM

phixion wrote: thats my pointt sinA. if someone has done enough to sway 300 people one way or another, then it may warrant a banning.im not saying it should be used lightly, it should be used with supreme discretion and only whn necessary. like with the person in question honestly i dont believen theyve broken any rules here, i just find him extremly annoying. and i cant stand that i cant go into the entertainment thread without donald trump pimp of the century being in the top 5 every fucking day. and not because anyone else added anything to it, but because he likes jerking off in his own threads. Then he must be having a supreme orgasm over this thread.

SinA

01-30-2007, 12:50 PM

phixion wrote: i'd bet my membership that this site can't get that much of a consensus, probably not even 300 votes on a poll. thats my pointt sinA. if someone has done enough to sway 300 people one way or another, then it may warrant a banning.im not saying it should be used lightly, it should be used with supreme discretion and only whn necessary. like with the person in question honestly i dont believen theyve broken any rules here, i just find him extremly annoying. and i cant stand that i cant go into the entertainment thread without donald trump pimp of the century being in the top 5 every fucking day. and not because anyone else added anything to it, but because he likes jerking off in his own threads. yeah.  i wish i knew what this was all about.  as far as i can tell, the board is pretty tolerant of unliked opinions, free speechy and all. only the occasional captainsomethingorother or dieeastsidedavedie would get 90%, but i still don't think they'd get that many total votesbtw- who's ass is in your avatar?

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 12:52 PM

douggrasso wrote: Don Stugots wrote: you are all banned now. all of you except for all the lovely ladies. it will be just them, me and Gvac. ahhhhhh. you'll never get away with this! oh cant i?  or did i already and you dont know it yet?    seriously, if you vote off the fake posters then the real ones are not far behind.  it will become a popularity contest to stay.  the only one that will be left will be sheepy.

Death Metal Moe

01-30-2007, 12:58 PM

phixion wrote: and moe if its any consolation id vote to keep you. first man to 10,000 will always get respect in my book. Well thank you sir.  And I didn't mean my reply to be a wacky kind of reply.  I meant it.  I don't think we should have the power to do that.  I've seen people try to run members off the board because they don't like their opinion.  I've seen people gang up on others.  Who's to say a more popular member wouldn't enlist a whole bunch of their friends, fake accounts and whoever else to vote someone off?For better or worse, I like the Mod/Admin system.

sailor

01-30-2007, 01:04 PM

Death Metal Moe wrote: phixion wrote: and moe if its any consolation id vote to keep you. first man to 10,000 will always get respect in my book. Well thank you sir. And I didn't mean my reply to be a wacky kind of reply. I meant it. I don't think we should have the power to do that. I've seen people try to run members off the board because they don't like their opinion. I've seen people gang up on others. Who's to say a more popular member wouldn't enlist a whole bunch of their friends, fake accounts and whoever else to vote someone off?For better or worse, I like the Mod/Admin system. but wouldn't the mods be more susceptible to having their votes corrupted, since there are fewer of them?  they ARE for the most part regular posters who have power.  it's easier to bias 11 mods than a hundred or more posters.

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 01:09 PM

Death Metal Moe wrote: Well thank you sir.  And I didn't mean my reply to be a wacky kind of reply.  I meant it.  I don't think we should have the power to do that.  I've seen people try to run members off the board because they don't like their opinion.  I've seen people gang up on others.  Who's to say a more popular member wouldn't enlist a whole bunch of their friends, fake accounts and whoever else to vote someone off?For better or worse, I like the Mod/Admin system.Darwinism at its best.

sr71blackbird

01-30-2007, 01:14 PM

douggrasso wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: Hey, I don't get a good idea every day! no question about that!!Hey!

SinA

01-30-2007, 01:18 PM

Death Metal Moe wrote: phixion wrote: and moe if its any consolation id vote to keep you. first man to 10,000 will always get respect in my book. Well thank you sir.  And I didn't mean my reply to be a wacky kind of reply.  I meant it.  I don't think we should have the power to do that.  I've seen people try to run members off the board because they don't like their opinion.  I've seen people gang up on others.  Who's to say a more popular member wouldn't enlist a whole bunch of their friends, fake accounts and whoever else to vote someone off?For better or worse, I like the Mod/Admin system.is that true?  moe's gotta be a shoe-in for the ronfez.net hall of fame, first ballot.

Hottub

01-30-2007, 01:33 PM

Phixion:  I told you.  We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.  We take       it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.   Hottub:  Yes.   Phixion:  But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified       at a special biweekly meeting.   Hottub:  Yes, I see.   Phixion:  By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--   Hottub:  Be quiet!  I order you to be quiet!   Don Stugots:  Order, eh -- who does he think he is?   Hottub:  I am a Moderator!   Don Stugots:  Well, I didn't vote for you.   Hottub:  You don't vote for Moderators.   Don Stugots:  Well, 'ow did you become Moderator then?   Hottub:  The Administator of the Lake,       [angels sing]       his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur       from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,       Hottub, was to carry Excalibur.       [singing stops]       That is why I am a Moderator!   Phixion:  Listen -- gay men lying in ponds distributing swords       is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power       derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical       aquatic ceremony.   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power       just 'cause some geek threw a sword at you!   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just       because some moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd       put me away!   Hotttub:  Shut up!  Will you shut up, or I'll ban you!   Phixion:  Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!       HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!   Hottub:  Bloody Newbie!   Phixion:  Oh, what a give away.  Did you here that, did you here that,       eh?  That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,       you saw it didn't you?

TheMojoPin

01-30-2007, 01:35 PM

Wait, Moe beat me to 10k?

Don Stugots

01-30-2007, 01:35 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: douggrasso wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: Hey, I don't get a good idea every day! no question about that!!Hey! well, he has a point.

moochcassidy

01-30-2007, 01:46 PM

jughead46041 wrote: Ive only started 3 stupid thread's here and 2 I was drunk!! They dont count!!!no way..jughead42164 stays. the 'im the unfunny new guy' gimmick is the best ive seen around here yet...bravo sir, you actually made gold out of shite.

Wallower

01-30-2007, 01:53 PM

I maintain the position that a certain annoying poster is using a forum bot for a majority of his (its) posts. I think that should bee grounds for account deletion.

Jughead

01-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Thanks Mooch..I think????   moochcassidy wrote: jughead46041 wrote: Ive only started 3 stupid thread's here and 2 I was drunk!! They dont count!!!no way..jughead42164 stays. the 'im the unfunny new guy' gimmick is the best ive seen around here yet...bravo sir, you actually made gold out of shite.

RoseBlood

01-30-2007, 01:58 PM

moochcassidy wrote: jughead46041 wrote: Ive only started 3 stupid thread's here and 2 I was drunk!! They dont count!!! no way..jughead42164 stays. the 'im the unfunny new guy' gimmick is the best ive seen around here yet...bravo sir, you actually made gold out of shite. jughead.. you have an imposter!

burrben

01-30-2007, 02:00 PM

i vote no on banning me

Reephdweller

01-30-2007, 02:01 PM

Friday wrote: Clearly, my board ADD has reached a new level in that I have no idea who this could possibly be...gee ... I hope it's not me. <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/unsure.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" /> I was thinking I was the only one clueless to this. Unless it's me.

Jughead

01-30-2007, 02:04 PM

Mooch knows not his zip codes..I live in Frankfort..(Home Of the Hot Dogs)..(No shit look it up)..42164 is up the road a bit  Thorntown..We call it T-Town....cause we are Hayseeds!!!RoseBlood wrote: moochcassidy wrote: jughead46041 wrote: Ive only started 3 stupid thread's here and 2 I was drunk!! They dont count!!! no way..jughead42164 stays. the 'im the unfunny new guy' gimmick is the best ive seen around here yet...bravo sir, you actually made gold out of shite. jughead.. you have an imposter!

johnniewalker

01-30-2007, 02:09 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Wait, Moe beat me to 10k? Maybe, you can beat him to 30k.  I swear you've posted more since you retired your post and became a lot busier.

Jughead

01-30-2007, 02:10 PM

Sorry ..... Now back to the Banning...Told ya  nanananan

Hottub

01-30-2007, 02:11 PM

johnniewalker wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Wait, Moe beat me to 10k?  Maybe, you can beat him to 30k.  I swear you've posted more since you retired your post and became a lot busier.   But the quality has gone right down the shitter!!!!!

Midkiff

01-30-2007, 02:17 PM

Whew, for a minute I thought this was about me. I know I'm annoying, but only in a R&F-worship kind of way!

lleeder

01-30-2007, 02:20 PM

jdmidkiff wrote: Whew, for a minute I thought this was about me. I know I'm annoying, but only in a R&F-worship kind of way! Oh man, I guess I guessed the wrong guy.

Midkiff

01-30-2007, 02:26 PM

haha!That guy in question is just some guy trying to push his OWN book which is for sale at the link in his profile. That's what people resort to when they can't even sell the first dozen copies.

Pappy McSchmear

01-30-2007, 02:48 PM

Aye would like ta join one of yer cliques there me laddys. Lets all drink some Jameson & give a good 'ol fashioned Irish arse whoopin to the nearest Englishman! Maybe a nice car bomb or two!        

This message was edited by Pappy McSchmear on 1-30-07 @ 6:51 PM

OGC

01-30-2007, 03:05 PM

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this subject, but if it comes to a point were members can ban others, I would like to let you all know that my vote can be purchased.

sailor

01-30-2007, 04:26 PM

lleeder wrote: jdmidkiff wrote: Whew, for a minute I thought this was about me. I know I'm annoying, but only in a R&F-worship kind of way! Oh man, I guess I guessed the wrong guy. maybe not...

booster11373

01-30-2007, 04:42 PM

Hottub wrote:  Phixion:  I told you.  We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.  We take       it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.   Hottub:  Yes.   Phixion:  But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified       at a special biweekly meeting.   Hottub:  Yes, I see.   Phixion:  By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--   Hottub:  Be quiet!  I order you to be quiet!   Don Stugots:  Order, eh -- who does he think he is?   Hottub:  I am a Moderator!   Don Stugots:  Well, I didn't vote for you.   Hottub:  You don't vote for Moderators.   Don Stugots:  Well, 'ow did you become Moderator then?   Hottub:  The Administator of the Lake,       [angels sing]       his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur       from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,       Hottub, was to carry Excalibur.       [singing stops]       That is why I am a Moderator!   Phixion:  Listen -- gay men lying in ponds distributing swords       is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power       derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical       aquatic ceremony.   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power       just 'cause some geek threw a sword at you!   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just       because some moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd       put me away!   Hotttub:  Shut up!  Will you shut up, or I'll ban you!   Phixion:  Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!       HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!   Hottub:  Bloody Newbie!   Phixion:  Oh, what a give away.  Did you here that, did you here that,       eh?  That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,       you saw it didn't you? Brilliant!

JokesaboutPants

01-30-2007, 04:47 PM

<img src="http://www.gainesville.org/images/main.about.voting.ballot.jpg" border="0" width="416" height="294" />voting for things is fun but for banning things not good.....smoking, transfat, what a person can do in their own home...er..or it's good, smoking is good, trans fat makes you healty, hell, your home is in a place the government controls... ...I'm new, don't ban me....

Death Metal Moe

01-30-2007, 06:24 PM

<img src="http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/chadhang.gif" border="0" width="342" height="215" />Can you tell voter intent from this?

Jughead

01-30-2007, 06:36 PM

Death Metal Moe wrote: <img src="http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/chadhang.gif" border="0" width="342" height="215" />Can you tell voter intent from this? Did you get this from Christmas Vacation...If so I love you Moe....If not ILYM.......  By the way I was a lead singer......But me and the drummer made up after 22 years....

douchebagsean

01-30-2007, 06:42 PM

hottub...monty python references always more gooder

SatCam

01-31-2007, 04:46 PM

Hottub wrote: Phixion: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. Hottub: Yes. Phixion: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. Hottub: Yes, I see. Phixion: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- Hottub: Be quiet! Phixion: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more-- Hottub: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Don Stugots: Order, eh -- who does he think he is? Hottub: I am a Moderator! Don Stugots: Well, I didn't vote for you. Hottub: You don't vote for Moderators. Don Stugots: Well, 'ow did you become Moderator then? Hottub: The Administator of the Lake, [angels sing] his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Hottub, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am a Moderator! Phixion: Listen -- gay men lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Hottub: Be quiet! Phixion: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some geek threw a sword at you! Hottub: Shut up! Phixion: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away! Hotttub: Shut up! Will you shut up, or I'll ban you! Phixion: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Hottub: Shut up! Phixion: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Hottub: Bloody Newbie! Phixion: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

Wait just a minute...

perfect spelling?

flawless grammar?

where's no way that was a conversation with phixon!

SinA

01-31-2007, 04:51 PM

booster11373 wrote: Hottub wrote:  Phixion:  I told you.  We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.  We take       it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.   Hottub:  Yes.   Phixion:  But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified       at a special biweekly meeting.   Hottub:  Yes, I see.   Phixion:  By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--   Hottub:  Be quiet!  I order you to be quiet!   Don Stugots:  Order, eh -- who does he think he is?   Hottub:  I am a Moderator!   Don Stugots:  Well, I didn't vote for you.   Hottub:  You don't vote for Moderators.   Don Stugots:  Well, 'ow did you become Moderator then?   Hottub:  The Administator of the Lake,       [angels sing]       his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur       from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,       Hottub, was to carry Excalibur.       [singing stops]       That is why I am a Moderator!   Phixion:  Listen -- gay men lying in ponds distributing swords       is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power       derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical       aquatic ceremony.   Hottub:  Be quiet!   Phixion:  Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power       just 'cause some geek threw a sword at you!   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just       because some moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd       put me away!   Hotttub:  Shut up!  Will you shut up, or I'll ban you!   Phixion:  Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.   Hottub:  Shut up!   Phixion:  Oh!  Come and see the violence inherent in the system!       HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!   Hottub:  Bloody Newbie!   Phixion:  Oh, what a give away.  Did you here that, did you here that,       eh?  That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,       you saw it didn't you? Brilliant!i thought stugots should have had more lines.

Don Stugots

01-31-2007, 04:54 PM

SinA wrote: booster11373 wrote: Hottub wrote: Phixion: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. Hottub: Yes. Phixion: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. Hottub: Yes, I see. Phixion: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- Hottub: Be quiet! Phixion: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more-- Hottub: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Don Stugots: Order, eh -- who does he think he is? Hottub: I am a Moderator! Don Stugots: Well, I didn't vote for you. Hottub: You don't vote for Moderators. Don Stugots: Well, 'ow did you become Moderator then? Hottub: The Administator of the Lake, [angels sing] his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Hottub, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am a Moderator! Phixion: Listen -- gay men lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Hottub: Be quiet! Phixion: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some geek threw a sword at you! Hottub: Shut up! Phixion: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bitch had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away! Hotttub: Shut up! Will you shut up, or I'll ban you! Phixion: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Hottub: Shut up! Phixion: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Hottub: Bloody Newbie! Phixion: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you? Brilliant!i thought stugots should have had more lines. so do i.  thank you.