Banned his watch has finally ended. (1 Viewer)

[Faceplant]

Staying up till midnight, or just after, to see if the great pumpkin will appear or not. Timer says T minus 2 hours plus a little. Hope he shows up, I miss him . . . Anyone else awaiting his return?

 

[Barf]

He reminds me of an older guy that taught me the ins and outs of harm reduction.

Here I am twelve years later, hep c and aids free.

@olderthandirt is a saint and a scholar.

I’ve been meaning to pester @Matt Derrick why he was put in time out.

I’ve pestered @Matt Derrick enough.

inquiring minds wanna know dog damnit.

 

[starfarer]

What did he do/say
for the mute?

 

[Eng JR Lupo RV323]

What did he do/say
for the mute?

To paraphrase my favorite mod;

Just being a real cool dude with a lot of great opinions and things to say.

 

[Older Than Dirt]

I am sorry i was not watching the clock, and thus did not know the exact minute when my silencing ended. I saw the "countdown clock", but assumed it was just for me- hysterical that it was posted for all to see. Thanx to all for the kind words (and to those who PMed and emailed me to say the same thing).

Here is what Matt said about why he barred me from posting for 30 days:

also, the reason for OTD's muting goes beyond just this thread. they've been not only antagonistic to the staff since forever, but they also love to manipulate our posts into things we never said with a clear bias against anyone on the staff, and it's NOT our job to sit here and get shit on all day and say 'thank you, can i have some more sir'? fuck that. we're not facebook/macdonalds and we don't have to put up with that. OTD has already harassed the staff to the point of a ban, and we have literally bent over backwards trying not to do that since we know people will just complain about what 'facists' we are or whatever, even though OTD has been extremely disruptive to the point that it severely outweighs anything helpful he's done here.

I won't comment on why i was silenced, beyond saying that it had nothing whatever to do with "harassing staff". "Manipulat[ing] our posts into things we never said" refers to my nefarious tactic of quoting mods accurately. Anyone can read the thread, and decide for themselves.

At least two people said they would quit the forum as a result of that thread: @LuckyMinnie , and @wokofshame , and have never posted again, in addition to me being muted and the thread locked.

Probably this post constitutes such severe "staff harassment" that i will now be banned, especially as i have once again "manipulated" Matt's post about why he banned me by quoting it in its entirety.

I wasn't planning on posting much after the ban ended, because Matt has made it very clear he does not want me around, and has only refrained from banning me because he knows it would be unpopular. But i felt i had to reply to this thread at least. I've enjoyed my time here, and met some very cool folks. "Gotta move while it's still fun/Gonna walk, before they make me run."

 

[Matt Derrick]

I won't comment on why i was silenced, beyond saying that it had nothing whatever to do with "harassing staff". "Manipulat[ing] our posts into things we never said" refers to my nefarious tactic of quoting mods accurately. Anyone can read the thread, and decide for themselves.

Yes, they sure can. And when you do, I simply ask that you actually read what I said and then compare it to what OTD says I said, and you will likely notice a significant difference. Where 'quoting mods accurately' is done by taking snippets of things we say and then inserting wild interpretations of those words in a concerted effort to make anyone with any amount of perceived power look as bad as possible. I could just as easily do the same thing with OTD's posts, but I've chosen not to, simply because it would be downright dishonest to do so.

At least two people said they would quit the forum as a result of that thread: @LuckyMinnie , and @wokofshame , and have never posted again, in addition to me being muted and the thread locked.

Well gee, if it's a popularity contest, clearly you've won /s. Another situation of OTD cherry picking what's useful for his argument to 'prove' he's the one in the right. I could just as easily flip his stats and say that the current 9,414 users (minus his 2 users) on StP are proof I'm right. It would be about as accurate as his rather childish quote above.

In the end, it's pretty clear that OTD has a combative bias towards people of perceived power here on StP and isn't really interested in pursing any other agenda or getting along with the staff here, despite the, frankly, extreme efforts we've gone through to not ban him permanently from the community.

So with that said, I sincerely hope OTD that you choose to delete your account not because banning you would be unpopular (because I could give two shits about what's popular in this instance) but because it would be the mature course of action at this point when it comes to a community that is run by people you don't get along with. Whether you're capable of that maturity is a decision I leave up to you.

 

[MFB]

@Older Than Dirt , but who will tell us how to get our covid moneys and give us legal advice and complain about how us kids aren't as cool as you and your cronies were 30 years ago!?!?!?! We need ya around! Fuck the noise.

On another note, this seems to be the main problem with any "radical" group, (political or social); They always seem to waste energy bickering among themselves instead of focusing on productivity. We could be discussing topics of the utmost importance; like the best way to cook ramen noods!

 

[Older Than Dirt]

[W]ho will ... complain about how us kids aren't as cool as you and your cronies were 30 years ago!?!?!?!

Well, mostly you kids just aren't as cool as me and my crew 30 years ago, or 40 years ago, or whatever, or as we are today, for that matter (the few of us that aren't dead). I mean, we invented this punk rock shit you kids are into, we were anarchists before you were even a gleam in daddy's eye, and you try to dress like we did back then.

Mostly this just probably proves i'm old; old folks have been saying that these kids these days aren't worth a bootfull of warm piss since Plato at least.

There are notable exceptions, or i would never have turned up here. The overalled, CSX-patch-wearing, anarchist queercore dirty kid who told me about this site (who last posted in 2017) is one of the most impressive folks, of any age, that i have met in the last 20 years. They were also the one who invited me to live at the squat in Vermont.

 

[Faceplant]

Good morning. I hope a middle way can be found, don’t want OTD to disappear. Although not always agreeing with him, he is one of the smartest, wittiest, most passionate, and sometimes drunkest belligerent members here. A great package, all in all.

I say, make him stay in his own bedroom (sub-section, sub-forum)where, confined, he can rage unmolested, throw all the tantrums he wants, saying anything he wants, but he cannot leave there. We’ll all - whoever wants to - visit him and feed him. Could work. I know it sounds sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, but I seriously hope he can stick around.

 

[Older Than Dirt]

sometimes drunkest

I greatly resemble this insidious canard, and would like to say in my defense that it is very very seldom that i begin drinking before 9am, at least on week-days. Today was a rare exception, which i hardly ever make, except sometimes on the days that end with "y". It's a good rule, that i recommend to all you kids; like eating oysters only in "R" months really- just common sense.

And i almost never ingest solvents such as whisky or vodka or other liquor, being a strictly-beer man (with allowances made for champagne, provided it is actually French, chilled, and you are buying, or i am getting married again, or something)

 

[Older Than Dirt]

Didn't want to rise to Matt's attempted provocation, and give him the excuse to ban me he so transparently longs for, but just can't resist responding to this unusually ludicrous argument:

I could just as easily flip his stats and say that the current 9,414 users (minus his 2 users) on StP are proof I'm right.

Would it be super-awkward and gauche if i were to ask what percentage of those 9,414 registered users, over 12 years, who you say support you have voiced this support you claim you have by, say, posting even once ever? (until the recent change that required 10 posts, most who registered did so solely in order to read the Trainhopping section, and never posted even once- that's why the change was made. Thus the domination of the forum ever since by intro posts, and pointless, zero-effort, one-sentence posts by newbs, often asking questions that have been answered dozens and dozens of times.)

Perhaps an even more awkward question: what percentage of those 9,414 registered users who you say support you have posted at least once in the last year, about any topic at all?

Since the recent rule change requiring at least 10 posts to read the Trainhopping section will distort that (probably very low anyway) percentage upwards to artificially support your argument, what percentage of posters who registered after the recent "10 posts to read Trainhopping " rule have posted 11 or more times?

 

[Matt Derrick]

Didn't want to rise to Matt's attempted provocation, and give him the excuse to ban me he so transparently longs for, but just can't resist responding to this unusually ludicrous argument:



Would it be super-awkward and gauche if i were to ask what percentage of those 9,414 registered users, over 12 years, who you say support you have voiced this support you claim you have by, say, posting even once ever? (until the recent change that required 10 posts, most who registered did so solely in order to read the Trainhopping section, and never posted even once- that's why the change was made. Thus the domination of the forum ever since by intro posts, and pointless, zero-effort, one-sentence posts by newbs, often asking questions that have been answered dozens and dozens of times.)

Perhaps an even more awkward question: what percentage of those 9,414 registered users who you say support you have posted at least once in the last year, about any topic at all?

Since the recent rule change requiring at least 10 posts to read the Trainhopping section will distort that (probably very low anyway) percentage upwards to artificially support your argument, what percentage of posters who registered after the recent "10 posts to read Trainhopping " rule have posted 11 or more times?

sorry but im just not going to bite on this. hypothesize all you want.

so are you here to complain some more or are you leaving? im guessing the former, but here's your chance to go gracefully.

 

[Older Than Dirt]

My Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses (SWAGs), probably way high in all cases:

Percentage of the 9,414 registered users who have ever posted even once ever: 20%

Percentage of the 9,414 registered users who have posted about any topic in the last year: 5%

Percentage of users since the "10 posts to read Trainhopping" rule who have posted 11+ times: 10%

Matt as webmaster obviously knows the real answers; don't hold your breath waiting to learn anything about these figures, except that i am wrong.

This site is actually not an "online community for misfit travelers" , or for anyone, but is rather Matt's private property, as i have been told so many times by Matt and other mods, that he is free to do with as he chooses; but even a prudent property-owner cares about the condition, and sustainability, of their property.

I promise never again to take seriously the claim that this is a "community", or that i might be a legitimate participant in it (despite being among the .17% most popular posters among those 9,414 registered users* over the 12 years StP has existed; that is, my posts are more popular than those of 99.83% of all persons who have ever registered), or that StP is something that i have the right to care about.
-----
* As measured by the site's "Highest Reaction Score" metric, even after Matt re-jiggered the stats to knock me off the "leader-board" after i first pointed this out to him in a PM a while back; i was back on it soon, i'm sure to his frustration.

 

[iamwhatiam]

for fuck's sake, quit being so dramatic. were you always this bitchy, or has that just increased with old age?

 

[Older Than Dirt]

were you always this bitchy, or has that just increased with old age?

if anything, i have calmed down and mellowed considerably; you don't want to even think about how ornery i was at your age, back when i was a poverty lawyer, let alone when i was in my teens-20s, and really angry at the world, and all other humans. Where do you think that punk rock stuff came from?

 

[GLaDOS]

Issued to: Older Than Dirt
Issued by: Matt Derrick
Ban date: Aug 03 2020
End date: Never
Reason: harassing the staff

 

[Matt Derrick]

My Scientific Wild-Ass Guesses (SWAGs), probably way high in all cases:

Percentage of the 9,414 registered users who have ever posted even once ever: 20%

Percentage of the 9,414 registered users who have posted about any topic in the last year: 5%

Percentage of users since the "10 posts to read Trainhopping" rule who have posted 11+ times: 10%

Matt as webmaster obviously knows the real answers; don't hold your breath waiting to learn anything about these figures, except that i am wrong.

This site is actually not an "online community for misfit travelers" , or for anyone, but is rather Matt's private property, as i have been told so many times by Matt and other mods, that he is free to do with as he chooses; but even a prudent property-owner cares about the condition, and sustainability, of their property.

I promise never again to take seriously the claim that this is a "community", or that i might be a legitimate participant in it (despite being among the .17% most popular posters among those 9,414 registered users* over the 12 years StP has existed; that is, my posts are more popular than those of 99.83% of all persons who have ever registered), or that StP is something that i have the right to care about.
-----
* As measured by the site's "Highest Reaction Score" metric, even after Matt re-jiggered the stats to knock me off the "leader-board" after i first pointed this out to him in a PM a while back; i was back on it soon, i'm sure to his frustration.

i'm not even going to bother with whatever madness the above relates to.

as predicted, OTD left StP not with quiet dignity, but rather the kicking and screaming of a psychotic old man we always expected, nay, knew would happen in the end. we tried to be kind. we tried to say 'go away'. and he turned to us and said, "no."

so it is that OTD's watch over the corruption of the StP staff and it's villany has finally ended. may he find the ears that will listen to his unending nonsense in the other spaces of the internet that have more tolerance than we could muster.

for the rest of us, a strange silence finally falls upon the community and the mods can relax once more.

 

[Matt Derrick]

just when you start to enjoy the silence, like a bad horror movie you hear the faint echo of an old man kicking and screaming in the distance:

...before the silence settles in once more.

 

[Faceplant]

So, . . .can I get the Sub Forum we were gonna give OTD for myself, then?

 

[Beegod Santana]

Damn, wish I had got the memo that it was gonna be a day drinking kinda day.