ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:23 am
@josh0335,
I generally liked and continue to like the philforum people. I thought this too, at first, that they might have been naive in doing the spamming. But I gather that in one of the spams that one or more recipients forwarded for review to Robert or the mods did say that this kind of (spamming) was illegal on other most sites. So, not naive. Apparently, as well, they never read the a2k terms of service. Plus, after being asked/told to desist and that Robert would gladly announce the new forum, some of the people kept spamming under other names. Not naive.


I almost posted after dlowan yesterday (or many hours ago) that I also never question Robert's integrity. In my case, I've known him over just under ten years too, from much watching and interaction. The man just doesn't lie.
I decided not to post that and to stay out of the back and forth, as Robert can speak for himself.
But, since I'm posting about the possible naivete of the spammers, I've added the 'testimonial' too.


I will grant that I don't know that every single one of the spammers was not naive... but I take it the spammers sent each other their spams, so would have learned about the common illegality if not knowing it to start with.
sozobe
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:36 am
@ossobuco,
There's also the "brain drain" aspect -- evidently not just benignly notifying former PF people but also trying to get A2K'ers to the site via PMs.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:42 am
@sozobe,
I forgot that (how? not enough coffee) in my recitation..
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  7  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:47 am
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
I must be on the right track here as witnessed by the fact that you deem it necessary to resort to ad hominem arguments without bothering to further substantiate your own arguments or redeem mine.


Huh? How would I "redeem" your arguments? You make precious little sense and didn't have an argument to stand on to begin with.

Quote:
I assure you my credentials are as real as they get, but that as an aside.


Get your money back, you have no understanding of law. I post under my real name, you should presumably know where a courtroom is. Put your money where your legally ignorant mouth is if you claim I have broken a law.

Quote:
That begs the question, are we as members of A2k safe here on this forum?


No, at any moment you may post something ridiculous about being a law backgroundist (with credentials as real as they can possibly get) again and they might die of laughter.
panzade
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:52 am
@Robert Gentel,
Rob, I know you're a hands on guy but i think you've spent enough time on this joker.

Do me a favor, let this subject go for a little while and come back refreshed.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:53 am
@Wozz,
Wozz wrote:
did you really think ALL of us would believe that you don't read our PMs?


Do you think I care? You can't PM right now, that should give you a huge ******* clue about how interested I am in convincing you to use PMs.

In fact, you are prohibited from ever using PMs. When the feature is turned back on your account will forever be blocked from using it. Problem solved.

Quote:
(B) as the admin and founder of this forum I would like to think you would have more respect for its users...very disappointing Robert.


You can go pound sand and stop trying to don the "users" mantle. I do respect the users here, I have no respect for you, however, and your baseless accusations.

I have no desire for your PM trust. Problem solved, we'll not trust you with PMs ever and you then run no risk of them being read.
sarek
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:14 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Whoops, meltdown in progress. He's grumpy.

I am beginning to enjoy this free form philosophical debate. Althoug I am not entirely sure what precise meaning to attach to the use of the word '*******' in this context.

I presume Wozz has violated some kind of forum guideline to warrant his exclusion from using the PM system in the future?
kennethamy
 
  9  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:20 pm
What don't understand is why those who do not like this forum just stop posting on it, and vanish. Go join another forum, or create one of your own.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:42 pm
@sarek,
sarek wrote:

I am beginning to enjoy this free form philosophical debate.


HA!

Is that what this is to you?

nice dodge.
hawkeye10
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:55 pm
@sarek,
Quote:
Whoops, meltdown in progress. He's grumpy.
well ya...his plan is not working, he put a lot of work into it, and he gets told repeatedly that a2k....his baby....sucks and that he is an asshole. Go figure.

Note to Robert: you said 6 months ago that you knew that you are not cut out to be the voice of a2k, that you wanted to find somebody else. Now would be a good time to do that.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Thoughts about going public or start a coöp with A2K members ?
sarek
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 01:04 pm
@JPB,
This IS a philosophy site after all. What better place to have a philosophical debate?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 01:06 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
)
Thoughts about going public or start a coöp with A2K members ?
I dont know that I understand the question...I have often been called a subversive who is trying to take control of this place, which was never true. I clash with Robert and he keeps calling me names and disrespecting me.....but I love a2k, I think that this is a great community and Robert has played an important part in a2k being great. I am not advocating for any major changes, in fact I think that a2k needs some quiet time, we have had too many changes over the last two years, too much upheaval.
Robert Gentel
 
  8  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 01:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I dont know that I understand the question...I have often been called a subversive who is trying to take control of this place


Don't get carried away, nobody ever feared you'd take control of anything.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 01:48 pm
I've just been reading up on this thread. It reads much like an episode of the TV show, The Big Bang Theory. Same difficulty of communication. I wish the makers of strife would step away for a while and reconsider the grief they seek on this forum.
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 02:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the voice of a2k, that you wanted to find somebody else. Now would be a good time to do that.

Let me see if I get your drift...are you volunteering?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 02:26 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
saw your last post -- it's gone now, understandably.

... being the go-between for someone trying to circumvent a ban isn't the best idea you've ever had here.

just thought I'd save you the trouble of trying to post it again.
sarek
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 02:58 pm
@edgarblythe,
Actually, I do believe you are right.

I am all for burying the hatchet. I am not a quarrelsome person by nature anyway.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 03:43 pm
@JPB,
Maybe not my best but very well thought of. As U probably know have I been banned myself from Philosophy Forum before the take-over. Technically I am a A2K-er who's PM's are blocked and posts are stopped. I feel part of your community, grateful for it but also see old friends leave and being banned.

I am not happy with the situation and tried to help sometime sun by letting him say what he had to say. My e-mail was to receive mail instead of my blocked PM. I will now leave it to you people and enjoy !
0 Replies
 
josh0335
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 04:21 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
I generally liked and continue to like the philforum people. I thought this too, at first, that they might have been naive in doing the spamming. But I gather that in one of the spams that one or more recipients forwarded for review to Robert or the mods did say that this kind of (spamming) was illegal on other most sites. So, not naive. Apparently, as well, they never read the a2k terms of service. Plus, after being asked/told to desist and that Robert would gladly announce the new forum, some of the people kept spamming under other names. Not naive.


Yea, I don't know all the details and I imagine I never will. But I still don't believe there was any underhandedness in these activities. The PMs were the surest way of getting in touch with old members. I don't think it was 'spam' in the way we'd normally use the word. The picture painted is of these devious, Machiavellian type rule-breakers who were trying to rob a2k of their members and damage the board by clogging up the system with mass spam, (perhaps this was not the intended image, but that's how it comes across) which I don't think is fair.

Quote:
I will grant that I don't know that every single one of the spammers was not naive... but I take it the spammers sent each other their spams, so would have learned about the common illegality if not knowing it to start with.


I think the intention should be taken into account too. I am sure they were not trying to harm a2k even if they did violate the terms of use. If we all remember what they were trying to do (i.e. notify old philforum members and potentially interested a2k members of a new site), maybe we can clear the air and put the bad feelings behind us.
 

Related Topics

Philforum Focus Group - Discussion by jgweed
Top o' the Mornin' to Ya! - Question by Transcend
The new amalgamated philosophy forum. - Discussion by Soul Brother
Richard Grant - Question by Spock1111
Lily says goodbye - Question by Lily
 
  1. Forums
  2. » PhilForum check in
  3. » Page 32
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2021 at 01:01:02