Should posters using more then one account be banned?

[MadtownPacker]

You are the jury, judge, and executioner.

[Partial]

Ban as in the alternate account, or ban as in the primary account user? If you are referring to the primary user, I think there should be some sort of statement alerting everyone that if they sign up a second account, they both will be banned

[Scott Campbell]

I voted yes. This is exactly the type of thing we left JSO because of, though not the only reason.

[Bretsky]

We certainly don't want this occuring; I'd be curious to know how many multiple user accounts there are.

Rather than banning them totally, I'd rather see the 2nd account be eliminated along with a harsh word of warning via PM reminding that user multiple accounts are not allowed and if one is again created he's outta here.


B

[Zool]

I dont think a warning is neccessary. People know not to create multiple accounts. Ban them and send them an email as to why. Make them ask to get back in.

[Fosco33]

We certainly don't want this occuring; I'd be curious to know how many multiple user accounts there are.

Rather than banning them totally, I'd rather see the 2nd account be eliminated along with a harsh word of warning via PM reminding that user multiple accounts are not allowed and if one is again created he's outta here.


B

Agreed. Just a point of clarification - and no, I most certainly do not have 2 accounts - but is this based off of IP address or email? I guess you can get around both if you really wanted to (roaming IP or a 2nd email address).

[Anti-Polar Bear]

We can make mutiply accounts? When i first signed up, I had to beg some Mexican to let me in. What happen to that type of exclusive? Is this forum 100% inclusive now?

Dont worry, I aint gonna start another account. I like this one a lot.

[Deputy Nutz]

Bottom line those in question know this practice is not accepted. It was not accepted amongst us at JSO, and it should not be tolerated here. To many problems and flat out bullshit occured because of one user using multiple aliases.

Warnings are all fine and dandy for those that are new users or haven't come here from other known locations. But screw the warning if a person is knowingly in the wrong.

We are not dumb asses here, it takes one click of the mouse to figure this out. If you are going to have multiple users, thats fine, let us know, otherwise there is no need for anyone to have mulitple user names for one account.

[woodbuck27]

"I voted yes. I think that members here should have a grace period, if this is under consideration, to set up - on a one account basis if, 'in fact' that is the case, that some have two accounts.

Noone needs to have two screennames unless they are up to hi-jynx or absolute no good.

The last thing you need is someone getting banned and coming back to haunt the Forum vindictively, as we witnessed at JSO." woodbuck27

[GrnBay007]

I would post that warning some place like in rules/regulations or for sure some place it won't be missed (maybe it is already, I'm not sure) for new people joining.

For anyone that came over from JSO bann them if they are using duplicates....they surely know better.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know that you can have a double standard though, saying if you're from here you get banned, if you're from somewhere else you don't. You're right though, there are enough places that allow multiple accounts that it has to be made unmistakably clear to anyone joining that multiple accounts are not tolerated here and (if it is decided yes) they will be banned for creating them.

[Bretsky]

I still think a PM warning is appropriate before banning them immediatly.

We could also PM users with over one and let them know all accounts but their primary are being zapped and offer them a warning that if any extra accounts are created they will be banned.

That being said, if there is a legitimate reason for concern, and there is somebody with over two accounts, I have no problem zapping them.

Keep in mind I'm offering a non techie point of view here so if there is reason to be suspicious better to error on the side of caution.

Maybe Mad and Partial look at some of these multiple user accounts to see if they contribute ?

B

[Partial]

I still haven't voted as I am awaiting clairification on the matter.. Mad :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :D :D

[Bretsky]

I still haven't voted as I am awaiting clairification on the matter.. Mad :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :D :D


My vote probably is not complete either; being a numbers guy nothing is simple to me. To cast my vote, I guess I'd like to know how many people there are with two accounts, three or more accounts, and four or more accounts.

I'm an optomist so I'd look much harder at the non contributors with 3 or more accounts if there are any.

B

[jack's smirking revenge]

My opinion is that you can set such a guidelines, but it will be almost impossible to enforce. Do the mods have time to go on witchhunts to figure out who has multiple accounts? If so, how do you prove that someone has multiple accounts as each account is set up with a unique email address? Maybe there are ways that I don't know of that don't involve tracking IPs.

I think the evolution of this place into a JSO-similar forum is almost inevitable as this place grows and becomes more populated. Set guidelines and expectations and hope that they stick. I think posters should be banned for conduct unbefitting this forum, but simply having two accounts isn't bad conduct--that's just someone with either too much time on their hands or a vendetta against this crowd. Either way, that poster's actions will give them away and make them easy to target and discipline.

In some rare occasions, having mulitple accounts is entertaining. (I had fun playing Mike Sherman on JSO and was always entertained by the George W. poster, assuming that person had multiple accounts).

And, no, I don't have mutliple accounts. I have a hard enough time keeping up with this one.

tyler

[KYPack]

007's post sums it up for me.

I'd add this,

If it's somebody cool like Nutz or 007, warn 'em.

If it's Tank, throw his goofy ass out immediately!

[Partial]

Well, I can assure you guys that immediately once someone starts 'causing trouble, we will ban them. If they come back with another account, fine, but the minute they start causing trouble they will be banned. It won't be a problem because it is significantly more work for someone to continue to come back and cause trouble then for us to click the ban button. Unlike at JSO where they were allowed to run free, for the most part we have someone on here at all times, and if we don't a simple email or PM will bring the matter to out attention. We will NOT let the issues of JSO affect us.

Bretsky, I don't think it'd be a good idea to foreclose information like that. Be rest assured you're in good hands and shouldn't be worried. We've got the situation under control.

Jack, we've got a pretty good system here. Someone might try to be sneaky and think they will pull a fast one, but be rest assured it will not happen.

My stance on the matter is that if someone wants multiple accounts, fine. If it's a Mike Sherman name, thats cool. Have fun with it. But let Mad, Nutz or I know before creating it. This place is about fun, too. But be rest assured that if that account ever acts up in a negative or harmful way, both accounts will be banned immediately.

[Partial]

007's post sums it up for me.

I'd add this,

If it's somebody cool like Nutz or 007, warn 'em.

If it's Tank, throw his goofy ass out immediately!

You cannot just pick and choose a policy based on who you do and don't like, though. It has to be a fair rule set-up to govern everyone.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Well, I can assure you guys that immediately once someone starts 'causing trouble, we will ban them. If they come back with another account, fine, but the minute they start causing trouble they will be banned. It won't be a problem because it is significantly more work for someone to continue to come back and cause trouble then for us to click the ban button. Unlike at JSO where they were allowed to run free, for the most part we have someone on here at all times, and if we don't a simple email or PM will bring the matter to out attention. We will NOT let the issues of JSO affect us.

Bretsky, I don't think it'd be a good idea to foreclose information like that. Be rest assured you're in good hands and shouldn't be worried. We've got the situation under control.

Jack, we've got a pretty good system here. Someone might try to be sneaky and think they will pull a fast one, but be rest assured it will not happen.

My stance on the matter is that if someone wants multiple accounts, fine. If it's a Mike Sherman name, thats cool. Have fun with it. But let Mad, Nutz or I know before creating it. This place is about fun, too. But be rest assured that if that account ever acts up in a negative or harmful way, both accounts will be banned immediately.

I agree with what you've said Partial. I think you guys do have a good system here and Mad's elimination of inactive accounts also helps. I think the mods are watchful, diliigent and responsive to people that get out of line. As long as that trend continues, there shouldn't be a reason to crackdown on people with mulitple personalities. The more aggressive you are in proactively stomping out such users, the greater the chances of you coming across someone in error. The worst thing that can happen is banning someone who is innocent of forum crimes, simply because you "suspect" someone has multiple accounts.

tyler

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I vote no since it can lead to abuse of the system. Anybody can come in a impersonate another poster. Some mods are narrow-minded so they will just ban the orginal poster by IP without taking the time to investigate the situation.

Some of us are college students who use our campus network to acess the internet. Ban one poster by IP and you risk banning the whole campus from the site.

Just imagine UW-Madison not being able to access Packerrats because of one idiotic hacker. There would be an outcry.

[Partial]

I vote no since it can lead to abuse of the system. Anybody can come in a impersonate another poster. Some mods are narrow-minded so they will just ban the orginal poster by IP without taking the time to investigate the situation.

Some of us are college students who use our campus network to acess the internet. Ban one poster by IP and you risk banning the whole campus from the site.

College networks assign a specifc IP per port. Even if you're using a switch, you will have multiple IPs

[Anti-Polar Bear]

College networks assign a specifc IP per port. Even if you're using a switch, you will have multiple IPs

Not where i am at. I live near campus so I get to use there wireless network. Upnorth banned me from his Christian site cos he thinks I was the hacker. Couldnt access that site from anywhere on campus. No one else can, although I could probably use the liberary IP, which the dorms are also associated with , but I'll eat shit before i do that. I love my computer.

[MadtownPacker]

To date no one has been banned and no one is getting banned unless they really screw up. This poll was just to let the poster know what the community thinks. They know who they are and they know they need to get their shit straightened out.

[jack's smirking revenge]

To date no one has been banned and no one is getting banned unless they really screw up. This poll was just to let the poster know what the community thinks. They know who they are and they know they need to get their shit straightened out.

Subversive. Sublime. Brilliant.

tyler

[Partial]

College networks assign a specifc IP per port. Even if you're using a switch, you will have multiple IPs

Not where i am at. I live near campus so I get to use there wireless network. Upnorth banned me from his Christian site cos he thinks I was the hacker. Couldnt access that site from anywhere on campus. No one else can, although I could probably use the liberary IP, which the dorms are also associated with , but I'll eat shit before i do that. I love my computer.

I have a hard time believing that.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="Anti-Polar Bear"][quote=Partial]

I have a hard time believing that.

Will, mabe your campus id different. Where i am at, they use only 3 IP. adminstration ip, dorm ip, and wireless. I use wireless so i can acess the internet while i take a shit.

[Partial]

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ip_address)


An IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique number that devices use in order to identify and communicate with each other on a computer network utilizing the Internet Protocol standard (IP). Any participating network device — including routers, computers, time-servers, printers, Internet fax machines, and some telephones — must have its own unique address.

An IP address can also be thought of as the equivalent of a street address or a phone number (compare: VoIP) for a computer or other network device on the internet. Just as each street address and phone number uniquely identifies a building or telephone, an IP address can uniquely identify a specific computer or other network device on a network.

An IP address can appear to be shared by multiple client devices either because they are part of a shared hosting web server environment or because a proxy server (e.g. an ISP or anonymizer service) acts as an intermediary agent on behalf of its customers, in which case the real originating IP addresses might be hidden from the server receiving a request. The analogy to telephone systems would be the use of predial numbers (proxy) and extensions (shared).

[Zool]

Maybe the IP block bot banned?

10.10.10.x

Thats possible. I doubt your school uses 3 IP's for the whole school. Maybe the wireless routers feed to 3 seperate routers. That I could believe.

[Fosco33]

To date no one has been banned and no one is getting banned unless they really screw up. This poll was just to let the poster know what the community thinks. They know who they are and they know they need to get their shit straightened out.

Why does Matt-NC at JSO always insist he 'got banned' or his account was deleted? Just curious.

[jack's smirking revenge]

To date no one has been banned and no one is getting banned unless they really screw up. This poll was just to let the poster know what the community thinks. They know who they are and they know they need to get their shit straightened out.

Why does Matt-NC at JSO always insist he 'got banned' or his account was deleted? Just curious.

Yeah, I just read that too at JSO. Made me wonder... (Yes, I read JSO from time to time just to smell the stink of the rotting carcass). That's why I voted "no" to the poll: he sounds like a jilted lover who had one bad experience and now is full of hate. It was probably a misunderstanding, but he seems really pissed about his experience with PR.

tyler

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Mad and Partial summed it up pretty good. For the ones that have created two accounts or more, you know who you are, and we know who you are. So the bottom line is we do not need to see your other user names again on this forum. Get it Got it Good.

No more bullshit excuses.

[Little Whiskey]

guess we won't be seeing anymore mazzin posts?? :mrgreen:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Maybe the IP block bot banned?

10.10.10.x

Thats possible. I doubt your school uses 3 IP's for the whole school. Maybe the wireless routers feed to 3 seperate routers. That I could believe.

Whatever. I am not a Computer Info major. I havent taken the core CIS class yet, which is requried for all business depart majors.

[Tarlam!]

No question. BAN 'EM. This is the best forum, and I am thankful for the labour pains we had over at JSO for this beautiful baby to be born.

Now that we have him/her, let's teach manners, respect etc etc.

[Noodle]

I think Mad and Partial summed it up pretty good. For the ones that have created two accounts or more, you know who you are, and we know who you are. So the bottom line is we do not need to see your other user names again on this forum. Get it Got it Good.

No more bullshit excuses.

Now that's calling a spade a digging implement.

Well said.

[woodbuck27]

I think Mad and Partial summed it up pretty good. For the ones that have created two accounts or more, you know who you are, and we know who you are. So the bottom line is we do not need to see your other user names again on this forum. Get it Got it Good.

No more bullshit excuses.

So Nutz.

I can assume from that post fr. you, that in the near future, we may lose at least two members, due to duplication of accounts here from the same person. GG.

That is just sad, if anyone is pulling that stunt, after all the crap at JSO. That was outrageous BS and hardship all around back then.

The result or a huge factor - this forum.

My feeling. Give anyone doing that some time , to think (goodluck with that), then deal with it, in accordance with the majority's needs and welfare.

If someone is 'in fact' doing that they are plain n' simple - careless. That cannot be tolerated because of the obvious violation of a trust.

Dam! I'm very surprised Nutz, that someone would be doing that.

[GrnBay007]

My stance on the matter is that if someone wants multiple accounts, fine. If it's a Mike Sherman name, thats cool. Have fun with it. But let Mad, Nutz or I know before creating it. This place is about fun, too. But be rest assured that if that account ever acts up in a negative or harmful way, both accounts will be banned immediately.

Just my opinion, but I'm kinda on the fence about anyone having multiple accounts, whether they act in a negative manner or not. When you look at it really, what's the need for it? What reason would someone have for making a duplicate account? From past experience with this issue, I'm sure most can attest to the fact that the person with multiple accounts generally had an agenda ....and most times, not all, it was to bring about a negative/irritating/mean aspect to the forum. Who wants that here? As soon as this starts happening there is an element of mistrust and trying to figure out who is who. Remember how many times at JSO that was a topic of conversation and how many times people said they wished they would not allow multiple sign on names?

[GrnBay007]

I think Mad and Partial summed it up pretty good. For the ones that have created two accounts or more, you know who you are, and we know who you are. So the bottom line is we do not need to see your other user names again on this forum. Get it Got it Good.

No more bullshit excuses.

Obviously from this and Mad's post, someone has more than one account and was busted. Thanks for catching it Admin. and I hope that along with the firm warning given, the 2nd name was deleted.

[Partial]

My stance on the matter is that if someone wants multiple accounts, fine. If it's a Mike Sherman name, thats cool. Have fun with it. But let Mad, Nutz or I know before creating it. This place is about fun, too. But be rest assured that if that account ever acts up in a negative or harmful way, both accounts will be banned immediately.

Just my opinion, but I'm kinda on the fence about anyone having multiple accounts, whether they act in a negative manner or not. When you look at it really, what's the need for it? What reason would someone have for making a duplicate account? From past experience with this issue, I'm sure most can attest to the fact that the person with multiple accounts generally had an agenda ....and most times, not all, it was to bring about a negative/irritating/mean aspect to the forum. Who wants that here? As soon as this starts happening there is an element of mistrust and trying to figure out who is who. Remember how many times at JSO that was a topic of conversation and how many times people said they wished they would not allow multiple sign on names?

Because if someone lets us know they want to have a novelty Q&A with "Mike McCarthy" then that is fine. These forums are for fun. If someone wants to have a little, I am fine with that. It's when things go sour that we obviously will have a problem. I am confident in our ability to prevent this from happening.

[Fosco33]

My stance on the matter is that if someone wants multiple accounts, fine. If it's a Mike Sherman name, thats cool. Have fun with it. But let Mad, Nutz or I know before creating it. This place is about fun, too. But be rest assured that if that account ever acts up in a negative or harmful way, both accounts will be banned immediately.

Just my opinion, but I'm kinda on the fence about anyone having multiple accounts, whether they act in a negative manner or not. When you look at it really, what's the need for it? What reason would someone have for making a duplicate account? From past experience with this issue, I'm sure most can attest to the fact that the person with multiple accounts generally had an agenda ....and most times, not all, it was to bring about a negative/irritating/mean aspect to the forum. Who wants that here? As soon as this starts happening there is an element of mistrust and trying to figure out who is who. Remember how many times at JSO that was a topic of conversation and how many times people said they wished they would not allow multiple sign on names?

Because if someone lets us know they want to have a novelty Q&A with "Mike McCarthy" then that is fine. These forums are for fun. If someone wants to have a little, I am fine with that. It's when things go sour that we obviously will have a problem. I am confident in our ability to prevent this from happening.

That alias sucked at JSO. I recall Zig and I trying to figure out if it was really him or not. I felt pretty dumb after that.

If it's gonna be fake, everyone should know - use 'Fake Rat' as the custom name or something.

[mraynrand]

I'm on the side of monitoring behavior. The folks that set up this nice forum deserve the right to set a behavior standard. If you don't want multiple screen names from the same person, that's fine too. It's just that I see no problem with someone posing, just so long as they behave themselves. If you think about it, how do you honestly know two posters are different people? Most everyone, with the exception perhaps of 'the inner circle' are no more than screen personas to one another anyway.

[woodbuck27]

*** Rev. 13 July, 2006. woodbuck27

Members. I've reconsidered this.

Simply BAN that member (person for life) and close his/her accounts.

Only after a call for a general membership vote on the matter with specifics supplied to make that decision. Vote YES to Ban or No.

I would also exclude the top 10 even 20 posters in this forum from the vote to remove the threat of the inner circle syndrome. { *** I retract this suggestion as the top posters in the forum (by number's of posts) may also have solid integrity and be as fair as all others and these people will most likely attend a vote }

No moderator or officer of this forum should be able to vote. { ***I retract this as it's unrealistic - given that the OWNER of his Forum must have a say and the Mods should be involved because of their Senior Appointment and knowledge of the facts }

Appoint twenty good members like a jury process or a standing committee for six month periods.

May I be frank.

I'm really wondering what is up here? What suddenly is bringing all this on? It's certainly not like we've grown much bigger - in a couple of weeks.

Partial was recently made a new Moderator; but what is up here to compel this concern and posssible response to ban?

In a forum such as this, to ban is equivalent to Capitol punishment. It's severe, a harsh approach to deal with a problem.

We're getting government , BIG TIME - suddenly - and there seems to be little wrong. It awakens all in me that I really am.

Suddenly posters with two or more screen names are the concern? I didn't observe any difference in the climate here of late, except some possible outrageous claims in public, which isn't the best way to snuff out the fox. mmmm

Back to the task.

I just checked, and we have less than 75 members with at least 100 posts.

I suggest that you keep the vote based on a majority of most active members, based on some minimum number of posts required to be eligible to vote.

The voting process removes any stigma of threat of people being tossed from here ,because of any discrimmination. If you are going to adopt a banning option, then I suggest you do so fairly, that the POLICY has integrity.

I suggest. The person being accused on any grounds, not just multiple screen names ; has a right of appeal.

Possibly in a debate process, before that voting body, and all other interested members, even though they may be excluded from the vote process, because of the criteria for eligibility.

A suggestion. Any member here for say 60 days may participate in the debate. The debate last 's for 24 hours and he/she will in any case likely get banned but we all at least are aware of what happened to Betty-Bob_Buttercup.

In some forums, people are clearly discrimminated upon and harassed and finally break or are broken and get tossed. I witnessed outright stalking on a forum (before I came to JSO) and harassment through the persons's E-mail service.

Terrible rottten behaviour of the worst order.They are there one day and someone backstab's them (the inner circle) and their GONE. It's pure fascism of the worst order - except noone dies.

It takes pressure from the membership before 'the facts', yea sure, are even revealed by the forums leadership. Some forms are all about censorship and a pure fascist system is in place ' to RULE ' not govern them. I'm a Canadian and know the difference between a Democratic Process in place and Fascism.

The part that will be complicated as I see this forums membership - is to discover what single person has multiple screen names. Good Luck.

You can't be analysing and guessing wrong. Some of you already believe that, this or that person isn't who they present themselves to be.

I can assure you. I am woodbuck27 'the eben actual' woodbuck27.

Noone could be me but me when it's so very hard for me to be me.

Sounds like another Yogi-ism.

See Ya !

[Scott Campbell]

It would be entertaining to "out" the culprits. And then we could have a bit of fun at their expense.

Somehow I don't think this idea is going to fly.

[woodbuck27]

It would be entertaining to "out" the culprits. And then we could have a bit of fun at their expense.

Somehow I don't think this idea is going to fly.

I really can't see a problem here at the present Scott.

Except for those accusing this or that member of being something other than - as they present themselves. I am a little taken back there or that makes me feel let's just say. . uncomfortable.

That in itself is to my observation - Rare.

[woodbuck27]

I'm on the side of monitoring behavior. The folks that set up this nice forum deserve the right to set a behavior standard. If you don't want multiple screen names from the same person, that's fine too. It's just that I see no problem with someone posing, just so long as they behave themselves. If you think about it, how do you honestly know two posters are different people? Most everyone, with the exception perhaps of 'the inner circle' are no more than screen personas to one another anyway.

"I'm on the side of monitoring behavior. The folks that set up this nice forum deserve the right to set a behavior standard." mraynrand

That is why we have moderators but to resort to banning someone for bad behaviour should 'in my opinion' be based on past attempts to change that person's ways. Noone should be outright banned for anything that isn't of a serious nature.

Serious infractions would include harassment via telephone or E-mails or attacks otherwise, than on this board.

If anyone is deemed guilty of vandalism of this forum or publishing any member's sensitive private info. that person has to be banned for Life as well.

No member needs or should be allowed two screen names.The reason why is moot as it must NOT be allowed.

Banning has to be set up on a common sense and fair basis. A policy adopted that is drawn up and accepted by a vote of the membership or otherwise be drawn up under a review process as we are in OUR infancy.

That will be part of OUR growing pains.

[Little Whiskey]

It would be entertaining to "out" the culprits. And then we could have a bit of fun at their expense.



kinda like tar and feathering!! oh wait some might find that a little too erotic :mrgreen:

[woodbuck27]

It would be entertaining to "out" the culprits. And then we could have a bit of fun at their expense.



kinda like tar and feathering!! oh wait some might find that a little too erotic :mrgreen:

Hahahaha !

Yea - wondering what Scott is thinking (specifically there) but it is probably better expressed in The Garbage Can. :mrgreen:

[mraynrand]

Woodbuck,

My point was that the people who established this forum have the right to set any standards that they see fit. I have the right to say the standards suck, and go to other forums or to accept them and remain. If they want to prevent multiple accounts, that's their right. As I wrote above, I don't see any harm in having multiple accounts, so long as you comply with forum behavior standards. Last year (I think) someone set up an account on JSO as "Dr. John Holmes, MD PhD" and it was fairly amusing. So what would be the harm in allowing something like that on this site?

Finally, what right have the users of the forum to set the standards? None I think. If the forum 'owners' set too rigid of control, they will lose their audience and if they set too loose of controls, they will also lose people (Like the Christian Encourager and JSO sites, respectively). Sure, you can give your two cents about your site preferences, but clearly the site owners have the right to establish standards as they see fit, including banning multiple accounts.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Last year (I think) someone set up an account on JSO as "Dr. John Holmes, MD PhD" and it was fairly amusing.

Oh yeah, I remember Dr. John Holmes. Funny guy. Havent heard from him since some guy named Forrest Glump started showing up (that was also after tankduke got banned for changing his name, amidst the Packers' 6th or 7th straight losses, to "Ted Thompson, Mother of all Fuck Ups").

Anybody know what happened to Johnny?

[GrnBay007]

Last year (I think) someone set up an account on JSO as "Dr. John Holmes, MD PhD" and it was fairly amusing.

Oh yeah, I remember Dr. John Holmes. Funny guy. Havent heard from him since some guy named Forrest Glump started showing up (that was also after tankduke got banned for changing his name, amidst the Packers' 6th or 7th straight losses, to "Ted Thompson, Mother of all Fuck Ups").

Anybody know what happened to Johnny?

:roll:

You admitted dr. john holmes was you, didn't you tank?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

:roll:

You admitted dr. john holmes was you, didn't you tank?

I dont think that is possible. Remember, I was banned for the Ted Thompson name. I think that was the 1st time Harlan ever filed a complaint against me. If I recall correctly, Harlan dislike long names because they were altering the nomal format of that site.

[GrnBay007]

:roll:

You admitted dr. john holmes was you, didn't you tank?

I dont think that is possible.

yeah, right. Unless you kept a calender to track your names, you probably don't know who you were in each month of 2005 in JSO.

bummer you can't do that here, huh?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

yeah, right. Unless you kept a calender to track your names, you probably don't know who you were in each month of 2005 in JSO.

bummer you can't do that here, huh?

I think the real reason you are against multi-accounts is because you still have everlasting memories of your encounter with "the Voice of Reason." If I recall correctly, Voice and you were arguing madly about who loves Ted Thompson the most. I think the Voice evenutally changed his name to Mary Kate and Ashley, although both were of the same account.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck,

My point was that the people who established this forum have the right to set any standards that they see fit. I have the right to say the standards suck, and go to other forums or to accept them and remain. If they want to prevent multiple accounts, that's their right. As I wrote above, I don't see any harm in having multiple accounts, so long as you comply with forum behavior standards. Last year (I think) someone set up an account on JSO as "Dr. John Holmes, MD PhD" and it was fairly amusing. So what would be the harm in allowing something like that on this site?

Finally, what right have the users of the forum to set the standards? None I think. If the forum 'owners' set too rigid of control, they will lose their audience and if they set too loose of controls, they will also lose people (Like the Christian Encourager and JSO sites, respectively). Sure, you can give your two cents about your site preferences, but clearly the site owners have the right to establish standards as they see fit, including banning multiple accounts.

I don't disagree with most that you wrote mraynrand, except the issue of duplicate screennames for one account user.

I feel that can't exist for good as then it can go really wrong.The case where I do see it working. Is when a person applys for another screenname, it's approved by Mad and the Mod's and the screen names of all members here are accessable by checking their personal info.

My membership here is a privalege that excludes my exclusive needs.
Not everyone here I expect, takes that stance.

The thing with me mraynrand, is I'm one of those - fight for the little guy / little person - people, that wants fairness and hate's discrimmination. Also, Power Groups make me really nervous.

I do not appreciate judgementle people with their neurotic and petty needs to be considered, above a little patience. Some have to jump right in there and get in their two cents worth. . . . ALL THE TIME ? Uhhhhh ?!!

I'm against 'the inner Circles' that always exist in time. I'm against backstabbers and those quick to drop on others.

Nice to you, nice to you and thank you and suddenly they fold like a wet tent and screw you in a NY minute.

I have no other means of lobby then this thread at present, and I am not so naive to believe, that my positions will be given anymore weight then your's or anyone else's that acts solely as an individual here.

I have a hunch. LOL - that over the past three days, there has been more PMing. I exclude Mad and the Mod's, in causing the degree of useage to rise.

[GrnBay007]

yeah, right. Unless you kept a calender to track your names, you probably don't know who you were in each month of 2005 in JSO.

bummer you can't do that here, huh?

I think the real reason you are against multi-accounts is because you still have everlasting memories of your encounter with "the Voice of Reason." If I recall correctly, Voice and you were arguing madly about who loves Ted Thompson the most. I think the Voice evenutally changed his name to Mary Kate and Ashley, although both were of the same account.

LOL so you are saying those are two other accounts I argued with you on? Tank, really....we have to stop meeting this way.

[Bretsky]

yeah, right. Unless you kept a calender to track your names, you probably don't know who you were in each month of 2005 in JSO.

bummer you can't do that here, huh?

I think the real reason you are against multi-accounts is because you still have everlasting memories of your encounter with "the Voice of Reason." If I recall correctly, Voice and you were arguing madly about who loves Ted Thompson the most. I think the Voice evenutally changed his name to Mary Kate and Ashley, although both were of the same account.

LOL so you are saying those are two other accounts I argued with you on? Tank, really....we have to stop meeting this way.

No wonder why JS is down to four posts a day outside of FYI; Tank and whoever the hacker was each had about 50 accounts.

[RashanGary]

I see no reason to have multiple names. I like the idea of being able to change the names though. I might want to change mine sometime.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No wonder why JS is down to four posts a day outside of FYI; Tank and whoever the hacker was each had about 50 accounts.

The difference between me and the hacker (Lawyerjoe), is that I, in the words of GreenDay, I mean mraynrand, set out to amuse the audience. The hacker on the other hand, sought out to expose others personal info. Big difference. Never put me in the same sentence with the hacker again.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

LOL so you are saying those are two other accounts I argued with you on? Tank, really....we have to stop meeting this way.

Please, if I am going to ask a mature women out, it will be GBMichele. I want no part of another man's kids. None. No way jose.

[GrnBay007]

LOL so you are saying those are two other accounts I argued with you on? Tank, really....we have to stop meeting this way.

Please, if I am going to ask a mature women out, it will be GBMichele. I want no part of another man's kids. None. No way jose.


You are probably right....if you got out of line my 10 year old son would kick your ass!!!!! lmao

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think posters with double-accounts should be flogged in the public square. But the only problem is, which account do you flog? Too complicated, best to just look the other way.

[woodbuck27]

No wonder why JS is down to four posts a day outside of FYI; Tank and whoever the hacker was each had about 50 accounts.

The difference between me and the hacker (Lawyerjoe), is that I, in the words of GreenDay, I mean mraynrand, set out to amuse the audience. The hacker on the other hand, sought out to expose others personal info. Big difference. Never put me in the same sentence with the hacker again.


Way to stand in there Tank ! :arrow: Two thumbs up

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You are probably right....if you got out of line my 10 year old son would kick your ass!!!!! lmao

You should claim that animal down some. Remember, children are animals because they live through instincts and through not reason, unless that certain child is a prodigy. Society attempts to train children into rational beings (adults) through education. Yet, just when we have gained enough knowledge to become rational beings, we instead turn into soulless robots.

Anyway, is that the reason why you've never remarried? I can imagine your son kicking any potential husbands out the door dates after dates.

[GrnBay007]

You are probably right....if you got out of line my 10 year old son would kick your ass!!!!! lmao


Anyway, is that the reason why you've never remarried? I can imagine your son kicking any potential husbands out the door dates after dates.

Actually no Tank, he's not big enough to kick any of my dates in the ass.....remember, I was talking about you.

[woodbuck27]

"I can imagine your son kicking any potential husbands out the door dates after dates." APB

Grnbay007's son is a normal 10 year old - not Chuckie Tank. LOL.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Actually no Tank, he's not big enough to kick any of my dates in the ass.....remember, I was talking about you.

I am 5'9" 175lbs and I shutted down Darren Charles, who was 6'6" 200 lbs. I am not afraid of any animal.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Grnbay007's son is a normal 10 year old - not Chuckie Tank. LOL.

Good one. :mrgreen:

[MJZiggy]

Actually no Tank, he's not big enough to kick any of my dates in the ass.....remember, I was talking about you.

I am 5'9" 175lbs and I shutted down Darren Charles, who was 6'6" 200 lbs. I am not afraid of any animal.

I know a chihuahua that could take you out in a second no, problem.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am 5'9" 175lbs and I shutted down Darren Charles, who was 6'6" 200 lbs. I am not afraid of any animal.

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/16/164603.jpg http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/Rudy.jpg

Sorry, but I love Darren Charles and Tank's highschool photos.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sorry, but I love Darren Charles and Tank's highschool photos.

You ever seen Rudy? Rudy did good. I was just like Rudy.

[GrnBay007]

Actually no Tank, he's not big enough to kick any of my dates in the ass.....remember, I was talking about you.

I am 5'9" 175lbs and I shutted down Darren Charles, who was 6'6" 200 lbs. I am not afraid of any animal.


well, ok give him a year then.....he's 5'1" lol

[Anti-Polar Bear]

well, ok give him a year then.....he's 5'1" lol

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned Darren Charles is 6'6" 200lbs, and I shut him down.

[Deputy Nutz]

I ate Darren Charles shit once. right out of the toliet. It was good.

[MJZiggy]

Sorry, but I love Darren Charles and Tank's highschool photos.

You ever seen Rudy? Rudy did good. I was just like Rudy. Wasn't Rudy retarded?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Wasn't Rudy retarded?

You are a clueless woman. Only a retarded person of extraordinary intelligent would be able to attend Notre Dame.

[Deputy Nutz]

The truth of Rudy is that he is now the town drunk. No lie.

[MJZiggy]

Oops, wrong movie. For some reason retardation is what popped into my head when you posted that. Oh yeah. Radio. Wonder how I could have made that mistake...

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The truth of Rudy is that he is now the town drunk. No lie.

You are a clueless man. Rudy moved to New York City and eventually became their mayor. Rudy is now a millionaire.

[Partial]

I see no reason to have multiple names. I like the idea of being able to change the names though. I might want to change mine sometime.

That you can do, just gotta have your former name in the sig. I don't recall the exact policy but its in the rules. PM me whenever you want to do that.

[woodbuck27]

I ate Darren Charles shit once. right out of the toliet. It was good.


Yea sure, but come on get REAL - own up to the whole TRUTH, Doctor.

"Someone told me - you had EXTRA fries , EXTRA ketchup and you were real heavy on the hot peppers, with that late night snack." jk

Evidently, Packer fans.

Dr. Nutz had a munch on and was stuck.

Due to the hour, that wasn't one of those very rare ,late night eateries that afforded the refined discrimminating Doctor, a garnish ala 'Grey Poupon'.

I mean come on Dr.Nutz. You were eating 'almost' . . . . HOLY Shit' .

I'll add this though, and to your credit Doctor. That experience that you re-call so well, is well let's say . . . .

It's very Byzantine.

[woodbuck27]

Most people's preferences, for say a salsa or a spaghetti sauce, fall into one of three broad groups: plain, spicy, and extra-chunky.

Well then, we get some idea where Dr. Nutz was that night.

The word is. That an invite to Dr. Nutz's home for a Bar B Q, is indeed - an occasion, that will leave you in delight for the remainder of the summer, and pine (ing) - for another invitation?

[the_idle_threat]

I never got to vote ... :sad:



I woulda voted for "string e'm up by the nuts" with both of my accounts.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Why the fuck is this thread showing a "!" by its title ?

[Jimx29]

Why the fuck is this thread showing a "!" by its title ?It's a "sticky" topic

[RashanGary]

I don't really care if anyone has more than one name, but I also know that people cause trouble with multiple user names and I have a feeling this is somehow rooted to a touble maker or two.

I say you make a rule that nobody can have more than one username and then delete the trouble makers and pretend like your doing it for everyone :)

[Scott Campbell]

The truth of Rudy is that he is now the town drunk. No lie.


I've met Rudy a couple of times, and had breakfast with him once at a business meeting. I've never seen any indication that he has any personal problems - other than being short.

[mraynrand]

The truth of Rudy is that he is now the town drunk. No lie.


I've met Rudy a couple of times, and had breakfast with him once at a business meeting. I've never seen any indication that he has any personal problems - other than being short.

LOL - being short is a 'personal problem'! I know lots of people with personal problems.

[Deputy Nutz]

I have been told by a number of different people that have gone to Notre Dame that he is a person with an alcohol problem. He made a nice little chunk of change off the movie, and public speaking a short time after the movie, but he likes the liquor, he really, really does.

[Scott Campbell]

In other words - it's rumored.

[Deputy Nutz]

yes a rumor, I have personally never slept with Rudy.

[GrnBay007]

yes a rumor, I have personally never slept with Rudy.

...but you want to, don't you?

[Bretsky]

yes a rumor, I have personally never slept with Rudy.

...but you want to, don't you?

Just because you lust all the hotties doesn't mean guys do that as well.

[woodbuck27]

The truth of Rudy is that he is now the town drunk. No lie.


I've met Rudy a couple of times, and had breakfast with him once at a business meeting. I've never seen any indication that he has any personal problems - other than being short.

Hahahahahahaha. . .DEAR GOD HELP ME SCOTT - BUT THAT's REALLY TOO FUNNY.

Are you serious man? I can't tap into your psyche.

dodododo. . . .dodododo. . .

This is a news special bulletin:

Some of the country's leading psychiatrists tried to find out what really made him tick and failed miserably . . .

One can only hope, that HE, doesn't one day exceed the problem we are now faced with in the concern over the ozone layer depletion.

Some say it will be Ok.

That they are comforted in their faith in GOD and prayer helps alot; but what are the most unfortunate 'the truly perplex'd' ever going to do to cope?

We'll be asking that question of the common man on the street soon.So tune in here for their reaction.

This is one of the most perplexing problems of OUR time and -

Thank GOD for Bush. He always gets the answers. well OK , sure but - he get's there.

This is ACTION News - WKRP in Cinncinnatti signing off - and reminding you.

An Irishman may get drunk and really too happy but he gets up to drink the next day, faster than a Scott. :mrgreen:

[mraynrand]

An Irishman may get drunk and really too happy but he gets up to drink the next day, faster than a Scott. :mrgreen:


http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/play.cfm/sound_iid.17635

I've discovered that, for the most part, I can't comprehend your writings woodbuck.

[woodbuck27]

"I've discovered that, for the most part, I can't comprehend your writings woodbuck." mraynand

That's allright and for the honesty I appreciate that forthrightness from you. myraynand.

In fairness to you. I'm a bit of an enigma. Oh well. . .

I resort to a certain style of writing sometimes, that is meant for people to think. To simply read and think.

I certainly don't entertain any means to offend, or otherwise confuse you, or anyone else on this forum.

My apologies to you for any challenge I might add to your life

[mraynrand]

In fairness to you. I'm a bit of an enigma. Oh well. . .

I resort to a certain style of writing sometimes, that is meant for people to think. To simply read and think.

I certainly don't entertain any means to offend, or otherwise confuse you, or anyone else on this forum.

My apologies to you for any challenge I might add to your life


I might be confused, but I'm certainly not offended. I hope I wasn't too harsh.

[woodbuck27]

"I might be confused, but I'm certainly not offended. I hope I wasn't too harsh." mraynrand

Harsh? Absolutely not.

If you want to probe me as to the meaning or explanation of something that confuses you. Fire away.

I'll at least try to clarify it.

I'll also say this.

If it is something to do with a comedic take from me? Then you would have to tap into my style of humour. I'm afterall Canadian, and worse than that for you possibly, I'm born and raised in 'the Maritimes', or Eastern Provinces {New Brunswick,Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island}

We are a different sort to other's and are OK with accepting that we are somewhat let's say - unique. We like it like that.

You can work with me though. :mrgreen:

[Little Whiskey]

I've discovered that, for the most part, I can't comprehend your writings woodbuck.

I'm with ya on that one mraynrand. I think we need take away woody's "enter" key. that may be part of the problem understanding.


by the way, rudy wasn't great at football. remember he only played once, at the end of the season.

[Zool]

yes a rumor, I have personally never slept with Rudy.

...but you want to, don't you?

If you do Nutz, you need the ND O-line chanting RU-DY RU-DY RU-DY the whole time.

[Partial]

Speaking of ND, does anyone know of his whereabouts? Does he know longer want to be a member of the team?

[Rastak]

You are the jury, judge, and executioner.


Yes. Why would anyone need two.

[mraynrand]

You are the jury, judge, and executioner.


Yes. Why would anyone need two.

Oh, so MADTOWNPACKER gets three different accounts - one as judge, one as jury, and one as executioner? How is that fair?

[woodbuck27]

[quote=mraynrand]
I've discovered that, for the most part, I can't comprehend your writings woodbuck.

"I'm with ya on that one mraynrand. I think we need take away woody's "enter" key. that may be part of the problem understanding." Little Whiskey

Thanks Little Whiskey. Criticism is a good thing! :mrgreen: