• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

The People's Choice

Wilomn said:
So you're saying that dand has been fair and even handed in his dealing out of dings?

Okie dokie.
Click to expand...

Well, I have reviewed DAND's warnings to you and I cannot find anything that I would consider as "warning system abuse". Those warnings were levied via his own discretion in interpretting your posts, and I do not see any obvious indications that may preclude his coming to those conclusions.

However on your part, I think you are rather lucky that I decided to remove "Stalking a member" from being an offense on this site.

IMHO.
 
Wilomn said:
So you're saying that dand has been fair and even handed in his dealing out of dings?

Okie dokie.
Click to expand...
Wes, show me a post that has been way over the top and or abusive, you should know me well enough to know that I would hit him for it. I am not biased against you, in fact if you recall, I was and still am, one of your biggest supporters here.

I took the liberty of copying my warning to you for all to see....
Laura Fopiano
02-20-2007
Antagonism Towards Moderators
[ View Post]
You know I love ya honey, but..."dand, unless you truly are as stupid as I suspect you are" sorry I have no choice.

And I also quoted for you the infraction that I saw. I am not biased at all, in fact I am trying to be fair.
This feud between the two of you has warn out it's welcome a while ago. I am not a big enough "Pollyanna" to even suggest "can't we all just get along" however, in some instances, less is more.
 
WebSlave said:
Well, I have reviewed DAND's warnings to you and I cannot find anything that I would consider as "warning system abuse". Those warnings were levied via his own discretion in interpretting your posts, and I do not see any obvious indications that may preclude his coming to those conclusions.

However on your part, I think you are rather lucky that I decided to remove "Stalking a member" from being an offense on this site.

IMHO.
Click to expand...
It's sort of a two way street Rich.

You have stated that I only see things one way.

I say the same about you. You only see what supports your preconcieved ideas. I have no problem with that but I'm not going to sit idly by and just take it if I think things are out of whack. Would you?

In fact, I believe you have spoken out about what you didn't like about your site. I am doing the same, but specifically.

Would you rather members, myself in particular, remain silent about such things? You already have members doing that. Surely you must be aware of it.

You know that by and large I like it here. By and large I'd say I contribute a fair bit of knowledge and not a little humor which, by and large, is more positive than not as far as I am able to discern.

If it doesn't balance out, you've got the chain, pull the plug.

You also didn't really answer the question I asked. While you may not have had a problem with any of the dings dand has given me, do you think he has applied himself fairly and equally to others who have done the same as I have yet recieved nothing for it? You see, if you do think that is fair, then I need to re-compute my definition of fair. At least as far as this site is concerned.

Eh, he'll keep doing as he has done, especially now that he has your blessing. I suppose I'll either have to change my wording, grow thicker skin, or hit the road. Sort of a shame, the way things are shaking out. Not a surprise mind you, but sort of a shame none the less.
 
Laura Fopiano said:
Wes, show me a post that has been way over the top and or abusive, you should know me well enough to know that I would hit him for it. I am not biased against you, in fact if you recall, I was and still am, one of your biggest supporters here.

I took the liberty of copying my warning to you for all to see....
Laura Fopiano
02-20-2007
Antagonism Towards Moderators
[ View Post]
You know I love ya honey, but..."dand, unless you truly are as stupid as I suspect you are" sorry I have no choice.

And I also quoted for you the infraction that I saw. I am not biased at all, in fact I am trying to be fair.
This feud between the two of you has warn out it's welcome a while ago. I am not a big enough "Pollyanna" to even suggest "can't we all just get along" however, in some instances, less is more.
Click to expand...
My point, which you seem to have missed is this: what is right for one, is right for all.

Lack of consistency is the hallmark of fauna.
 
Wilomn said:
My point, which you seem to have missed is this: what is right for one, is right for all.

Lack of consistency is the hallmark of fauna.
Click to expand...

What we have here, folks, is a point blank refusal of Wes to listen to what is being told him. Wes, NO one here is required to read all posts on this site. No one here is REQUIRED to catch each and every rule infraction. The ONLY defense anyone (including you) has about the warning points made on YOU is WAS THAT WARNING JUSTIFIED? It doesn't matter one whit what someone else may have done or not done. All that matters is what YOU did to earn the points. You got caught, and someone else didn't and you feel that a prolonged WHINE about "consistency" is an appropriate defense?

If you continue to purposely ignore this important point of argument you constantly (dare I say "consistently"?) bring up, then you are doing nothing more, in my opinion, then simply trolling here in order to get attention. I have told you this time and time again, but it apparently is a concept that you CANNOT, or WILL NOT get through your skull. This "consistency" defense you are claiming is the ONLY thing you have to argue with concerning those unwelcome antics of yours here, and you know it. You believe that it is a valid defense for you to pretty much act any way you want to if you can find someone else doing something similar. Sorry, Wes, but that isn't cutting it. And I am stating here and now (yet again) that it is NO defense at all for you.

So ARE you being singled out? Maybe, maybe not. But even if so, SO WHAT? As long as you don't violate the rules, you won't GIVE THEM A DARN THING TO DING YOU ABOUT. What exactly is so tough about that to understand? Cops do it all the time. If they suspect someone may be inclined to break the law, they simple stake them out and wait. Even with you KNOWING you may be the target of a stake out, you STILL go ahead and flaunt the rules. Just exactly how SMART is that? :rolleyes:

And as for pulling the chain, that chain leads to the plug in the drain that may very well flush a member or two (who are deserving) down the hopper. And at this time there are 40 some members who can help tug on that chain. Even though I made that chain heavier then perhaps I should have, I have given them the power, and my blessing, to do what THEY feel is necessary and proper to make this the site what they want it to be.

As you once suggested to me, DELEGATE. So that is EXACTLY what I have done.
 
Casey Hulse said:
I think that is what Kevin was trying to say. You probably do not want to hear it, but if you met Dave in different circumstances I am sure you would find a lot in common, maybe even be friends. :reddevil:
Click to expand...

I Agree Casey. If Wes met Dave in person I think everything would be cool.

Wes I am telling you bro. Dave(DAND) Is good people. I think you towo just need to talk it out
 
Wes,
It is obvious you like the site and you have said it. If you truly believe that you can be "fair" all the time, accurate all the time, consistant all the time, see everything all the time, and know what each meaning is meant by each individual all the time, well then pay the $100 bucks and hop on board!
 
Rich, you seem to be under the impression that this is just about me.

Ok, I'll just leave you with that impression you seem to be under.

I disagree, but it makes no difference to you.

You've taken MY advice and delegated. Unfortunately, you have not taken all the advice I have given you but, as always, that is the way it goes and will not be changed by anything I say at this point in time.

You still have not answered my question but I suppose you won't. Honestly I thought you might but didn't really think you would. That pretty much answers it for me anyway as when you ARE fully in support of something you tend to say so. It's when you're not that you tend to skip the answers.
 
Stardust said:
Wes,
It is obvious you like the site and you have said it. If you truly believe that you can be "fair" all the time, accurate all the time, consistant all the time, see everything all the time, and know what each meaning is meant by each individual all the time, well then pay the $100 bucks and hop on board!
Click to expand...
$25.00 is the most I'll be paying for a membership here unless the basic membership that it gets me now goes up.

I'm NOT playing this game, which I have unequivically stated several times.
 
Gary O said:
I Agree Casey. If Wes met Dave in person I think everything would be cool.

Wes I am telling you bro. Dave(DAND) Is good people. I think you towo just need to talk it out
Click to expand...
I can forgive, which I won't, but I'm not much on forgetting.

Ain't gonna happen.
 
Same argument, different day. Don't know why you bother Rich, but it is obvious you are a far far more patient man than I. Now back into the cruel callous inconsistent world, seeking that worm hole that will transport me to Shangri-La .... the plane crash route never held much appeal to me :).
 
My Vote

Clay Davenport (Clay Davenport)
Laura Fopiano (Laura Fopiano)
Mike Greathouse (Mike Greathouse)
Sammy Gregg (shrap)
Bill Hicok (Bill & Amy)
Casey Hulse (Casey Hulse)
Dennis Hultman (Dennis Hultman)
Art Klass (Art Klass)
John Schmitt (Suncoast Herpetological)
Harald Moore (hhmoore)
Bob Woodard (Griz)
Dan Garcia (Boidsmith)


Interesting thread. Hard to follow, but interesting none the less.
I think these above would do the trick. I choose them for their level heads, and apparent ability to not take things to a personal level. They don't appear to take sides with any given "group" and I think are probably the most fair I could think of.

I think this is pretty important when choosing moderation, and to be quite frank, there are currently mods who do not seem to possess these abilities. One just has to kick back and observe, (which I do a lot of) and one will see who has vendetta for whom. Or so it would seem by casual observation.


Rick
 
Sledgehammer said:
This was supposed to be a "fun" thread with an opportunity for everyone to show a hand of support for those individuals whom they feel deserve as much.

Instead, we are witness to jealousy, petty bickering, and quite possibly, outright hatred.

I'm now sorry that I started the thread.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine what would have happened if, as earlier suggested, people started posting lists of who they DIDN'T want to have moderation powers?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
crotalusadamanteus said:
... and apparent ability to not take things to a personal level. They don't appear to take sides with any given "group" ...

I think this is pretty important when choosing moderation, and to be quite frank, there are currently mods who do not seem to possess these abilities. One just has to kick back and observe, (which I do a lot of) and one will see who has vendetta for whom. Or so it would seem by casual observation.


Rick
Click to expand...

Just as a note was reading back and happened to hit on Wes's warning points. I find it interesting that Dand and Dr Owens gave more points for Wes using the name Brucie in reference to brucestephensons attack on KelliH.

Now here is the comment that Dand made to Wes.

Again, addressing any one by anything other than the person's given name or screen name is abusive.
Click to expand...

Yet he still hasn't done anything to Lucille for calling Wes, Wesley... as far as the world knows Wes is his name and Wilomn is his screen name. Or maybe we should all call her Lucy, just so Dand doesn't get his panties in a bunch, as some would say.
 
Folks,
This is becoming like a bad trip to the dentist. Regarding Lucille, do you think Wes would have been popped if he called her "Lucy" instead of "Loose-wheel" ? Wesley-Wes and Lucille-Lucy are in range. He did not choose Lucy. In the case of "Brucie", is it also so difficult to see the surrounding posts where many more antagonistic labels were used, and allow a mod to evaluate abuse in the total context ? Not that you or I would have dinged Wes for "Brucie", as to each their own prerogative, but to harp on some concept of "consistency" as though it is also not a relative concept is to ...... well, would you like some cheese with that whine ?
 
What is a loosewheel, anyway? And why is it so much more awful to call her that than to call Wes "Wesley"? I don't get it!
PS. Don't EVER call me Squell-ee.
 
There are only a couple of people who call me Wesley. My mother being one of them.

Long ago, before lucille showed her true colours she asked me, several times, if she could call me Wesley. I flat out told her no, that it was not a name I had a liking for and that only a couple of people could call me that and not displease me.

She uses it as a goad, a way to insult me without technically breaking the rules. It's a sneaky slimy way of getting away with what I get zapped for when I call her loosewheel.

She knows it. dand knows it.
 
I believe that Wesley is a real name, just as James, etc.

To refer to someone as a "loose wheel" would be to say that they are unstable, or likely to fail, or the member of a group most likely to fail the others. I think its use instead of "Lucille" would be more akin to her calling Wes "Wuss" instead of Wesley. To call someone "Wesley" has no other connotations that I know of. ;)

I think we might want to take a step back and see that we have a man in his mid 50's, and a woman in her latter 30's, unable to refer to each other by known names. While I feel the actions of one were more contemptuous than the other, and what I would not tolerate with my own kids when they were still kids, I can also see an argument that says "to hell with it" and both antagonists should be thrown off the cliff :)
 
Back
Top