If I remember correctly - YOU banned them, and made sure it was ok after the fact. Having said that your post SPECIFICALLY said that they were PM'd BEFORE the banning. Now you say they were PM'd a warning after being banned (real effective that), and THEN you're telling us that they did in fact respond to you - after the fact.

Oh ok.

[quote="ED!":6d497]If I remember correctly - YOU banned them, and made sure it was ok after the fact. Having said that your post SPECIFICALLY said that they were PM'd BEFORE the banning. Now you say they were PM'd a warning after being banned (real effective that), and THEN you're telling us that they did in fact respond to you - after the fact.

Oh ok.[/quote:6d497]

Hrm. . .lets try this again.

I can type it bigger, if needed. Or maybe in red?

[quote="Bazooka_Joe":a977f][quote="ED!":a977f]If I remember correctly - YOU banned them, and made sure it was ok after the fact. Having said that your post SPECIFICALLY said that they were PM'd BEFORE the banning. Now you say they were PM'd a warning after being banned (real effective that), and THEN you're telling us that they did in fact respond to you - after the fact.

Oh ok.[/quote:a977f]

Hrm. . .lets try this again.


Thats a well coded quote if ever i seen one. oOo:

Gerard, you see what I mean? And you wonder what how the site became the way it did today; with dumb replies like that just to get the last word in. Just drop it already, all of us! I'm done responding to Ed.

Naw - if it made any SENSE, then there wouldnt be no problem. As it is - it dont make sense. You ban them, send them a pm, they respond and THAT's good enough reason for them to be banned. Or wait - JUDAS doesn't respond but hes still banned for all that useless spam he posted as Taco. Noone buys it joe - we all had access to shit you thought wouldnt come out. And there it is Mr New Yahk. Type some more in caps in bold - give pomp and circumstance to words that amount to nothing. The song remains the same kid. You fux0red up. Be a man and admit it.

Get over it

^ What he said.

^ Agreed

I'd say the same to you guys but - it's uh different right. . . oOo:

joe you banned me, white rabbit, tripper, and judas for no good reason, just admit it because your bullshit is getting ridiculous

[quote="Simo Häyhä":ea0b2]joe you banned me, white rabbit, tripper, and judas for no good reason, just admit it because your bullshit is getting ridiculous[/quote:ea0b2]

You were banned because you were acting like an ass, as I explained to you in a PM. White Rabbit was banned simply because you two share an IP.

Tripper and Judas were banned along the same lines, but Judas was mainly banned for multiple member names. None-the-less, you're all unbanned as of 2 months ago, welcome back, move on.

*locked*

[quote="Bazooka_Joe":ca5f7]

*locked*[/quote:ca5f7]
Lol. Even now he tries to "verbally lock" a thread.

Sillyness.

[quote="Bazooka_Joe":f1d5f][quote="Simo Häyhä":f1d5f]joe you banned me, white rabbit, tripper, and judas for no good reason, just admit it because your bullshit is getting ridiculous[/quote:f1d5f]

You were banned because you were acting like an ass, as I explained to you in a PM. White Rabbit was banned simply because you two share an IP.

Tripper and Judas were banned along the same lines, but Judas was mainly banned for multiple member names. None-the-less, you're all unbanned as of 2 months ago, welcome back, move on.

*locked*[/quote:f1d5f]
you never sent us a fucking PM you dumbshit. i read and save all my fucking PMs.

*sigh* he said she said. some ppl need to move on. 2 months ago? eek:

I think the point here is that Bazooka cried rape when the forums were taken over. Words have since been exchanged saying those who agreed with it generally did bad.

The flip-side to that is that those who did get mod status saw his post regarding the bans and his excuse for doing it.

He was asked, quite clearly, why he did it (I don't remember anyone saying that he had cleared it with anyone first). His reply was that he had warned them all.

Of course, they all saw this and flipped. I dunno, I'm more inclined to believe 4 people over 1.

And the matter of the fact remains that during BJs time as mod there was far too many locked threads.

You could never reply to a thread because they all seemed to be locked.

On many occasions I would spend ages typing a reply only to be told the thread was locked when I tried to post it.

Annoying.

So, I think that it is understandable that he is being questioned about his actions, despite the fact that nothing can be proved.

From what I read on the MODS forum it looked pretty suspicious to me. Chances are BJ will be given admin status again shortly, and when that happens I would like to know that I am not going to be banned without warning simply because I annoyed 3-4 people enough that they complained to him.