BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

You know why you were moderated. You even refused to say it again this morning and just wrote "…" instead

---

Yes I was suspended for accurately describing people's political behavior. Not making personal insults.

---

Well that's just not being honest. You were suspended because you connected 88 with HH then doubled down and admitted that's what you were doing

---

Yes. What both of us said is accurate and honest. Thanks for reiterating.

---

Except nobody on here is a Nazi. You're so set in your ways that you can't even see the absurdity of the connection you make

---

As is customary, I have to explain things to you multiple times. It is very generous of me. When I doubled down I specifically said I was calling you a fascist and I included the explanation from the ADL about the symbolism of "88" and where it specifically said "not just neo-Nazis".

Furthermore, tequilla4kapp has specifically told me that he views calling someone a fascist to be a personal insult. So your complaints here make a distinction without a difference. I am subject to suspension for calling you either a Nazi or a fascist. I would not call you the former. If I call you the latter would you flag my post? Do you need me to explain which is former and which is latter?

I'll make it easy for you, nobody on here is either a Nazi or a fascist.

BearlySane88 said:

---

I'll make it easy for you, nobody on here is either a Nazi or a fascist.

---

So you object to being called a fascist but insist on claiming i called you a nazi. Got it.

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

I'll make it easy for you, nobody on here is either a Nazi or a fascist.

---

So you object to being called a fascist but insist on claiming i called you a nazi. Got it.

---

Good lord. You called me Bearly** so yes you not only called me a fascist but also a Nazi. Im moving on from this.

BearlySane88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

I'll make it easy for you, nobody on here is either a Nazi or a fascist.

---

So you object to being called a fascist but insist on claiming i called you a nazi. Got it.

---

Good lord. You called me Bearly** so yes you not only called me a fascist but also a Nazi. Im moving on from this.

---

Do you need for me to explain it to you a 3rd time?

Nope, moving on. Agree to disagree

BearlySane88 said:

---

Nope, moving on. Agree to disagree

---

Here's the website. Do your own research. Good luck.

https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/88

It is surprising how many people on BI innocently use 88 in their usernames. You don't see numbers like 81 or 92 used much at all.

Good year for graduation.

yesterday i was movie and today im BS88

make up your minds ppl

you are correct i am not a teacher. i work sanitation collecting your trash. some of you really need to stop throwing electronics in your garbage bin

DiabloWags said:

---

I guess you skipped over the retired Republican Judge John Jones who was appointed by Bush who said that what the Left has done doesnt even remotely come close to what he's seen over the past year from MAGA.

Last year, Federal Marshall's said there were 400 serious threats targeting Federal Judges. A 78% increase from 4 YEARS AGO.

Its not even close.
You might want to run the tape back.

---

No I didn't skip the part where Jones makes his claim. You need to reread my post. I mentioned the article said the left did it. You don't seem to take issue with that. I didn't mention the scale of criticism, and candidly, I don't agree with Jones's claims. The Roberts Court was hostile to the Obama administration, and ruled against Obama on an unprecedented number of decisions and took a lot of crap for it. Even in a State of the Union address.

I also pointed out that eerryone including politicians have the right to be critical of the courts. The fact that more criticism of the courts leads to targeting doesn't mean you don't get to express your opinion on the courts and their opinions. Why should Trump, Barrister or I have to bow to your demands for less criticism of the courts?

The courts, especially at the lower levels are openly hostile to the federal executive branch and Congress or even shrill, and not just with the Trump administration. In the Noel Canning case, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision, the lower courts and SCOTUs personally called Obama reckless and the lower courts chastised the administration on a very personal basis. I can refer you to a Ninth Circuit environmental decision where the Obama administration EPA ruling was called irrational, and the EPA called stupid, misguided, inept, and a parade of other insults. Is it your position that only the courts have the right to be critical of the other branches of the government?

You are simply ignoring the issue raised by post.. Why exactly do the courts deserve special immunity from criticism? How far do you want to hamstring speech? People constantly criticize Trump and he has now had at least three known assassination attempts. His ear took a bullet. Should we also give Trump special immunity from criticism because he is being targeted?

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I guess you skipped over the retired Republican Judge John Jones who was appointed by Bush who said that what the Left has done doesnt even remotely come close to what he's seen over the past year from MAGA.

Last year, Federal Marshall's said there were 400 serious threats targeting Federal Judges. A 78% increase from 4 YEARS AGO.

Its not even close.
You might want to run the tape back.

---

No I didn't skip the part where Jones makes his claim. You need to reread my post. I mentioned the article said the left did it, and I didn't mention scale. You don't seem to take issue with that.

I also pointed out that everyone including politicians have the right to be critical of the courts. The fact that more criticism of the courts leads to targeting doesn't mean you don't get to express your opinion on the courts and their opinions. Why should Trump, Barrister or I have to bow to your demands for less criticism of the courts?

The courts, especially at the lower levels are openly hostile to the federal executive branch and Congress or even shrill, and not just with the Trump administration. In the Noel Canning case, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision, the lower courts and SCOTUs personally called Obama reckless and the lower courts chastised the administration on a very personal basis. I can refer you to a Ninth Circuit environmental decision where the Obama administration EPA ruling was called irrational, and the EPA called stupid, misguided, inept, and a parade of other insults. Is it your position that only the courts have the right to be critical of the other branches of th government?

You are simply ignoring the issue raised by post.. Why exactly do the courts deserve special immunity from criticism? How far do you want to hamstring speech? People constantly criticize Trump and he has now had at least three known assassination attempts. His ear took a bullet. Should we also give Trump special immunity from criticism because he is being targeted?

---

C'mon man.

We're talking DEATH THREATS here.
Not benign criticism.

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I guess you skipped over the retired Republican Judge John Jones who was appointed by Bush who said that what the Left has done doesnt even remotely come close to what he's seen over the past year from MAGA.

Last year, Federal Marshall's said there were 400 serious threats targeting Federal Judges. A 78% increase from 4 YEARS AGO.

Its not even close.
You might want to run the tape back.

---

No I didn't skip the part where Jones makes his claim. You need to reread my post. I mentioned the article said the left did it, and I didn't mention scale. You don't seem to take issue with that.

I also pointed out that everyone including politicians have the right to be critical of the courts. The fact that more criticism of the courts leads to targeting doesn't mean you don't get to express your opinion on the courts and their opinions. Why should Trump, Barrister or I have to bow to your demands for less criticism of the courts?

The courts, especially at the lower levels are openly hostile to the federal executive branch and Congress or even shrill, and not just with the Trump administration. In the Noel Canning case, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision, the lower courts and SCOTUs personally called Obama reckless and the lower courts chastised the administration on a very personal basis. I can refer you to a Ninth Circuit environmental decision where the Obama administration EPA ruling was called irrational, and the EPA called stupid, misguided, inept, and a parade of other insults. Is it your position that only the courts have the right to be critical of the other branches of th government?

You are simply ignoring the issue raised by post.. Why exactly do the courts deserve special immunity from criticism? How far do you want to hamstring speech? People constantly criticize Trump and he has now had at least three known assassination attempts. His ear took a bullet. Should we also give Trump special immunity from criticism because he is being targeted?

---

C'mon man.

We're talking DEATH THREATS here.
Not benign criticism.

---

I'm calling hypocrisy.

Trump gets over 12,000 death threats a year which are viewed as serous enough to monitor. Pardon me DEATH THREATS. That doesn't even approach the hundreds of thousand tweets or texts on the internet calling for his death (ever read some of Tom's stuff?). And the criticism is not exactly "benign".

Your brushing this off, what makes the courts so unique they get a pass from criticism, where the other governmental branches do not?

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

In the past you have said you voted for Reagan and Trump isn't a republican. It's not that much of a stretch to assume you were pissed at Trump because you think he's taken the Republican Party away from what you believe in. I assumed you were a never Trump republican based on your posts. Again, not that much of a stretch

---

I, like most posters here, assumed wags was a Republican who was upset with what Trump did to his party. Perhaps he switched his allegiance at some point after Trump was initially elected and is behaving like a jerk instead of giving any details.

---

Oski calling Diablo a jerk.

Flagged - I expect to not hear from oski for a week. I also expect some nearby lefty to be banned for a week just because. That's how it works around here.

---

Lol

But the worst poster is not Oski !!

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

In the past you have said you voted for Reagan and Trump isn't a republican. It's not that much of a stretch to assume you were pissed at Trump because you think he's taken the Republican Party away from what you believe in. I assumed you were a never Trump republican based on your posts. Again, not that much of a stretch

---

I, like most posters here, assumed wags was a Republican who was upset with what Trump did to his party. Perhaps he switched his allegiance at some point after Trump was initially elected and is behaving like a jerk instead of giving any details.

---

Oski calling Diablo a jerk.

Flagged - I expect to not hear from oski for a week. I also expect some nearby lefty to be banned for a week just because. That's how it works around here.

---

Just two weeks ago he also called me "the pigheaded dude" but apparently that didn't break any rules.

Swalwell making moves, impressive on the Kimmel show - Page 2 | Bear Insider

---

I'll need a clarification of the rules. Maybe I can tell people they are behaving like a fascist but I just can't call them a fascist.

---

We used to call each other
Duck (with an i)
Beatch
Azzhole

It was hilarious to see a van for calling someone a fascist, lol

That said, moderation ain't the worst thing.
Annoying posters who only show up to cause a psychological bother to others is the bane of OT, and yet moderation does nothing about that.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

In the past you have said you voted for Reagan and Trump isn't a republican. It's not that much of a stretch to assume you were pissed at Trump because you think he's taken the Republican Party away from what you believe in. I assumed you were a never Trump republican based on your posts. Again, not that much of a stretch

---

I, like most posters here, assumed wags was a Republican who was upset with what Trump did to his party. Perhaps he switched his allegiance at some point after Trump was initially elected and is behaving like a jerk instead of giving any details.

---

Oski calling Diablo a jerk.

Flagged - I expect to not hear from oski for a week. I also expect some nearby lefty to be banned for a week just because. That's how it works around here.

---

Lol

But the worst poster is not Oski !!

---

Looks like our moderator provided the service of editing his post, like a concierge. Meanwhile oski posts away.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

In the past you have said you voted for Reagan and Trump isn't a republican. It's not that much of a stretch to assume you were pissed at Trump because you think he's taken the Republican Party away from what you believe in. I assumed you were a never Trump republican based on your posts. Again, not that much of a stretch

---

I, like most posters here, assumed wags was a Republican who was upset with what Trump did to his party. Perhaps he switched his allegiance at some point after Trump was initially elected and is behaving like a jerk instead of giving any details.

---

Oski calling Diablo a jerk.

Flagged - I expect to not hear from oski for a week. I also expect some nearby lefty to be banned for a week just because. That's how it works around here.

---

Lol

But the worst poster is not Oski !!

---

Diablo is a big boy - he can handle it. Time to move on to the substantive.

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

You know why you were moderated. You even refused to say it again this morning and just wrote "…" instead

---

Yes I was suspended for accurately describing people's political behavior. Not making personal insults.

---

You were suspended because Barely Sane camps out for perceived rules violations and then uses multiple signings to create the semblance of mass OT outrage.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

You know why you were moderated. You even refused to say it again this morning and just wrote "…" instead

---

Yes I was suspended for accurately describing people's political behavior. Not making personal insults.

---

You were suspended because Barely Sane camps out for perceived rules violations and then uses multiple signings to create the semblance of mass OT outrage.

---

I agree with your post Tom.

I've seen the "pattern" here that you've identified and also observed what you've highlighted when it comes to the immediate racking up of 4 stars on a post. One can only surmise that there are people here who have access to multiple accounts via a proxy server. There's just no other way to explain this.

Swalwell making moves, impressive on the Kimmel show - Page 2 | Bear Insider

I know the mods have a difficult time and most likely have better things to do with their time, especially if they have a full-time day job. But without looking at a poster's "pattern" and/or applying the context of their posting behavior, I find that this process can become rather arbitrary. And in fact, we've observed a fair amount of discretion being used at time and as dajo9 said concierge editing for some posters while others (like myself) would have been suspended with no questions asked.

And what makes this even more bizarre is the fact that dajo wasn't even told what he was suspended for.
There was no identification of a rules violation. Not even a reference to a specific post.

I've experienced the same.

This has also been my experience. And suspensions seem pretty related to benign postings that I have done often based on posting news articles that I have found and providing my commentary.

Since my timeout last week I have flagged 2 posts. I was asked to stop flagging posts and I have. You all need to grow up and move on.

It's insane how much you guys are harping on this when the mod has already said what he's said

Yes he was told lol. He called T4K out and T4K responded. It was public for all of us to see. Your revisionist history is baffling.

Also, please take a look at the stars on my posts today. Not sure how you can make your claims while the evidence doesn't even back it up.

No you don't bro. Move on and grow up

BearlySane88 said:

---

No you don't bro. Move on and grow up

---

Flagged - don't call me bro. I consider that a personal insult coming from you.

You just proved my point. Thank you, move on

BearlySane88 said:

---

You just proved my point. Thank you, move on

---

Coming from the guy who had to be asked to stop flagging so much by the moderator. lol

Along with two of your cohorts in this thread. I don't hide anything about my moderations. As I've said, when a time out is earned it's earned and I accept it. There's no reason to be giving the mods such a hard time by arguing and fighting it all. Follow the rules. If you don't, accept the timeout and move on. It's that simple