Derails about the narrative of bans for dissenting opinions

You should definitely flag my post! That way I could learn first-hand what you seem to be an authority upon :wink:

Take a look at my history. Pay particular attention to comments in the “Sup Marxists?” thread and the month long gap thereafter.

1 Like

Yeah, but we can’t see the ones that got you the month off :smile:

And for someone who calls himself a troll and deliberately sets out to argue with the prevailing opinion on most subjects here (which personally, I quite like), I think you get quite a lot of leeway. I do remember not being surprised you got that timeout, though.


I dont think the message that got me booted got deleted. The message on the banner referenced this post

I dont get it, Im polite, inquisitive, humble( at times ) Meanwhile, I wont mention any names, there are condescending blowhards that never seem to get the penalty box. As a matter of fact a user doxxed someone here and got a week. I made a good but contrary point and got a month?

Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Hey, don’t ask me, man. I don’t even work here.

Maybe Beschizza doesn’t find you as amusing as he does said person you don’t want to name?

Personally, I think there should be a leaderboard for days timeout given, and number of instances.

Edit: I think that reading the replies to the comment you mention would suggest why you got banned. People don’t feel you comment in good faith, and someone got fed up of it.


These lines maybe?

Just shooting from the hip here, but I would guess that ban was about using deception as a tool of argument, combined with carrying out a humiliating experiment with another community member.

I don’t think that’s why you were banned.


I didn’t lie, I didn’t deceive. That person had every opportunity to answer the original question in anyway they wished. I simply changed the context of my question and waited for a reply.

Could you share three, specific assumptions you believe have been made?

It’s an honest question. What has @navarro assumed about you? just trying to keep up.


oh now that’s guilt by association. Are you trying to derail this perfectly good derail or something?


I have scanned all 61 of your posts (that remain) in that thread

I did not follow that thread as it developed, and there are nearly 400 posts in total. It would be the project of several hours of reading for me to follow from your entry into the thread to the post you named.

You have the advantage of knowing exactly what was written on the banner that declared your timeout reason. I had to speculate.

I have to confess that you sound (write) scary smart, and terribly well informed about the topic you discussed in “Sup, Marxists?” The thread is frankly so far over my head that I would need weeks to get up to speed to even begin to evaluate your arguments.

But that sounds an awful lot like the description of a trap.

1 Like

looking at my own post i count a total of three possible assumptions i have made–

  1. that @aaarrrrrggggg actually thinks @davide405 is derailing the originating thread by creating the thread here.

  2. that if that is the case then @aaarrrrrggggg has limited awareness about the way things look to others.


3 that @aaarrrrrggggg’s posts represent support for deceptive and dangerous police practices.

i stand by my statement in my reply above–


I used to get moderated by Antinous so often that he and I started a rare but friendly email exchange, and he checked in with me after the Boston bombing.Had lengthy conversations with other previous mods, and thankfully short ones with Falcor too.

I was never once banned for my opinion. I have been banned for my behavior. I deserved it. I have yet to see an unfair ban given, even when it was me.

I mean really people. The sun comes up. The sun goes down.




I remember; it referred explicitly to “excess fuckery” and so was clearly connected to the disingenuous approach he had taken on that thread. For treating other commenters not as people to honestly engage with, but as objects to study, as his own profile used to say.

I can believe he might be so oblivious not to see how that is anything but being polite and humble, but not how he might honestly think it was about having a contrary opinion when the real reason was clearly stated. TrollsOpinion, that is entirely dishonest; shame on you.


Seemed to me that it was pretty clear that from the word go there was no intention to honestly engage with people, just to dick them around for personal amusement.

Pity really. There’s some smarts there, but meh, fuck that noise.


No, you are on target.

I used the word ‘fuckery’ in a post. The message from the moderator contained the word ‘fuckery’.

I was simply trying to demonstrate the contrast in peoples perception of a subject in light of those who participate in it.

If you want to go deeper into this we should move over to the “Sup Marxists?” thread. Although I love irony I dont want to derail the derail thread :slight_smile:


Ok, so this makes three people plus the moderator that thought I was out of line.

I understand that I was out of line. I apologize, I wont do it again.


That would be some fuckery! but fuckery among fucks is fucking okay.

it’s when you’re a fuck about it. Know what I fucking mean?


or do, and get moderated, and come back. It’s cool. I don’t see you earning a ban until 2038 anytime soon. Unless you want one real bad.


HA! Yea, I do.

Tangent: I indulge myself with a satellite radio subscription. Heard this jewel on the way home yesterday:

EDIT: NSFW due to language.

1 Like