Armed defense?

[erisian]

I've just been IP blocked too.
Now all you have to do to get banned is to mention the existence of the question.
You don't even need to ask it or quote it.

None Dare Speak Its Name,
For They Will Incur
The Wrath of the Almighty!


Pretty aggressive for a pacifist.
Way to go.

[Mike Barskey]

I've just been IP blocked too.
Now all you have to do to get banned is to mention the existence of the question.
You don't even need to ask it or quote it.
...
Pretty aggressive for a pacifist.

I don't know or care whether your claim is true - I've not been paying much attention to this aspect of this thread - but can you tell me where the aggression is? What is aggressive about the owner of a forum banning you for any reason they want?

[AntonLee]

no one here is coming into your house to take a dump on your pillow.  It's an internet forum for god sakes.  This reminds me of AOL 3.0 back in 1993. 

Reported.

You don't have to like being banned from someone's house.  Frankly, as I believe strongly in freedom, if someone entered my property and started spouting off about their statist ideals. . . I'd most likely ask them to leave.

If you're here spouting off about something that might or might not offend the owner, you can be asked to leave.  I think that has already happened, read above posts.

My suggestion to Leetninja stands, as it does to anyone else. . . just drop it. 

[erisian]

can you tell me where the aggression is? What is aggressive about the owner of a forum banning you for any reason they want?

The use of authority to stifle opinions that he disagrees with. Or something... He won't say. I was banned without comment.

• He refuses to participate in the discussion.
• He has refused to answer several perfectly valid and reasonable questions, both in the discussion, and related to his actions.
• He plays judge, jury and executioner without evidence or a trial.
• His actions are destructive rather than constructive.

Certainly he has the right to do whatever he wants to here, but his actions paint him as a petty dictator rather than a liberty-loving individual.
Nice community-building work, isn't it?

[Mike Barskey]

The use of authority to stifle opinions that he disagrees with. Or something... He won't say. I was banned without comment.

Your opinion hasn't been stifled. J'raxis invited you to another forum, Russell suggested you'd be happier participating at another forum, you could find your own forum, you could start your own forum, you could express your opinion via another medium, etc.

• He refuses to participate in the discussion.

This is not aggression.

• He has refused to answer several perfectly valid and reasonable questions, both in the discussion, and related to his actions.

This is not aggression.

• He plays judge, jury and executioner without evidence or a trial.

This is hyperbole, or perhaps a metaphor that doesn't fit. Everyone is entitled to judge what they like or don't; this is not aggression. What do you mean by "jury and executioner?" Do you mean that he decided what people he wants to consider friends and allow to use his forum, and then acted to prevent people whom he asked to leave but they didn't leave, from participating? This is not aggression.

• His actions are destructive rather than constructive.

What was destroyed? Was he was "supposed to" create something according to your demands?

Certainly he has the right to do whatever he wants to here, but his actions paint him as a petty dictator rather than a liberty-loving individual.

Dictators threat and apply force to make people act against private property (e.g., they cannot keep their property, they are forced to act so that other's get the fruits of their labor); dictators are the antithesis of private property, yet Russell's actions seem in complete accordance with private property.

Nice community-building work, isn't it?

I think I'll like the community better with you not it, so in my opinion it is indeed nice community-building. But good community building or bad, this is not aggression.

[erisian]

You can call it what you like. I call it childish behavior.
At least I'm willing to air some evidence.

Oh, the comments about leaving were directed at someone else, not me.
All I did was to speak in defense of the other person.
You can look it up if the posts haven't been deleted yet.

If want to call yourself an independent thinker,
Then you have to respect independent thought.
That has not happened here.
What has happened here is bigotry.

Congratulations on painting the Freedom Movement with that brush.

[Russell Kanning]

I have had erisian on ignore for a long time and now he or she is joined by leetninja. This thread got better.
I have only deleted one post by leet. I have not banned anyones ip. Kat told ivy to not come on our forum again ... and she did, so kat banned her.  There might have been colateral damage even though we tried to use precision bombing during our peacekeeping nation building mission.
I of coarse agree with Mike. if you don't like our methods it is easy to escape our tyranny. You can go live in another country ... or even easier ... visit a different website.

[Mike Barskey]

erisian, you said "Pretty aggressive for a pacifist," referring to Russell's (or Kat's?) actions. I asked what was aggressive and you listed a number of things. Of those things, most were not aggression, and the others were unclear to me what you meant. Now you're changing the topic by saying I can call it what I like, and "at least [you're] willing to air some evidence."

I don't want to call it anything. I wanted you back your statement that Person A banning Person B from Person A's forum was aggression. You haven't.

[erisian]

I have not banned anyones ip.

Somebody did.

[erisian]

I wanted you back your statement that Person A banning Person B from Person A's forum was aggression. You haven't.

It may not be aggression by your definition, but bigotry it remains.

[leetninja]

just a couple of things.

Mike, all of your comments seem like you wanted to address me which i dont understand why you now have some problem with me.  i have defended you as well, made phone calls when you were arrested and alerted the forum to what was happening with your arrests and police encounters yet you say that the community will be better off without me...  If that is the way you really feel about me, someone you have never personally met but has been there and accepted you for who you are and tried to help you as much as they can, then you are entitled to your opinion.  i am just as curious about how i have done you "wrong" as i am about russell.

erisian and i are in fact NOT the same person.  

russell mentions not banning anyone and it somehow relates to another person that was banned (Ivy?) which i have no idea what happened with her - my IP was banned days ago - erisian's was banned today it seems - so that said id like for at least one person to take a bigg whiff of the horse shit that is all around russell's statement that he hasnt banned anyone's ip etc.

if i am on ignore then why has russell passively agressively responded to what he deems worthy ...

and as much as i care about russell's opinion of me (i mean that) i have come to the conclusion that he is nothing but a large hypocrite.  he preaches live and let live but then bans people from an open forum anyone can join and post on (his words) that is his simply because he can grasp onto the "i own it! its mine ill do what i want!" argument and garner support from some sheep.

seems like most people dont agree with king russell's actions but are either afraid to speak about them or just already banned

you see his actions as non agressive - i see them as passive agressive.  

he has flat out LIED about me and what i have said.  MORE THAN ONCE.  so you agree with/justify the lying somehow?

i think the comments and twisting words and lies and then banning people left and right is a pretty aggressive way to silence people who have opinions.  maybe you and some others are all ok with the king laying down his law but then again look at the way you view the govt.  at this point what makes russell any different than the "government thugs?"  they like to shut people up too.

whatever.  

and erisian - thank you for saying EXACTLY what i have tried to say/convey/wanted to say on SEVERAL occasions.  

[AntonLee]

all done now?

[leetninja]

all done now?

i doubt it - im rather pissed about this whole thing now.

[J’raxis 270145]

Why does this forum turn into a soap opera every few weeks?

First, a couple clarifications. I invited leetninja to the Tea Party forum, not erisian. Not that erisian is disinvited—anyone's invited to sign up; I'm just clarifying whom I was speaking to when I posted the link. Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.

I imagine one of the admins are trying to do a netblock-wide ban in order to block the dynamic IPs that one or more of these users are using, which is catching random people under the same IP range. Advice to anyone trying to use an IP-based ban to remove someone from a forum: Don't bother. With all the open proxies available nowadays, things like Tor, and similar, there is absolutely no reliable way to connect an individual to an IP address for the purposes of blocking. If the bannee is insistent, it just descends into a tit-for-tat until one side gets tired, or the banner does something silly like ban a /24 or a /16, knocking out hundreds or thousands of innocent IP addresses.

I should also point out that the IP address that Ivy is most likely posting from is the restaurant's wireless: Presuming that it's not a dynamic IP to begin with, blocking that is going to interfere with all sorts of freestater-attended events, including Jack's monthly nine-eleven presentations there.

[Mike Barskey]

I don't think leetninja and erisian are the same person. When I had comments for you, I addressed them to you. When I had comments for him/her, I addressed them to him/her.

I don't have a problem with you, but your attitude on this thread has been, to me, as I've said, not very friendly. I appreciate your support, I appreciate your stance regarding liberty, I may not want to be friends with you (I don't know that for sure, but appreciating some things about you and not liking others is not an impossibility).

I'm not convinced Russell lied. Do you know how many admins there are on this board? Did you know that I'm an admin here? I don't recall anyone asking who deleted posts or banned IPs; instead, assumptions seem to have been made.

I also don't see this particular case of banning (if indeed banning occurred!) as being passive aggressive, or as aggressive, yet those claims keep coming up with only opinion as backing. Aggression is not an opinion.