Oh....

But so did Patrice and he was never granted a ban.

I wonder how he is? I liked Patrice.

Well Patness asked for a ban because he was addicted to this site and would come here all day every day and figured the only thing that could stop him was a ban.

Some things (usually involving the webserver's security and access privileges) can only be granted by the person with "root" access. That would be Gareth. I merely repeated what Amy told me in chat.

Remember that Gareth still owns DNS access and does not like "pointless drama". Neither do I, even in the name of so-called "empiricism".

To put it in a less polite way... Gedrene, you are on a need-to-know basis and you do not need to know. Secrecy is always a gift, not a curse.

/bow

Done here...

Neither do I, even in the name of so-called "empiricism".

You like to hide information from people in the name of empiricism. That's absurd.

Secrecy can be sed to tell all sorts of rubbish. If 142857 wants to proclaim why OtaBenga was banned and not provide a reason, only a fool would not question that and only someone with an agenda would then wax lyrical about why secrecy is good.

K.

Why are you making absolutist claims, again?

Only people who wish to make (abusive) ad hominems use absolutist claims.
Oh wait, this discussion is already pointless.

I'm going to report and ask this thread be locked in 3... 2... 1...

Read it again

Only Otabenga could know the real reason why Otabenga asked to be banned.

(Just trying to forestall another pointless argument)

Like claiming only people who wish to make ad hominems make absolutist claims?

Your statement is illogical.

I actually have no evidence that OtaBenga wanted to be banned. That's why I am asking. The only pointless argument comes from the person saying that just because 142 said something it must be true. If he can't provide evidence for his claim then the only people prolonging the argument is the one who can't provide evidence for his claim.

If the only evidence a person provides after I say there's no evidence is 142 saying something then I think that counts. Unless of course you really want to mince words by saying he implied it.

Cynara why are you putting proclaimed in quote marks like anyone said that word? 142 still said OtaBenga was banned because he wanted to be, and not only have we no evidence, but we also know patrice wasn't banned when he asked to be either.

So why the shadow games people?

kapkao Wrote:

Neither do I, even in the name of so-called "empiricism".

You like to hide information from people in the name of empiricism. That's absurd.

kapkao Wrote:

Gedrene, you are on a need-to-know basis and you do not need to know. Secrecy is always a gift, not a curse.

Secrecy can be sed to tell all sorts of rubbish. If 142857 wants to proclaim why OtaBenga was banned and not provide a reason, only a fool would not question that and only someone with an agenda would then wax lyrical about why secrecy is good.

You said that someone else had said because 142 said so it must be true. I ask again, who said 142 had said it so it must be true.
and I put proclaim in quote marks BECAUSE YOU SAID IT!

Because he asked me.

Different admins, different practices.

Otabenga asked to be banned in the IRC. I cannot offer more than that, as I was not there at the time.

I'm locking this thread now, before it devolves back into petty bickering.

Could you stop with your vague insults?