Forget it, Trish, sorry to have offended you.  Not my board, no reason for me to give a crap.  Let it wallow, I guess.  It’s not like everyone getting into it doesn’t know whose board it is, and what it’s all about.

I stand by what I said, but those are MY ideas on moderation.  I don’t expect or demand anyone else do it any particular way.

I routinely look at at the two other boards, but there’s no reason for me to do that or care about either.

Last edited by greenman (10/13/2022 9:18 am)

I didn't see your response to Trish until posting mine greenman.  So, my post has NOTHING to do with what I just noticed that you'd posted.

Siagiah wrote:

I didn't see your response until posting mine greenman.  So, my post has NOTHING to do with what I just noticed that you'd posted.

No problemo, understood.

My simple feeling about how I’d moderate would be to establish a small number of very significant rules, and strongly enforce those rules only.  You simply can’t prevent all controversies, and shouldn’t try.  But firm rules and consistent enforcement are to me, the key.

My personal gold standard is still donatello’s moderation.

I don’t doubt others helped him.  You told me so, I believe.  No idea why you act like it’s some sort of criticism of you.

It's anybody's guess why he's still there.  Maybe because he keeps people posting?  IDK, but Ken sees some value in SOME of his posts so maybe that's why? 

I know he's been banned several times and allowed to return after several months. At first, he'll be ok, then back at it. I am working on deleting his insults daily. 

That DOES seem rather stupid.  But entirely expected.

So, HERE is J.B.'s "discrimination lawsuit" that he constantly whines about.  Note that it was DISMISSED because it lacks merit.  Notice that the judge didn't believe that he is disabled since he fully understood the process and answered appropriately.  However, since didn't try to sue under a disability actually covered by the A.D.A., his case was dismissed.  He tried to claim that it was religious discrimination, yet he admitted that none of the restaurant managers knew he is a Baha'i, so that's OUT.  He claimed it was age and race discriminated, yet there was NO evidence that the restaurants banned elderly or white patrons, so that's OUT.  He claimed to have an MA in constitutional law, but did not prove it and certainly didn't SHOW any knowledge of discrimination laws or any other laws, so it's doubtful.  He also represented himself, which is well known to be a fool's errand. 

Losing in court, he then went after the city of Corpus Christie and several of its employees for supposedly not enforcing his "rights", which he was unable to prove discrimination in the first place.  The group on Facebook who take up legitimate cases of discrimination across America simply IGNORED him. 

So, read up on the ACTUAL court case and then HIS description of it and make up your own minds. 

(his real name and the organization owning multiple restaurants removed for privacy reasons)
=========================================

J.B.  vs. ****. **** ****

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-524

02-02-2016

J*** B****, Plaintiff, v. ******** **** CLUB, et al, Defendants.

Janis Graham Jack Senior United States District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On this day, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claims, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Civil Rights Act") claims. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq. When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a court may dismiss the plaintiff's case if satisfied that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A court may sua sponte dismiss an action prior to service of process. See Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990). In this case, the Court dismisses without prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is appropriate in this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim arose in this judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the causes of action arose within this judicial district as a result of Defendants' actions within this district.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore his complaint is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides for sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that: (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) applies equally to prisoner, as well as non-prisoner, in forma pauperis cases. See Newsome v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of non-prisoner claims for frivolity and failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B))

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the factual allegations are not sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculation level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 500 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate when the plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. Plaintiffs must state enough facts to "nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. In considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed favorably to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montez v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Further, pro se pleadings are reviewed under a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and such pleadings are entitled to a liberal construction that includes all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice" to prevent dismissal for failure to state a claim. Fernandez-Montez, 987 F.2d at 284. The complaint must state more than "an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Dismissal is appropriate "only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations." Newsome, 301 F.3d at 231.

III. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff J B is a 67-year old Caucasian male who suffers from autism, bipolar disorder, and attention deficit disorder ("ADD"). Although he is not homeless, B is financially disadvantaged. At a December 28, 2015 hearing in front of Magistrate Judge Jason Libby, B said that all his income comes from government assistance. (D.E. 4 at 4). B further asserts that he is a practitioner of the Baha'i faith, which requires him to evangelize and "love everybody . . . actively." Id. at 16. B claims that Defendant restaurants and Lisa Aguilar ("Aguilar") violated the ADA and Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Bower because he is Caucasian, male, Baha'i, and has mental impairments. (D.E. 1 at 4-7). B seeks injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from refusing him service, and several million dollars in damages to be made payable to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Id. at 10.

B testified that sometime during December 2014/January 2015, he was physically removed from the ********* **** Club by a manager for talking to three, unaccompanied female minors approximately 16 years old. (D.E. 1 at 2; D.E. 4 at 20). B testified that the police were not called because of this incident. On February 3, 2015, B was orally banned from the ********* **** Club by the same manager after B told two female minors, approximately six and eight years old, that they "make this place very—much more pretty," after following them to a video game area outside of their parents' presence. (D.E. 4 at 21-22). In both his Complaint and at the hearing, B said the police were called after he refused to leave the restaurant and he was informed he was banned from the ********** **** Club for "talking to children" and for "unsolicited conversations" with other patrons. (D.E. 1 at 2).

B testified he was refused service and told not to come back to Dos Comales on or about February 17, 2015 after being told he was "bothering customers." (D.E. 4 at 29). B was told by a Dos Comales manager that other customers could talk to him, but he could not talk to the customers. Id. at 5. B testified that he called the police himself because he was being refused service. Id. at 26. The police did not take any action. B said the Dos Comales manager falsely stated that B "was warned several times of customer complaints; that he was always bothering customers and children . . . screamed and yelled; did not tip waitresses, and stayed six hours . . . ." (D.E. 1 at 3).

B does not recall the date he was refused service and/or removed from the Downtown Grill. He said that sometime in 2015 a manager would not serve him at the restaurant because a female patron had called management after leaving, complaining B made her uncomfortable. B testified that while he had spoken with a woman who was holding her baby on her lap, she was comfortable during the conversation. (D.E. 4 at 30-32). B asserts that a customer's "alleged discomfort is not grounds for denying service much less banning." (D.E. 1 at 3). B further testified that a Downtown Grill female manager called the police after he approached a grandfather and his eight-year old crying granddaughter to ask if she was okay. B said the female manager falsely accused him of touching children. (D.E. 4 at 32-35). B testified that he would only engage children in conversation after speaking with their parents and, in his Complaint, states it is "his policy NOT to touch children unless they hugged him or gave him a 'high five' or handshake" and "to suggest that talking to children or touching them is somehow unacceptable is not only ludicrous, hateful, sexist but [sic] despicable beyond words and obviously illegal . . . ." (D.E. 1 at 8, 9). B also said that if he were a woman, there would be no issue with him interacting with children. (D.E. 4 at 13).

In his Complaint, B alleges that Subway and Whataburger "refused to give a reason for the bans so they are obviously illegal." (D.E. 1 at 4). At the hearing, B said he is no longer banned from Subway and no longer wished to pursue his claims against it. (D.E. 4 at 35). He also said that a Whataburger manager orally banned him from the restaurant sometime in 2015 after the manager told him several times that he was getting complaints from other patrons about B's behavior. Id. at 35-36. B testified that he believed he should not be banned without the manager first informing him how to change his behavior. B also asserted at the hearing that all Defendant restaurants could ask him to leave, but could not ban him from their respective establishments. Id.

Lastly, B asserts that Aguilar, a "lawyer in charge of 'Human Resources,'" improperly dismissed his complaints about Defendants' behavior and failed to properly investigate "because the police were called." (D.E. 1 at 7). At the hearing, B said Aguilar was in charge of processing administrative complaints filed against local restaurants. (D.E. 4 at 37). By allowing her subordinates to dismiss his complaints, B alleges, she failed to enforce his civil rights. Id. at 38-39. B is not seeking relief from the City of Corpus Christi, but from Aguilar personally. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

a. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

B asserts he is entitled to relief under Title III of the ADA for Defendants' failure to accommodate his mental disabilities. Title III of the ADA makes it unlawful for "public accommodations," such as hotels, retail establishments, and restaurants, to discriminate against individuals with disabilities in the provision of "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7)(A) and (B) and 12182(a). To assert a viable claim under this provision, a plaintiff must allege: (1) he has a disability; (2) the place the defendant owns, leases or operates is a place of public accommodation; and (3) he was denied full and equal enjoyment because of his disability. Id. § 12182(a). There are two main problems with B's ADA claims. First, B did not allege that he has a qualified disability. Second, B did not allege that he was discriminated against because of his qualified disability. As such, B has failed to state an ADA claim upon which relief may be granted.

To obtain relief under the ADA, a plaintiff must plead that he is disabled within the meaning of the Act, as merely having an impairment does not make a person disabled for the purposes of the ADA. A plaintiff must plead that he has a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." Id. § 12102(1). "Major life activities" include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). "Substantially limits" is defined as being restricted in performing a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. Id. § 1630.2(j). "[N]ot every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section." Id.

Although B alleges that he suffers from autism, bipolar disorder, and ADD, he does not allege that these impairments substantially limit one or more of life's major activities. In addition, at his hearing, B was articulate, able to quickly and thoroughly respond to questions, and conducted himself appropriately in a courtroom setting. Further, B testified he has a Master's degree in Constitutional Development, is trained and has worked as a Special Ed teacher, and worked at Walmart, even though he is currently unemployed and lives alone. (D.E. 4 at 5-7). Nothing in B's Complaint or his participation at the hearing indicates that he is substantially limited according to the ADA.

Even if B has a qualified disability, he did not allege that he was denied access to the goods and services provided by Defendants because of his disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Prior to being refused service, B had dined at all Defendant restaurants on previous occasions. Further, B stated that the Defendants' managers asked him to leave their restaurants because he was approaching unaccompanied minors, touching unaccompanied minors, an adult female customer called to complain B made her feel uncomfortable, and several patrons complained to Defendants' managers about B's behavior. B also said that several of Defendants' managers stated that they refused him service for "talking to children" and for "unsolicited conversations" with other patrons, and B "was warned several times of customer complaints, always bothered customers and children . . . screamed and yelled, did not tip waitresses and stayed six hours . . . ." Although B asserts these reasons were false, he does not dispute that he frequently approached other customers to engage them in conversation, including unaccompanied minors, and was told by several of Defendants' managers to stop doing so prior to being refused service. Therefore, in regards to Defendant restaurants, B has failed to state an ADA claim upon which relief may be granted because nothing in his Complaint or testimony alleged that he was refused service because of a qualified disability.

As to B's allegations against Aguilar, B's Title III claims are misplaced because Aguilar does not own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation. Id. § 12182(a). Further, B failed to state what entity employs Aguilar or even a description of when or how he made a complaint to her office. Additionally, while the Court considers B's complaint—in light of his pro se status—as alleging claims under Title II as well as Title III, B testified at the hearing that he wished to proceed against Aguilar personally, not the City of Corpus Christi. Title II applies to public entities, which includes any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Title II does not include individuals. Therefore, Title II does not apply to Aguilar. Further, as discussed above, to the extent B would seek to amend his Complaint to include the City of Corpus Christi, B does not allege any discrimination that occurred on account of a qualified disability.

Title II of the ADA provides, in pertinent part, that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the service is, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. --------

Therefore, the Court dismisses all of B's ADA claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

b. Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq.

B also alleges that Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a(a), which states: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." A restaurant is included as a place of public accommodation. Id. § 2000a(b)(2).

B alleges that "t is also clear were he Chinese or Hispanic in Dos Comales there would be no problem. If it were not for his Baha'i Faith Plaintiff would not talk to anyone in public because of his shy autistic nature but the Baha'i writings require him to . . . ." (D.E. 1 at 4). B appears to raise claims related to his race, gender, and religion. However, as with his ADA claims, B fails to plead that he was discriminated against because of his race, gender, or religion. <b>Instead, B makes "conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions."</b> Fernandez-Montez, 987 F.2d at 284. Further, at the hearing, B testified that none of the Defendants' managers knew he was a practitioner of the Baha'i faith. As such, it is impossible for B to assert he was discriminated against because of his religion. Rather, Defendants' actions were based on non-discriminatory reasons—B repeatedly disrupted patrons and spoke to unaccompanied minors.

Therefore, the Court dismisses all of *****'s Civil Rights Act claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted.

SIGNED and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2016.

/s/_________

Janis Graham Jack

Senior United States District Judge

==============================================================

(Unsatisfied, he resorted to trying to get a Facebook group to go to bat for him against the city of Corpus Christie, Texas.  They ignored him)

**** ***** to the Austin American-Statesman via FACEBOOK

 Autistic Baha'i 67 Persecuted by City Mayor, police, human resources
to deprive me of Civil Rights based on gender, race, ethnicity, handicaps and Religion.
I was illegally banned by two restaurants here in Feb. the reasons given were: talking to
children; bothering customers. I filed a complaint with city "human resources" office
but they dismissed it on grounds police were called. I called assistant city attorney and
pointed out they had no legal basis for dismissing and "You have to enforce the law" so
it was reinstated.

They "investigated" by talking to the managers who came up with a whole list of offences based on obvious lies/PERJURY. Instead of talking to the employees as I told them they need to do because they were afraid of being fired they had them write their responses and give to hateful managers, one of whom committed assault and battery and unlawful restraint (kidnapping in Texas, that being the basis of OJ being in prison) and that was ADMITTED in the dismissal order which merely recited the perjury and did not mention the law. None of the reasons are legal justification for banning or even denying service but again the complaint was dismissed with NO reference to law.

I tried to email the mayor and assistant attorney but that is blocked. I emailed the prosecutors office but that was ignored. I emailed the chief of police but that was ignored. The Executive Surf Club (where manager assaulted me without explanation while I had a happy, loving talk with three 16 year old students at Incarnate Word Academy about God and Religion) told the police I was banned for "talking to children" but they never told me not to talk to them and ionly did so when parents were present, one exception. Of course, there would be no problem were I a lady instead of  gentleman. (My Religion requires me to Love every one and "rejoice hearts which God enables me to do in spite of autism, bipolar disorder and heart disease).

In the perjured statement they claim I had "unsolicited conversations" but it is bar/restaurant and almost EVERYBODY engages in "unsolicited conversations". That is why we go there, "HAPPY TALK", even cried with three customers over deaths in the family. The assistant manager at Dos Comales, who is like a son to me, was forced to tell police I was banned for "bothering customers" which he knows is a lie but he would have been fired had he not lied. The truth is, the manager told me one night, "The owner does not want you to talk to the TABLES" and I told her, "They were talking to me." "It doesn't matter, you can't talk to them.", a clear violation of civil rights laws, which are designed to prevent isolation of handicapped people, which is a serious threat to mental and physical health. I suffer from sever depression and the banning has devastated me, isolated me, causing severe prolonged depression. But, I did not talkto the "tables" when the manager and owner were around. (Many customers, especially families with children, talked to me as they left and nothing was said.)

But one night, there was a church group that was very diverse, so on my way to the rest room, I looked into the private dining room and smile at a STANDING man, and stepped in to praise his church for living the Teachings of Christ and he was very happy and invited me to the church but when I left the manager was furious and told me to get out and never come back because a customer complained which was impossible because I was near the door and nobody left. And, when they sent their response to the "human relations" office they added that when they talked to me about "customer complaints" never mentioned to me, I started screaming and yelling. Had I done that they would have certainly banned me. They also accuse me of staying six hours and never tipping servers, which I did generously, even put tip on table for waitress because two customers left no tip and I would stay  two to three hours, not six.
So the "human resources" ignored all of my complaint and accepted all of the perjury of the managers. There is also a problem with ignorance of the law by police officers who told me "They can do anything they want." which  is obviously not true but they believe it and I complained to the internal affairs office and got lectured and threatened with arrest.

I filed complaints with State Bar Association and Justice Department Civil Rights and will complain to the state civil rights office and Justice Department criminal office and FBI and many media outlets.  I am a member of the Baha'i Faith and taught children 35 years and spent thousands of hours working with handicapped children and orphans. I talk to children all my life with love and respect. There is nothing wrong with talking to children. In fact they need loving conversations and many children hug me at first sight or try to crawl into my lap, smile, laugh, wave because they can see my enormous Love for them. Today, I was talking to two young Baha'i men about my little three year old "goddess" and started crying and couldn't talk because of the profound Love I have for her.
My daughter is adopted and is autistic, bipolar, paranoid schizophrenic and she cried four hours every day for NINE YEARS so I can't stand to see children cry. She was dying of malnutrition when we found her in the hospital and I continued to visit the children there, holding many little ones, including two who died. That changed my life. Working with handicapped children, especially my daughter changed my life enormously.
I am so protective of children it is disgusting to have people complain about me. By the way, my daughter was sexually molested by a neighbor who was sent to prison. So, again, I am very protective of children and when my children were very young there were threats of kidnapping children in Honduras so I had to be very vigilant. When I worked at WALMART I was terrified whenever we got missing child alert and prayed constantly. In fact, I pray constantly for all I see, especially children.

This is such a travesty of "justice" and it is killing me. The whole country needs to know about the incredible prejudice against men and the discrimination against the handicapped that is so widely ignored, and I speak as a Special Education teacher and father and autistic who has been misunderstood 67 years.
I earnestly pray you investigate my story. DISMISSAL LETTER AVAILABLE
=================================

(Sia: they ignored his plea because it is so F.O.S. and IDIOTIC)

Absolutely right, and my long, pointless arguments with Bauer and HH contributed to the early stages of that meltdown.  I feel bad, too.  Arguing with evil imps like Bauer and GOG is pointless and destructive, I know that now.  Look at what they’re doing on Yellow right now.  Two absolutely useless posters and human beings.

However, that doesn’t excuse Woodbine for melting down and/or handing over the board at the end (whoever ‘Sum’ was).  That was a pity, the more so for the quirky, interesting posters like ‘David’ from New Zealand.

Poppet wrote:

Ken C wrote:

A cancelled forum is not the same as a "Failed Forum".  Some forums are useful for a while, then they finish serving their purpose, then they are discontinued by the admin.  Then the forum was discontinued.  That does not mean it was a failure.

In my view, woodbine's now-defunct forum was at one point a quirky (in the extreme), fun board, replete with colorful regular posters (and some one-trick-pony drive-by types, but whatever). It was weird and wonderful. Then a bunch of us from the our dysfunctionally-related boards barged in to what had been a largely British forum)...and absolutely ruined it. I've always felt bad about that.

I did too. Often read just for that wonderful British humor and flavor. Occasionally posted with sensitivity and respect. Didn't want to be an obnoxious drunk American throwing around unwelcome weight in  a British pub. Arrival and takeover by the ugly Americans spoiled it. 
 

Siagiah wrote:

Ken C wrote:

A cancelled forum is not the same as a "Failed Forum".  Some forums are useful for a while, then they finish serving their purpose, then they are discontinued by the admin.  Some forums are just experiments.  An experiment can be a good learning experience.  If the experiment does not turn out as predicted, it is still a good learning experience.

Hammer ran a successful forum for a while.  The forum had a lot of good intelligent discussions.  That forum experimented with the "DNR rule", and I later adopted the "DNR rule" on R&E.  Hammer cancelled the forum when it was no longer needed.  That does not mean it was a failure.

Woodbine's Evolution/Creation Discussion was recently discontinued.  For a while Woodbine had a message at the top stating that he considered the Evolution/Creation debate to be settled.  Then there were experiments with different rules and different moderation styles.  Then the forum was discontinued.  That does not mean it was a failure.

========================================================

Sia:  Obviously, he canceled his forum, Boardhost didn't.  However, it seems that the forum went seriously downhill after "Sum" took over. 

I'm not at all sure WHY you are posting this?  Did someone comment about it and I missed it? 
 

I agree the admin cancelled the forum.  

I posted it to defend Hammer and Woodbine.  A long time ago Mondo Fuego™ criticized Hammer for closing his forum.  Recently on my forum, someone criticized Woodbine.
 

The white whine board doesn't need a Back Alley because ANYTHING GOES on the regular board. Most of us don't ever post there so it's close to being log on only.  Unlike them, we DON'T barge in to where we either don't belong, reject, or were banned from, so they don't need registration.  

I'm curious why mongo added you to his silly roster of members? You've NEVER posted there, so why would he do that other than to be dishonest?

Anyway, because I wanted to keep that stuff OFF of our main boards, I built a specific place where those aggrieved by something can have their say, without restrictions other than the standards that Boardhost demands and without it being deleted since we basically don't moderate this section.  

I didn't anticipate it being the only regularly used board on the forum.  The forum platform is the most commonly used discussion format, but most of us don't care for it and prefer the message board format instead.  That's a shame given how much personalization the forums actually offer to posters , including private messaging using online names rather than being exposed in real life.  Whatever, we go with the flow.

Hammer had a good board which suddenly died, sadly.  He tried to do things the right way without the whole RIDICULOUS system of DNRs on Ken’s board, which drove some of us nuts due to inherent flaws and the manipulations of trolls. It was ALWAYS anti-discussion, and it didn’t even make hosting easier, since you STILL had to police the stupid DNR ‘violations.’

And of course Ken was capable of offenses like imposing a DNR in two people who didn’t want one, then the banning ONE of those posters for questioning his overlordship.

Hammer was one of the many, like me, who posted on and supporting Ken’s board before it became the low-life trailer court it is today.  You get what you want, I guess..

Last edited by greenman (10/26/2022 6:08 pm)

Hammer had DNR's on his forum before I did.

I watched how the DNR rule worked on Hammer's forum, then I added these minor revisions.

1) On R&E, the DNR needs to be approved by the Admin.
2) There is a 24 hour waiting period for a DNR to be approved.


 

Siagiah wrote:

I thought that Hammer created DNRs?? 

 
My apologies if I was in error.  I thought that those had originated in the R & E Board, but I may have misremembered.

I know Poppet was a big supporter, but I hold no grudge…

Last edited by greenman (10/27/2022 1:05 pm)