The Amiga.org in defense of CU_AMiGA thread

[Cyberus]

[Cyberus]

PMC wrote:

Karlos wrote:

It's not a democracy. It's a site that is the property of an individual. No matter how 'veteran' any user happens to be, he is still a guest. If you p*ss off a guy in his own house, don't be surprised if he turfs you out.

That's right.  A Org isn't a public service, it's here because an individual decides to put it here.  People like Doomy etc have failed to remember that and have cried "foul!" when their accounts are suspended because they've incurred the wrath of the moderator/s.

My own personal preference is that any individual here who has a problem with Wayne takes it up with him by personal mail, as I find reading someone's increasingly rabid tirades against the regieme here both tiresome and embarrassing.  Granted though, the Wayne vs CU thread was the funniest thing I read in a long time...

Complaining about how unfair it all is is rather pointless. Wayne pointed CU at the site terms and conditions and was told "I don't have time to read that, I'm far too important" (not verbatim, but to that effect).

If he had read it, he'd realise that he got off pretty lightly - it states warnings are almost always given, but not twice.

In short, if you upset the moderator and or the moderator has received complaints about your conduct then apologise to all concerned.  If you feel the moderator and/or complainant is out of order then take it up by personal mail and put a case together rather than making wild slurs and stupid snide comments.

ou on peut lécher le cul ;-)

[Cyberus]

Wayne wrote:

ou on peut lécher le cul

None of that is necessary.  There have been tens of thousands of Amiga.org users over the last 10+ years.  Of those, the number who've actually run into problems with the administration of this site can be counted on your hands and toes.

That says something.

Wayne

Sorry, I'd just come in after going out for a few beers with the lads last night after an interview for a job. (Not that that's any justification)
You're right, saying that wasn't necessary. I apologise.

After Karlos had already made the point, I guess it seemed to me conspicuously unnecessary to add a bit of self-righteousness, so I made an assumption about his motivation for saying what he did.

At the time, I thought he was being unnecessarily sycophantic. I'll learn to keep thoughts like that to myself in the future.

[Cyberus]

Erm, I thought that was attributed to Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican revolutionary?