have you ever been banned from a forum?

I was on a forum dedicated to Sig's for about 8 years. In 2007 the owner asked what it would take to keep Obama from winning. I replied "someone other than McCain running". Came back the next day and noticed my reply was missing. I re-iterated. Next day I was gone. Always thought that if you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't ask the question.
 
Last edited:
I reckon Ill have another one soon.
Ive caused quite an issue on a VRod forum when asking some basic questions (dimensions for the stock motor - really just height of it).
Apparently by me asking that, and stating what my end goal is (putting a different HD-owned engine that is lighter, smaller, and makes more power) they've gotten offended.

I stated that I liked the chassis, always found it to be a great looking bike, and that it fits many of my chassis needs stock (radiator is already there, has its airbox where the the gastank should be, decent amount of aftermarket etc. I want a cruiser that would be able to do decent on the dragstrip if I chose to run it that way too (and I guess I DO have an extra set of wheelie bars in the race trailer...), I asked a few questions and people do not seem to be happy about it.

I'll keep you posted.
 
Well, so far so good...

But yes, on We The Armed for calling out one of the founders who was a shyster gun plumber and a habitual click baiter for his dishonest gun plumbing site...not too long after, he and the other founders/owners sold out to the Canadians...There was a bucket load of 2A snowflakes and self-anointed SMEs on that forum.

Glad to be here acting a fool. I especially like the revolver section and the movies section of Off Topic.
 
I was banned and it was for talking about 'mouse calibers" I had recently bought a 327 fed mag and that isn't ok there so I was banned. No mouse calibers. 32s 380s and the such. I wish I could remember the name of the place. It was before 2012.
 
longhair said:
I was on a forum dedicated to Sig's for about 8 years. In 2007 the owner asked what it would take to keep Obama from winning. I replied "someone other than McCain running". Came back the next day and noticed my reply was missing. I re-iterated. Next day I was gone. Always thought that if you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't ask the question.
Click to expand...

I got banned from the Sig forum because I didn't agree with Para's politics all the time.
 
I think I have been banned from Free Republic like 13 times. Nothing like pointing out to a bunch of blue haired twits that they are just as effective in the growth of government as any fascist or socialist for supporting every conceivable war in every conceivable country. It threw them into paroxysms of hatred to quote the founders: "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." James Madison, He also observed, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." This is why, wrote John Quincy Adams, that "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy"

This is enough to get you banned from that hive of "patriotism." I pointed out the even Jonah Goldberg, editor of that neocon rag "National Review," admitted " The libertarians are right when they say that war fuels big government." before whining " But it doesn't have to be that way." Uh, Jonah, YES IT DOES. It always has and always will be. The reason is that the state has to "take over" the normal interactions of business, industry and profitability and bend them to the end sought in war, which is the production of goods to subdue the enemy. War winds up being good for "business" and there develops and intertwining of elements of business for war materiel. We call this "fascism."

Nothing pisses off a self proclaimed patriot and "conservative" more than pointing out that his flag waving "SIC EM, BOYS" cheerleading for idiotic wars in the ME is actually destroying the very ideas of freedom and liberty we are supposedly extending over there.

As idiotic as it now sounds, it was the full throated agreed idea back in 2004 that we could extend the ideas of democratic liberalism with the US Military, and was so much an article of faith among so called "conservatives" that the heretical Ron Paul crowd simply could not be tolerated. The neocons were so in control of the Republican Party that war for world peace was really believed.

It took Donald Trump to smash this ridiculous pile of crap, although he is not so much ideologically opposed to it as he is dedicated to breaking the stranglehold that parasites (including the neocons) have on DC.

Another thing that caused "conservatives" heads to swivel was pointing out that neocons were actually Trotskyite communists who despaired of bringing in their collectivist goals thru the Dems and switched parties, but not ideologies. (this is true) They only believe in "patriotism" as a fuel for dedication to a vibrant and healthy state. Their support of public morality is for the state. Their support of the military is state-first. They don't mind high taxes and a welfare state (they in fact like it). They have no qualms about the most liberty suppressing totalitarian, war mongering destruction of personal freedom, so long as you can wave that star spangled banner and pledge to it all weepy eyed.

I used to get especially frustrated with the Christian element here, as they loved this crap, so long as the state was their friend. It took a couple of USSC opinions about homosexuality and marriage to make them sit back and say "doh, brother Bobby, maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. I mean, they can actually use that power AGAINST us, you know!" Yeah, they can.

Again, all this sounds blatantly obvious to us in 2017.

You have no idea how offensive and heretical it sounded to conservatives back in 2004. It did, and I have the badges (record of bans) to prove it. :)
 
The Canadians banned me because whathisname's wife (the one who had to have her nails done) claimed that people who pointed out that their moneys had been used for purposes they did not authorize we not supporting "capitalism." Seeing that she had no idea what "capitalism" is, I graciously explained to her what it is, then graciously showed her how this had nothing to do with capitalism or free markets, and then graciously called her an idiot :) .

Her husband, Beauregard, eager to defend the faih honah of Southan womanhood, banned my IP address. I have never felt so ashamed!
 
I think I have been banned dozen or more times from the Democratic Underground. Not much regret there. They were too easy. I used to keep what I called a "stable" of liberals in my Facebook friends. They were mostly good folks, although their ideas were whackadoodle, oftentimes. I would especially enjoy intereacting with them on some of their threads and seeing the heads explode. Their friends were so insular, isolated and unexposed to anything outside their bubble. They reminded me of Christian friends I had at seminary who knew "what they believe" but had no idea how to support it biblically and logically. These people also had a structured belief system (every bit as rigid and strident... moreso, in fact) but no idea how to defend it. It was all cant and propaganda, and a quick slide to hysterical shrieks if you said "no, this is false. even your own defenders admit it here, here and here......, don't you ever read your own theories?"

It is all part of a polarization of ideologies that has come about with the internet. One would think that the vast sea of ideas, arguments, conflicting beliefs and "democratization" of dialogue would lead to a serious examination of all beliefs, both our own and those of others. Instead, people mostly retreat to the internet for bias confirmation......, and for "ammo" to lob across the belief divide. It is why I think a breakup of the USA is going to be the only chance (and sometimes I don't event think that is real good) to avoid a civil war.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
Her husband, Beauregard, eager to defend the faih honah of Southan womanhood, banned my IP address. I have never felt so ashamed!
Click to expand...
Trying to block an IP address is a sign of a lame admin that has little understanding of how the system works. It's ineffective and futile as IP addresses, with the exception of servers and not always anymore, are by their very nature fluid and temporary, get reused and shared by others. What ends up happening is that some other poor schmuck gets the address or worse they block something like a proxy or VPN IP with thousands of people behind it.
 
Last edited:
@tanstaafl72555 Why multiple bans from the same places? Why keep going back, just to stir up trouble?
 
HMP said:
Why keep going back, just to stir up trouble?
Click to expand...
We are talking about Tans, do you really need to ask that question? He admits to enjoying stirring people up, especially if he thinks they're hypocritical and can't back up their assertions.
 
HMP said:
@tanstaafl72555 Why multiple bans from the same places? Why keep going back, just to stir up trouble?
Click to expand...

I actually thought some about that question. I dont' do that stuff anymore, so why not?

I think it has to do with the mistakened notion that people are willing to change their opinions based on logic and reason. They certainly are not, and that was a late revelation to me. I have almost always approached life from the perspective of "if I am wrong, then I should be able to just 'see' it and acknowledge my error....., and why would I not want to do that?" I assumed others do so, and that is both a bad mistake on my part and a bad judgment on how men reason in general. (I have no idea, after 38 years of marriage, how women reason, so I won't even go there).

It took me years of stupidly banging my head against a wall to come to the "EUREKA!" moment of realizing that men choose ideas, groups, visions, sides, etc NOT AT ALL based on intellectual, cognitive or rational bases. They choose sides in a debate based on other, deeper and less analyzable motives, and then go looking for rational constructs to defend them. This seems so obvious to me now that I feel like a total moron for not seeing it before. What is more, the men most vocal in defending rationality, reason, intellect and cognitive process are often the most blind to their own NONintellectual prejudices.

For this reason, I would go back and make the same arguments, dreaming that just making them "pretty" or nice and civil and gentle and kind (or the closest someone like me can come to that)....., and that people would agree to dismiss their prejudices. Instead, I was puzzled and frustrated that they would, politely and civilly (lol), hold on to the same basket of nonsense, often more fiercely than before.

When you don't understand that the reason for someone's illogical, dumb idiocy has NOTHING to do with their reasoning process, then you just marshall your arguments, detail them out and apply more force. This leads to ..... ahhhhh, "friction" would be a polite word for it.

Being older and, in some rare areas, a bit wiser, I see that it really is wasted time. It is not that some really really stupid stuff should not be openly mocked and ridiculed. It should (and of course, I try to do my part :) ), but I have very very very rarely seen someone in open debate change his/her mind. I have, though, heard from lurkers, hanger ons, and observers that the structure of the argument either affected them, changed them, or strengthened them. Nowadays, when dealing with issues online, I try to keep in mind that the person with whom I am talking has (usually) very little interest in whether what either of us is arguing is true (there are notable exceptions to this, of course). You are really playing to the gallery.

That is the biggest reason I don't go back over and over any more, and yes, I do feel profoundly stupid for being unaware of this earlier in life.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
I actually thought some about that question. I dont' do that stuff anymore, so why not?

I think it has to do with the mistakened notion that people are willing to change their opinions based on logic and reason. They certainly are not, and that was a late revelation to me. I have almost always approached life from the perspective of "if I am wrong, then I should be able to just 'see' it and acknowledge my error....., and why would I not want to do that?" I assumed others do so, and that is both a bad mistake on my part and a bad judgment on how men reason in general. (I have no idea, after 38 years of marriage, how women reason, so I won't even go there).

It took me years of stupidly banging my head against a wall to come to the "EUREKA!" moment of realizing that men choose ideas, groups, visions, sides, etc NOT AT ALL based on intellectual, cognitive or rational bases. They choose sides in a debate based on other, deeper and less analyzable motives, and then go looking for rational constructs to defend them. This seems so obvious to me now that I feel like a total moron for not seeing it before. What is more, the men most vocal in defending rationality, reason, intellect and cognitive process are often the most blind to their own NONintellectual prejudices.

For this reason, I would go back and make the same arguments, dreaming that just making them "pretty" or nice and civil and gentle and kind (or the closest someone like me can come to that)....., and that people would agree to dismiss their prejudices. Instead, I was puzzled and frustrated that they would, politely and civilly (lol), hold on to the same basket of nonsense, often more fiercely than before.

When you don't understand that the reason for someone's illogical, dumb idiocy has NOTHING to do with their reasoning process, then you just marshall your arguments, detail them out and apply more force. This leads to ..... ahhhhh, "friction" would be a polite word for it.

Being older and, in some rare areas, a bit wiser, I see that it really is wasted time. It is not that some really really stupid stuff should not be openly mocked and ridiculed. It should (and of course, I try to do my part :) ), but I have very very very rarely seen someone in open debate change his/her mind. I have, though, heard from lurkers, hanger ons, and observers that the structure of the argument either affected them, changed them, or strengthened them. Nowadays, when dealing with issues online, I try to keep in mind that the person with whom I am talking has (usually) very little interest in whether what either of us is arguing is true (there are notable exceptions to this, of course). You are really playing to the gallery.

That is the biggest reason I don't go back over and over any more, and yes, I do feel profoundly stupid for being unaware of this earlier in life.
Click to expand...
The word "erudite" comes to mind.
 
update: got banned again (06/28/2019).

it was an Indycar forum, so nothing lost.
again...no notice, no reason, no reply.
 
Oh hell yes. AKfiles.

If you've not gotten a ban at the 'files, you're not posting enough.

I was banned at NCGO for "drama" at the time they sold to the Libs, and same at CFF (though I seem to have been magically reinstated)
 
Last edited:
turkeydance said:
Have you ever been banned from a forum?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I received lifetime ban because I had the audacity to tell the truth. An argument ensued, the other side complained and I received an email from a mod, demanding that I apologize to the other forum member for being “terse”, or I would be suspended for 30 days. I told the mod I would immediately message the individual that complained. I did.

Evidently, “Eat sh*t.” was not what they had in mind when they said “apologize”. Must have got back to them. Got another message from the mod that said I was looking at a possible permanent ban, so I emailed him with the same message I sent to the complainant.


I was gone in short order.


Also got banned from a Canadian-owned forum for being honest.

Oh well...I’m home now.
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
Yes.

I received lifetime ban because I had the audacity to tell the truth. An argument ensued, the other side complained and I received an email from a mod, demanding that I apologize to the other forum member for being “terse”, or I would be suspended for 30 days. I told the mod I would immediately message the individual that complained. I did.

Evidently, “Eat sh*t.” was not what they had in mind when they said “apologize”. Must have got back to them. Got another message from the mod that said I was looking at a possible permanent ban, so I emailed him with the same message I sent to the complainant.


I was gone in short order.


Also got banned from a Canadian-owned forum for being honest.

Oh well...I’m home now.
Click to expand...

I’ve been banned from the same forum more times than Pipboy has been banned from Christian Mingle
 
Well I got put in the penalty box about 8 times in two years. Then I called the prick that kept putting me in the penalty box a prick and he put me in again. The Owner contacted me and gave me a stern warning. After I replied to him about what he and his "boy" could do to each other....BANNED FOR LIFE!!! Oh, the site???? S&W Forum. Owned by a fellow whose name was Hand Ejector. I'm sure you can figure what I changed his name to in our exchange....Hand Ejackulator…..BANNED FOR LIFE!!!! I tell ya, I don't get No respect....
 
Last edited:
If you are banned from a forum, and try to create a new account, but use the same email, it will not let you create an new account with the same email.

If you use gmail for your email, just add a period (.) or two, and the forum will see it as a different email... but gmail ignores it so you will receive the verification email from the forum.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

all appear to be different to the forum, all will work with your [email protected] account.

Not that I have ever done this....... o_O..:rolleyes:
 
Not exactly, but ... I did get blocked from my high school class group on Farcebook right after I joined it - never even posted.

I mean, I knew I wasn't one of the "in-crowd", but I didn't know I was quite that far out! :D
 
Last edited:
I got banned @ Liveleak. Disagreed with Hayden (the owner) publicly when he started trying to rebrand it as a softer site. Got rather heated.no loss
 
I got banned from a high school football forum after three years of brick throwing and comedy. I had members waiting to see what I had next. Drove the viewing up like mad and had thread views many times in the 20,000 range just for local North Carolina high school football. People were inviting me to meet them and a few wanted to fight. Had a guy from my hometown asking all over western NC who I was and lived. Dude stalked me, eventually driving by the house a few times.

Had lots of complaints submitted to the owner of the site but I was driving site hits like never before. Finally I called her out for deleting a wrestling part of the forum and when it was her she banned me. The three popular posters then quit in protest of my banning and the place sucks now. I could go back under a new name but I don’t want to give her the business. I am on a new high school forum now and the second most popular member of thousands. The owner and I are friends as he is a gun guy living in Winston-Salem. Super guy who puts up with my shenanigans.

Guys on this forum are soft like marshmallows and get their little feeling hurt easily. You get banned for hurting supposedly MAN’s feelings. Jeez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom