Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Candlelight vigil: IntheShade

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
    Well it's what trolls do, they piss people off. In the end it was all he did.
    My sense of humour is well intact by the way, I just dont think constantly comparing the french or europeans with cavemen and idiots makes for a very good joke. Besides, the intent wasnt to joke, the intent was to piss people off. If you dont see what's wrong with that then maybe you should follow ITS through the door
    Chillax. It's just www.teh-internet.com !!

    I don't think his intent was to state that the French are like cavemen. I think he means the product they create is not good and uses ancient technology, or whatever his belief is to why he doesn't like Airbus.


    Well it's what trolls do, they piss people off.
    If you dont see what's wrong with that then maybe you should follow ITS through the door
    You don't think the latter statement might piss someone off? Are you calling yourself a troll?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seahawk View Post
      Mostly it was not what he did, but where he did it.
      The Aviation Safety forum surely is not the right place for humor in the way he used it. He got the temporary ban for that.The moderators hoped he would understand, but he choose to continue in his old ways, so the administrators thought enough was enough.
      I am not trying to be provacative, and this is a serious question, but does it state in the TOS that certain pictures should not be inserted into the threads on the safety forum? If not, shouldn't be updated to include those specific terms? It just seems unfair that he is banned for that while the next person may not be. Was he PM'd with conditions for un-banning to which he agreed? Should those conditions not apply to everyone?
      With all due respect, I think that you guys jumped the gun on this last ban. Just my thoughts and no disrepect intended.

      Comment


      • There were warnings, there were 2 temporary bans and after the longer lasting of those he comes back and does the exact same thing he did before he got that ban.

        He got more then one chance and his actual knowledge of aviation is indeed a loss, but posting possibly insulting pictures (which can be understand like Europeans are caveman) in the Aviation Safety forum is not in the interest of the site. As you said, we can not know what he was trying to say with the caveman pic, but he was surely trying to piss people off. And if you look at the pages posted when he was banned and after he was banned again, there is much less infighting between the contributers in the thread. And that is in the interest of the site. The debate in the Aviation Safety forum is about serious accidents (with many people killed in the case of AF), so the debate should be informative and at least basically serious and not some fight between users.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
          I feel truly bad for people who, despite an endless list of fields they supposedly excel in, have nothing to contribute to an online forum but bigotry and insults.

          Let's be honest, ITS doesnt understand the first thing about pluralism. To people like him, pluralism means that everyone else looks up to him and americans like him. Everyone else is just there to be made fun of.
          The question is, why shouldnt he be banned? What did he contribute? His theories about the Air France crash were pathetic, he had no theory to connect the dots, it is pretty much proven now that the crash did not go the way he said, so the board really has nothing to lose and everything to gain with a ban.

          I think you are missing the more important choice ITS had, to be a bigot and make idiotic racist comments or not to make those comments.
          I didn't realize that the point of the safety forum was to accurately guess what happened to the airplane. Does that mean all the discussion about lightning strikes, for example, and how different aircraft have to shield against them, was a waste of time? Or that the lengthy discussion on tail stall in the Colgan thread was useless? Very little has been proven about 447, and if the vs has been all but discounted now, it hadn't been in the early days after the accident. There is seldom a linear connect-the-dots type answer to an air disaster from what I've seen, and the value of the speculation is in the process, not getting it right.

          If having "nothing to contribute" is grounds for being banned, then this forum should be closed to non-aviation professionals such as myself. ITS did, however, provide information to those who tried to engage him in relevant questions rather than getting caught up in endless rhetoric about composites and Airbus.

          By now, there are so many people who have it in for ITS, just waiting to brawl with him, that his continuing on here would likely be futile. I think your characterizations about him as a person are probably way off base, though, simply because true bigots and racists are more insidious than to post cartoons of cavemen on the internet.

          ITS inevitably went too far with the inflammatory comments, but then again, there are those who seemingly spend their lives just looking for reasons to take offense with something. The choice is in your perception of things.

          Comment

          Working...
          X