Re: Petition to remove Charvaka as Admin of this forum

[Idéfix]

So, back on topic: what's the tactical plan for this petition of yours? Are you going to gather signatures and submit them to the concerned authorities? Are you going to organize a candle-lit procession to demand justice? Are you going to conduct a dharna cum rasta-roko in front of some random office? Are you going to create an online petition on the White House's website?

Right now it seems like you haven't thought through the purpose of this petition and how you can achieve it. Please think about this and resubmit your petition in the appropriate format.

[Guest]

That post of Huzefa was quite interesting. In the same post he revealed his purported real name and also asked PP to delete his post. If it was really an inadvertent revelation of personal information, he would have made two posts: one in which he revealed the personal information and the other asking PP to delete his post.

The only purpose of that post was to ensure that PP logs in as Admin. A very sad state of affairs indeed. I suppose now whenever PP wants to login as Admin one of his buddies will make a post revealing their purported real name and simultaneously asking PP to delete their post. This is the low level this forum has descended to.

.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

rashmun: since you have yourself pointed out forumotion policy, i.e. that a handle is required to be deleted if s/he makes a request to the admin to do so, how do you expect PP could have accomplished this without logging in as admin? in light of this info, do you withdraw your earlier petition to remove carvaka/PP as admin?

[Guest]

rashmun: since you have yourself pointed out forumotion policy, i.e. that a handle is required to be deleted if s/he makes a request to the admin to do so, how do you expect PP could have accomplished this without logging in as admin? in light of this info, do you withdraw your earlier petition to remove carvaka/PP as admin?

i did not realize that Tracy wanted to leave the forum permanently. i also thought huzefa's post in which he gave his purported real name and also asked PP to remove his post--all in the same post--set a bad precedent.

at any rate if PP would have clarified that he logged on to delete a forum member's profile ID, as per that forum member's request, there would have been no fight over his logging in as Admin. But since PP is essentially immature and also a fightercock a fight developed which would have been resolved amicably very quickly by a more mature Admin. So i still maintain that PP should be replaced as Admin by someone more neutral, more balanced, and more mature who is less prone to getting into fights.

[Guest]

it needs to be made very clear to PP that this forum belongs to all ex-sulekha posters. it is not his personal property. i refer here to PP's suggestion that i stop posting on this forum because i do not get along with the person having Admin power in this forum (in this case, himself). Earlier, PP was claiming that Luke Warmus should not post on this forum because he has no friends on this forum. This is the low and cheap level of discussion PP is capable of.

[Guest]

rashmun: since you have yourself pointed out forumotion policy, i.e. that a handle is required to be deleted if s/he makes a request to the admin to do so, how do you expect PP could have accomplished this without logging in as admin? in light of this info, do you withdraw your earlier petition to remove carvaka/PP as admin?

i did not realize that Tracy wanted to leave the forum permanently. i also thought huzefa's post in which he gave his purported real name and also asked PP to remove his post--all in the same post--set a bad precedent.

at any rate if PP would have clarified that he logged on to delete a forum member's profile ID, as per that forum member's request, there would have been no fight over his logging in as Admin. But since PP is essentially immature and also a fightercock a fight developed which would have been resolved amicably very quickly by a more mature Admin. So i still maintain that PP should be replaced as Admin by someone more neutral, more balanced, and more mature who is less prone to getting into fights.

There is one other reason for PP to step aside as Admin. There is a reasonably good chance that Sandilya and Seva (and perhaps even TruthSeeker) will start posting on this forum if PP does not have Admin power here.

[Idéfix]

it needs to be made very clear to PP that this forum belongs to all ex-sulekha posters. it is not his personal property. i refer here to PP's suggestion that i stop posting on this forum because i do not get along with the person having Admin power in this forum (in this case, himself). Earlier, PP was claiming that Luke Warmus should not post on this forum because he has no friends on this forum. This is the low and cheap level of discussion PP is capable of.

As usual, you are attributing statements to me that I did not make.

It was thoroughly enjoyable to watch your fulminations today, though. Keep them coming.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

at any rate if PP would have clarified that he logged on to delete a forum member's profile ID, as per that forum member's request, there would have been no fight over his logging in as Admin..

did you ask him:

(a) why he logged in as admin?

or

(b) why he deleted said forum member's handle?

i.e. before you made your post petitioning for his removal?

[Guest]

at any rate if PP would have clarified that he logged on to delete a forum member's profile ID, as per that forum member's request, there would have been no fight over his logging in as Admin..

did you ask him:

(a) why he logged in as admin?

or

(b) why he deleted said forum member's handle?

i.e. before you made your post petitioning for his removal?

when he claimed that he would be logging in as Admin this week-end i specifically asked him not to do so. i reminded him of his own words: he had not logged in as Admin for five months and he hoped the forum would not need any Admin in the future. instead of addressing my query, he went ahead and logged in as Admin ignoring my request completely.

[Guest]

it needs to be made very clear to PP that this forum belongs to all ex-sulekha posters. it is not his personal property. i refer here to PP's suggestion that i stop posting on this forum because i do not get along with the person having Admin power in this forum (in this case, himself). Earlier, PP was claiming that Luke Warmus should not post on this forum because he has no friends on this forum. This is the low and cheap level of discussion PP is capable of.

As usual, you are attributing statements to me that I did not make.

It was thoroughly enjoyable to watch your fulminations today, though. Keep them coming.

your lies have been exposed so many times now that i feel sorry for you. Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

[MaxEntropy_Man]

rashmun: i don't think PP needs me to defend him, but the problem here might be your own impetuosity. he only said he hoped he would not need to login as admin. if you hadn't immediately ascribed baser motives to his actions, you might have at least suspected that he had reasons for logging in as admin. all you needed to do was ask a simple question, like i did. instead your first reaction was to demand his removal as admin. may i ask why?

[Guest]

rashmun: i don't think PP needs me to defend him, but the problem here might be your own impetuosity. he only said he hoped he would not need to login as admin. if you hadn't immediately ascribed baser motives to his actions, you might have at least suspected that he had reasons for loggin in as admin. all you needed to do was ask a simple question, like i did. instead your first reaction was to demand his removal as admin. may i ask why?

My first reaction was not to demand his removal as admin. My first reaction was the following two posts which he completely ignored prior to his logging in as Admin:

https://such.forumotion.com/t6352-pp#49968

https://such.forumotion.com/t6358-charvaka-please-keep-your-word-and-stop-logging-in-as-admin

[MaxEntropy_Man]

i don't see a question in either of those posts.

[Guest]

i don't see a question in either of those posts.

there is a definite request for him to not login as Admin which he did not address prior to logging in as Admin. i think you are just being biased.

[Guest]

there is something else that Charvaka may have done as Admin. Earlier i could view all my posts in the archives. I cannot do so now. In fact the first post of mine which i can see in the archives is from April 2012. i just checked Max's profile and sure enough the first post of Max that i can see in the archives is from April 2012.

If this is a forumotion feature then we cannot do anything about it of course. But it would be a pity if Charvaka tinkered around with the settings of the archives so that we cannot view older posts.

[Idéfix]

Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

[Guest]

there is something else that Charvaka may have done as Admin. Earlier i could view all my posts in the archives. I cannot do so now. In fact the first post of mine which i can see in the archives is from April 2012. i just checked Max's profile and sure enough the first post of Max that i can see in the archives is from April 2012.

If this is a forumotion feature then we cannot do anything about it of course. But it would be a pity if Charvaka tinkered around with the settings of the archives so that we cannot view older posts.

it is very difficult to believe that the archived posts on this forum are only available from April 26,2012 onwards without Charvaka tinkering around with the archives settings.

[Guest]

Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

[Idéfix]

Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

I don't see any reference to you there. Again, did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

[truthbetold]

Rashmun

Charvaka did a fine job of putting this forum together and keeping it going. He contributes intelligent cogent arguments and his posts are interesting to read. I wish he could desist from getting into long tangles with certain opinionated posters and his energies for better tasks.

I think your request for charvaka be removed as admin is like cutting the branch you are sitting on top of a tree. Your request is without merit and it should rejected by all those related to such forum.

[Guest]

Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

I don't see any reference to you there. Again, did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

Let others decide who is the liar and slanderer:

dear akbar,
please remove rashmun from such forum. he's less entertaining than the talking tom cat game my kid likes to play on ipad2 and more annoying than timeofindia popup ads.

LOL. The latest fixation is on Aurangzeb. Did you know that Aurangzeb is secular? He built some Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t6366-petition-to-akbar#50098

the only person who has written a forum post about Aurangzeb particularly with reference to the fact that Aurangzeb built and gave funding for some hindu temples (besides destroying other hindu temples) was yours truly right here:
https://such.forumotion.com/t6351-krishna-temples-in-vrindavan-have-a-huge-mughal-influence#49918

Add to that the fact that your reply was to a post of Propa in which he was referring to me.

PP Method fails yet again!

[Guest]

Rashmun

Charvaka did a fine job of putting this forum together and keeping it going. He contributes intelligent cogent arguments and his posts are interesting to read. I wish he could desist from getting into long tangles with certain opinionated posters and his energies for better tasks.

I think your request for charvaka be removed as admin is like cutting the branch you are sitting on top of a tree. Your request is without merit and it should rejected by all those related to such forum.

This forum is a readymade forum. Charvaka did not have to do much work in creating this forum. Moreover, the wisdom of SomeProfile's words in which he wanted all the ex-sulekha members to post on a reddit forum with no Admin power for anyone has become clear in view of Charvaka's abuse of Admin power.

[Idéfix]

in view of Charvaka's abuse of Admin power.

Which specific admin power do you accuse me of abusing?

[Guest]

in view of Charvaka's abuse of Admin power.

Which specific admin power do you accuse me of abusing?

the fact that it was understood that you would not login as Admin AT ALL (except in exceptional situations like violation of a poster's privacy), and yet you continued to login despite my strong protest. If only you would have said that a poster has asked you to delete their profile ID there would have been no fight about you logging in as Admin. But you love to get into fights, and you refused to resolve the issue amicably which was a relatively easy thing to do. By picking a fight with me, instead of clarifying why you had to login in as admin, you revealed that you do not deserve to be Admin in the first place.

[truthbetold]

Rashmun

If it is easy to create a forum why not try and attract posters. Charvaka's contribution extends beyond creating forum. He participates at regularnintervals. Posts on multitude of topics. Is freindly and respecful to all posters. Above all his arguments are logical and are backed up by facts.

[Guest]

Rashmun

If it is easy to create a forum why not try and attract posters. Charvaka's contribution extends beyond creating forum. He participates at regularnintervals. Posts on multitude of topics. Is freindly and respecful to all posters. Above all his arguments are logical and are backed up by facts.

on what ground is Charvaka claiming that i consider Aurangzeb secular when in fact i have strongly criticized Aurangzeb for reimposing jaziya. it is sad to see you talking nonsense because of your Gulti tribal loyalty.

With respect to Charvaka treating posters with respect, on what ground did he ask Luke Warmus why he is posting on this forum considering he has (in Charvaka's idiotic opinion) no friends on this forum.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

[Guest]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

[Guest]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

[Guest]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

it is possible to obtain the link to an older forum post (i.e. older than April 26,2012) through googling but not by going through the profile of a poster as one could do earlier. PP has not responded to my question as to whether he has tinkered around with the forum archives.

[truthbetold]

R

In this thread max was very patient. He avoided using any inflamatory language. He systamaticaly elicited facts. Yet when your argument was found to be on weak ground you called biased.
Introspection is part of life's learning process. Take a chill pill and relax. When the anger is gone thinkncalmly.

[Guest]

R

In this thread max was very patient. He avoided using any inflamatory language. He systamaticaly elicited facts. Yet when your argument was found to be on weak ground you called biased.
Introspection is part of life's learning process. Take a chill pill and relax. When the anger is gone thinkncalmly.

Max is wrong to overlook the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to one of my two posts to him asking him not to login in Admin by stating that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

You still refuse to comment on whether PP was right to tell lies and falsely claim that i consider Aurangzeb to be secular. Is this an example of Gulti tribal loyalty?

[MaxEntropy_Man]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

if he said that, i certainly don't agree with it. however, i don't believe that PP has deliberately tinkered with the archive settings as you are suggesting.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

i am not sure how anything i've said here can be construed as not being rational. yes PP could have come out and said what you wanted to know but you gave him no reason to do so. by making up threads with dramatic headings instead of asking a simple question or two, you gave him the opportunity to pillory you and he took it gladly.

[Guest]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

if he said that, i certainly don't agree with it. however, i don't believe that PP has deliberately tinkered with the archive settings as you are suggesting.

do you agree that it is not possible to view posts of a forum poster that are older than April 26,2012 by going through the profile page of that poster? what could have happened? i am only suggesting the possibility of PP tinkering with the archive settings. I am not ruling out the other possibility--that forumotion did this on their own.

[Guest]

i think you are just being biased.

how so? i was just suggesting that you could have found out what you wanted to know by posing a simple question instead of creating threads with dramatic headings. why is that biased?

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

i am not sure how anything i've said here can be construed as not being rational. yes PP could have come out and said what you wanted to know but you gave him no reason to do so. by making up threads with dramatic headings instead of asking a simple question or two, you gave him the opportunity to pillory you and he took it gladly.

yes Max i gave him the opportunity to pillory me by telling lies and making false claims like his stating that i consider Aurangzeb to be secular. Please carry on.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

i don't know because i haven't tried to look for older posts. perhaps we could have a better and more productive conversation if you suspend your cynicism for a little while.

[Guest]

i don't know because i haven't tried to look for older posts. perhaps we could have a better and more productive conversation if you suspend your cynicism for a little while.

And allow PP to keep making false claims about me like his claim that i consider Aurangzeb to be secular? Thanks for the advice, Max.

[MaxEntropy_Man]

how does aurangazeb enter into this thread? i am now thoroughly confused.

[Guest]

Only recently you claimed that i had proclaimed Aurangzeb to be secular when in fact i had said that his reimposition of jaziya was indefensible (with the clear the implication that i do not consider Aurangzeb to be secular).

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

I don't see any reference to you there. Again, did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

Let others decide who is the liar and slanderer:

dear akbar,
please remove rashmun from such forum. he's less entertaining than the talking tom cat game my kid likes to play on ipad2 and more annoying than timeofindia popup ads.

LOL. The latest fixation is on Aurangzeb. Did you know that Aurangzeb is secular? He built some Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t6366-petition-to-akbar#50098

the only person who has written a forum post about Aurangzeb particularly with reference to the fact that Aurangzeb built and gave funding for some hindu temples (besides destroying other hindu temples) was yours truly right here:
https://such.forumotion.com/t6351-krishna-temples-in-vrindavan-have-a-huge-mughal-influence#49918

Add to that the fact that your reply was to a post of Propa in which he was referring to me.

PP Method fails yet again!

.

[Guest]

When did I claim this?

PS: Did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

I don't see any reference to you there. Again, did Genghis Khan have a sense of humor?

Let others decide who is the liar and slanderer:

dear akbar,
please remove rashmun from such forum. he's less entertaining than the talking tom cat game my kid likes to play on ipad2 and more annoying than timeofindia popup ads.

LOL. The latest fixation is on Aurangzeb. Did you know that Aurangzeb is secular? He built some Hindu temples.

https://such.forumotion.com/t6366-petition-to-akbar#50098

the only person who has written a forum post about Aurangzeb particularly with reference to the fact that Aurangzeb built and gave funding for some hindu temples (besides destroying other hindu temples) was yours truly right here:
https://such.forumotion.com/t6351-krishna-temples-in-vrindavan-have-a-huge-mughal-influence#49918

Add to that the fact that your reply was to a post of Propa in which he was referring to me.

PP Method fails yet again!

.

https://such.forumotion.com/t6367-pp-does-poo-poo

[Idéfix]

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

if he said that, i certainly don't agree with it. however, i don't believe that PP has deliberately tinkered with the archive settings as you are suggesting.

I didn't say that. Rashmun is making stuff up, as is his wont. He was caught doing the same thing about Sasthi's views earlier today. He made stuff up about admin being able to see PMs, and was caught there as well.

I have not made any changes to archive settings. The problem with 8 pages of archives attached to each poster's name is a forumotion limitation that -- if I recall correctly -- Huzefa discovered last year.

[Idéfix]

on what ground is Charvaka claiming that i consider Aurangzeb secular when in fact i have strongly criticized Aurangzeb for reimposing jaziya.

I didn't claim that you consider him secular. I was joking about your tactic of using "so-and-so funded temples" to suggest that "so-and-so" is secular. Just like Merlot and Huzefa were joking in the posts that you quoted in earnest earlier today. You can't detect a joke if it punches you in the nose; but I have it from reliable sources that Genghis Khan didn't have a sense of humor either, so it's nothing to worry about.

[Idéfix]

in view of Charvaka's abuse of Admin power.

Which specific admin power do you accuse me of abusing?

the fact that it was understood that you would not login as Admin AT ALL (except in exceptional situations like violation of a poster's privacy), and yet you continued to login despite my strong protest. If only you would have said that a poster has asked you to delete their profile ID there would have been no fight about you logging in as Admin. But you love to get into fights, and you refused to resolve the issue amicably which was a relatively easy thing to do. By picking a fight with me, instead of clarifying why you had to login in as admin, you revealed that you do not deserve to be Admin in the first place.

Again, which specific admin power do you accuse me of abusing? I logged in to (a) delete a user account on express request from its owner, and (b) delete a post that contained personal information on request from that user. Both are legitimate exercises of admin power as stated often before. Letting you get into a ferment because you start shooting before asking questions has nothing to do with admin powers; that's just something I enjoy watching you do.

[Idéfix]

Max, i think you're not interested in having a rational argument. which is why you refuse to accept the fact that PP could have diffused the situation by responding to my posts asking him not to login as Admin by specifying that a poster had asked him to delete her profile.

I am not going to post about user requests to delete their handles, or posts with personal information, before carrying out the request. Doing so might compromise the information that the user in question wants removed. It is your problem if you are going to go berserk just because I ignore you. I ignore you for the most part these days anyway.

[Petrichor]

We can all argue about first amendment and applicability to private forums. But,

1. Can the moderator/admin send 3 warnings to known disruptive elements and chop them off if the abuser persists?
2. Admin is a thankless job and has no known perks/benefits. Should the admin feel bound to answer every stupid comment/question that comes in the way of an arbitrary post on the forums?
3. If the admin feels like logging in 10 times a day, in addition to his dual role of being a forum participant, there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do - wait, actually there is. They can send a nice little request to delete their handle and disappear.
4. Wilful stupidity should never be allowed to wield its tyranny over a moderate republic.

[Guest]

On another note, Max, do you agree with PP's suggestion that Luke Warmus should stop posting on this forum because he (Luke) has no friends on this forum according to PP. I am unable to provide the two posts where he said this because the forum archives do not extend beyond April 26, 2012 presumably because PP has tinkered around with the archive settings of this forum.

if he said that, i certainly don't agree with it. however, i don't believe that PP has deliberately tinkered with the archive settings as you are suggesting.

I didn't say that. Rashmun is making stuff up, as is his wont. He was caught doing the same thing about Sasthi's views earlier today. He made stuff up about admin being able to see PMs, and was caught there as well.

I have not made any changes to archive settings. The problem with 8 pages of archives attached to each poster's name is a forumotion limitation that -- if I recall correctly -- Huzefa discovered last year.

as usual Charvaka keeps lying like he was lying about the fact that i consider Aurangzeb secular when in fact i do not and gave my reason: he had reimposed jaziya.
My recollection was that Sasthi had also asked Charvaka to hand over Admin power to somebody else. She has denied making this statement following which i apologized to her, and she accepted my apology.
With respect to Admin power, it was my concern that an Admin of this forum would be able to read private messages of posters. Charvaka has clarified that an Admin cannot read private messages, but of course an Admin continues to have access to IP addresses of posters (which makes it possible to hack into a computer). Charvaka's cheap level was exposed when he joked that he might actually hack into my computer following which i assured him that i would have his ass hauled to jail if he did so.

I find it strange to see Charvaka using the phrase 'making stuff up' when in fact he himself makes stuff up on a habitual basis like his recent claim that i consider Aurangzeb secular when in fact i made it very clear that i do not by slamming Aurangzeb for reimposing jaziya.

With respect to the archives, only 6 pages of archive posts attached to a poster's name are accessible right now. i think it was more than 6 pages earlier; it is possible that this may have something to do with a change in forumotion policy

[Idéfix]

do you agree that it is not possible to view posts of a forum poster that are older than April 26,2012 by going through the profile page of that poster? what could have happened? i am only suggesting the possibility of PP tinkering with the archive settings. I am not ruling out the other possibility--that forumotion did this on their own.

Wrong as usual. See for TBT's profile: the earliest thread he posted in that shows up here is dated June 7, 2011. https://such.forumotion.com/sta/truthbetold/885677065/350

First get the facts straight, then try to understand them. If you start with erroneous observations or a small sample size, your conclusions are going to be wrong. In order words, reconsider the Rashmun Method.

[Idéfix]

We can all argue about first amendment and applicability to private forums. But,

1. Can the moderator/admin send 3 warnings to known disruptive elements and chop them off if the abuser persists?

That is not a power I am willing to exercise, because it goes against my principles.

2. Admin is a thankless job and has no known perks/benefits. Should the admin feel bound to answer every stupid comment/question that comes in the way of an arbitrary post on the forums?

This is actually an excellent question. I have erred on the side of too many responses to questions about the admin role rather than too few. I will stop answering nonsensical charges trumped up by those who dislike PP the poster.

4. Wilful stupidity should never be allowed to wield its tyranny over a moderate republic.

Good point, and I take the blame for responding to that stupidity to keep it going over multiple threads. I shall stop playing my part in this.

[Guest]

We can all argue about first amendment and applicability to private forums. But,

1. Can the moderator/admin send 3 warnings to known disruptive elements and chop them off if the abuser persists?
2. Admin is a thankless job and has no known perks/benefits. Should the admin feel bound to answer every stupid comment/question that comes in the way of an arbitrary post on the forums?
3. If the admin feels like logging in 10 times a day, in addition to his dual role of being a forum participant, there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do - wait, actually there is. They can send a nice little request to delete their handle and disappear.
4. Wilful stupidity should never be allowed to wield its tyranny over a moderate republic.

Excellent point. Can Admin Charvaka expel me from this forum? When considering this, consider also the fact that this forum is for ex-sulekha posters and i am the third oldest sulekha poster on this site (after Kris and Huzefa). I had started posting on Sulekha since 1998 when the site started.

Moreover, Charvaka both at the time this forum was formed and also later kept promising that he would never expel any poster from this forum. Additionally, Charvaka was the one who started our fight when he went out of his way to try and humiliate me (only to repeatedly end up with egg on his face).

The poster SomeProfile wanted all the ex-sulekha members to move to a reddit forum with no Admin power for anyone, rather than this forum with Charvaka as Admin. The wisdom of SomeProfile's view is much appreciated in view of what has happened on this forum.

[Sponsored content]