Jay Maynard (jmaynard) wrote,
Jay Maynard

  • Mood:

I've been banned from another journal. Whee.

In this entry in youngvanwinkle's journal, he made the claim that banning people from commenting on one's journal typified the "uber-conservative" mentality. He got mad when I pointed out that wbwolf had previously banned me from his, and he was anything but uber-conservative.

He construed this as an attack on the other user behind his back, and proceeded to harangue me about it, then ban me from his journal.

Welcome to the "uber-conservative" crowd, Daniel, you fucking hypocrite. What I was doing was not attacking the other user (except perhaps at a remove or two), but rather pointing out your own fallacy, and now your own hypocrisy.

For those of you reading this who don't know the history here, I've outlined the whole long, sordid story here.

Back in 1996, much of the Animaniacs fandom on the net hung out in one IRC channel, #watertower on DalNet. I was the channel's founder under the rules of that network. (I'd inherited the foundership from the guy who actually created the channel on that network's servers.) That meant that, according to those rules, final decisions over who would be automatically set as channel operator, as well as who could be kicked off the channel and, optionally, banned from joining, were mine and mine alone.

Danny (as he was known then, from his real name, Daniel <redacted>) didn't like that state of affairs. He proposed a "constitution" that would have mandated sharing of power over the channel. He rabble-roused his way into having a vote on it, and the vote passed. I was forced to declare the whole thing null and void by DalNet's rules. The resulting controversy got so bad that I was run out of the channel. I founded another, #WarnerCafe, and left #watertower for good. I almost turned the foundership over to another of the rabble-rousers, but got talked out of that.

When I founded #WarnerCafe, the first thing I did was set a short list of users who would be banned permanently from the channel. Danny (and, later when he adopted the Mintaka persona, that too) was one of those users. The other users didn't appear to care, but Danny complained bitterly. As the channel moved from network to network due to other problems, the ban stayed. Finally, another user convinced me, against my better judgment, to let him back in. In the meantime, he'd apparently had a falling out with the folks in #watertower, and gone off to form his own channel, #bohemia - but was finding that a bit empty.

He proceeded to use his new-found access to try to run users out of #WarnerCafe. He did this by deliberately pushing my buttons every chance he got, depending on the fact that there is a point beyond which I will refuse to take it any more. When I finally re-banned him from the channel (long after I should have, in retrospect), at least two other users left with him, only one of whom has returned.

Since 1996, all I've wanted was for him to get the hell out of my life and stay out. He swears he has changed from the whiny little kid he was in 1996. That may be, but if that's the case, he has not changed for the better.

Punching bag, Mr. <redacted>? Have some of your own back.

wbwolf, whose banning of me from his journal started this latest round of affairs, commented on the situation in this entry in his own journal. He claims that it is not my politics, but my manner which he objects to. That may well be what he sincerely believes, but it is telling that nobody else who might wish to comment on his journal holds the same political views I do. He claims that he is a moderate. Perhaps so, in the context of the left-leaning Pacific Northwest, but in the wider world, he's an unapologetic liberal.

In answer to:

So, if you don't like my politics, why do you have me on your "friends" list? Haven't I made it clear that I want to have nothing to do with you? Rather than irritating each other needlessly, why don't we just forget the other ever existed?

I, like you claim to (although I remain skeptical of the claim, since your actions say otherwise), seek out and welcome opposing views. Moreover, not everything you post is political in nature; I find your DVD commentaries helpful. I remain hopeful that, one day, you will be willing to dig through your archives and try to locate what is likely the only remaining copy of the ircle script I wrote and let you have many moons ago. Finally, if you don't want me to read it, then why are you posting publicly, for all to read?

A last note: I have, for the first time, banned someone from commenting in my journal: Mr. <redacted>. This posting, likewise, has comments disallowed, for the first time for me on LJ. I have enjoyed neither action, but have come to the conclusion that my own sanity demands that I do so.

Edited, 2124 CDT: I have received an email from LiveJournal Abuse demanding that I remove the last name of the person to whom I am referring, as they consider that harassment. I have done so, and will in the future refer to that person as Daniel <redacted> to satisfy this restriction.

Since there was at least one posting to youngvanwinkle's entry in reply to this one advocating that LJ Abuse be contacted, I have a pretty good idea who the coward was that did this, but I'll let readers be the judge of that.

  • Someone should print this poster

    In case you can't read it, it says: VINDICATION: When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them. (hat…

  • Took him long enough...

    So, President Obama finally released his birth certificate. Now we can put the matter to rest. Personally, I've always thought that whether he was…

  • Fun fact for the day

    1337% of pi is 42.

Comments for this post were disabled by the author