Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Alex Ainsworth
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tim, with no disrespect, and i agree wholeheartedly, I thought this was just too obvious to suggest - i was going to but didn't.

Nothing to stop him doing exactly that (assuming he gets round any IP sniffers, if any are in place) is there? - except ego maybe.

He can contribute just as meaningfully with a different handle as he could with his banned one, can't he?. Unless he believes his expired handle gives him powers of expression that he would otherwise not have. The only difference is that if starts adulterating his comments with the same cholic that got him banned he might as well have his new handle written in neon lights.

Although his underlying style may be recognisable he can contribute and interact just as positively as he did before and not bring unnecessary attention to himself by being inflammatory and provocative. He will kindle a new reputation based on a new set of values and principles different to the ones before.

Re your aside. Yes every since the “Bridgegate” articles i have found it difficult to navigate the articles :( but i think that simply was, as you stated, because the traffic was huge. AFAIK, any algorithm will fall apart when the traffic becomes so intense, or at least would have to be implemented at a cost to other factors.
Oct. 17, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Amen Ken :)

(the poetry was incidental)
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thats it now….lol said my piece :)
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:)
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
damn Ken i am running out of pennies :(
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This thread reminds me of the “Wild West” (never mind that Hollywood has totally misrepresented and misconstrued it).

A little town has a sheriff who insists everyone coming to the town leaves their gun at the Sheriff's office. Most of the community agree - some don't. The dissenters are the ones who believe in the right of an individual to carry a gun to protect themselves.

They hold this right to be self-evident until, of course, one day, they, or their loved one, have some raucous, non-law-abiding cowboy, thinking he is above the law and not subject to the petty rules enforced by the appointed sheriff, is holding a gun and pointing it at them, to their forehead. Then they may believe they should ALSO have a gun to defend themselves instead of maybe taking the view that had this cowboy, on arrival to the town, left his gun at the Sheriff's office, this unfortunate scenario would have been averted and preempted.

I have read Dean's posts - or most of them. A lot of people, including me for that matter, do not deny that some of them are insightful and he has good ideas that are worth sharing. But, the BW admin should not be responsible, or have to be, for Dean's inability or unwillingness to co-operate, to not being able to control his emotions, or change his behaviour that others are unhappy about. THE RESPONSIBILITY IS HIS, AND HIS ALONE (or his psychotherpists).

It is not about others being MORE tolerant to accommodate his eccentricities, it is about him being MORE adaptable to a general consensus of behaviour. It is purely a matter of numbers, is it not? Should ONE person change to benefit a community or should 85% of a community change its attitude and mores for HIS benefit. I have an opinion as to which is easier and more commonsensical and one which would please the most people.

To me this all boils down to a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.

Should the right of an individual to say what he wants and how he wants supercede the rights of a person, or a group of people, not to feel offended, insulted or abused when writing a post, NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT MAY BE, that HE happens to believe is worthy of his distemper and criticism and his assumed right to share his disapproval and negative opinion and personalise it?

“A person may forget what you do. A person may forget what you say. but a person will never forget how you made them feel”.

And to ME the above encapsulates it all. Dean may have said MANY things that were meritorious and admirable. But he also said a few things that people dont remember ad verbatim but they do remember the negative feelings that the comments evaporated.

Reading between the lines of many of the above posts it seems to me he upset too many people too many times for too many reasons.

His words are not his epitaph but the feelings he left behind with some of the community. Some may be thick-skinned or immune to it - alas some others are not.

And that (Mike :) lol ) is my (other) penny's worth.












Oct. 17, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
or even say “How high?” Ed
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am very sure you deserved it Mike. I dont feel any rescission is necessary :) sorry to disappoint you :)
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do find this thread quite amusing :)

I have to thank you all - the Pokornyists vs the Regulatorists (ok i made this word up) - for making a rather unexpectant day quite enjoyable.

I can assure you all of one thing: there is one man reading this thread with great and expectant interest :)

I must say one thing. This sort of thread, and what it is deliberating, eventuates, cyclically even, in EVERY SINGLE forum i have been a part of, either as an administrator or as a contributor. Unlike other forums, however, it hasn't (yet) degenerated into the apparent inevitable scenario where one party shows its true colours and indubitably demonstrates why one party will always have the moral advantage.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow Mike, Lazard Award - Kudos!

Does it show that beneath the snarling, saliva-dripping wolf there is a cuddly lickle teddy-bear? :)

Cute…so cute :) hee hee
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) Mike, I do have a sense of humour about myself, believe me :)

2) the lol (initially) was a genuine response to your comment, so take it as a compliment.

3) I know what your Good Man Alex was referring to - i read it after i was writing what i did.

4) I don't care whether you think it is diatribe or not (if you wanted to provoke me, you just did :) )

5) no it doesn't sound nice at all. As i said until you are wearing the same shoes as people who have to make decisions and run a forum then one has to bear it - SIMPLE. This remark is the fulcrum of everything i am saying.

6) If you start to talk in the same manner, with the same rudeness and the same utter disregard to how what you say may affect other people as this guy did. (not once but so many times it was untrue).yes the chances are i wont listen to YOU :) Others might and good for them :) And that counts for you and anyone else who behaves in a similar way to this guy. And this stance holds for the vast majority on this site. There is heated debate, there are strong words, there is undoubted disagreement but there are BOUNDARIES. In forum as in LIFE, geez.

As for people who differ in opinion from me personally.It doesn't bother me I can take criticism (i hope) and I hopefully will be happy to indulge in a discussion. BUT make it ad hominem, be offensive for no other reason than to be hurtful and spiteful and try to excuse your remarks by saying it is for the sake of bridge lol (as this guy did), a person isn't going to get my respect and i am not going to waste my time talking to these people.

It's ok being a maverick. But if a maverick wants to make his own rules and live by his own Constitution no matter what, then he can go set up his own town and make himself the Sheriff.

But, after a while, he will be sat in the saloon at his own table with his Ego sat opposite him for company.

Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene, you felt a need to explain yourself as to why you took actions which you have, in my opinion, the authority to make!

I don't get it. I have read 3 or 4 of his posts. That was enough for me.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lol, Mike, I will refrain from responding in a way i could have and originally thought of - all in the spirit of my original post :)

However, from what i have read you seem to have a rather laissez-faire and quite loose idea on censorship. Although i do consider myself to be quite liberal-minded my only response to your apparent view is this:

until YOU have set up a forum, and take the RESPONSIBILITY of running it as efficiently and as as inviting to all sorts of people as you possibly can, to please the majority and not bow to the few, then i believe that your opinion will not carry much weight with anybody who actually administrates a forum like BW.

When one, or a group of people, has to deal with people, normally the SAME group of people, who day-in day-out abuse the site to vent their own frustrations and see nothing wrong in how their behaviour affects other people (because frankly they don't give a shit or are too selfish to be bothered) you will grow to have a more conservative view than you seem to hold.
Oct. 16, 2015
Alex Ainsworth edited this comment Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i have only started to post and comment on BW recently (although i have been an inactive member for longer), so I have little experience of the behaviour of, and hubbub surrounding, this person experiencing a life ban. So, maybe i can comment objectively.

I have been a member of quite a few forums - heck, even administered a very popular one in the former millennium :) - some having less and some having more traffic - other than BW and there is the inevitable bevy of subscribers (a significant minority) who believe they have the right to say WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want, HOWEVER they want, without paying heed to any of rules of conduct put down by the administrators and take umbrage and they themselves take offence when others see their behaviour as unacceptable.

On top of this, they seem to lack the objectivity to understand and sympathise with how others may interpret what they are saying DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY DO simply by its TONE, its PROVOCATIVE VOCABULARY and its INTENTION TO OFFEND - the latter the most IMPORTANT and primary reason for action by admin.

Moreover, as has been said by Greg and others, DESPITE receiving warnings and being explained not once, not even twice, but more (they obviously have to be given a lesson in human behaviour and how to communicate APPROPRIATELY and how others may perceive the tone of their communication DIFFERENTLY than they apparently do) they continue to violate the rules - not once, not even twice, but more - to the point that the administrators have no other option but to do to the last thing they want to do - impose a (life) ban.

One thing that some people seem not to absorb AND IT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL (at least to me) - one should consider one's ability to contribute to this forum as a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. If one doesn't want to abide by the standards that the owners set then they are free to go post their invective somewhere else or set up their own forum: no doubt in a dystopian atmosphere where anything goes and people seem to spend their time abusing each other and getting off on it in some perverse psychosexual way and nothing really valuable comes out of what they say or out of the forum itself :) I can point people to a swathe of yahoo forums for that crap!!

so with regards to this particular individual?

I must have imposed 100s of bans. Some continued to breach the rules (and they were much laxer than BWs, believe me) with continuous, multiple warnings and their threats and abuse and belief in their own self-importance only catalysed my decision to enforce a life ban.

But, i DID find that after a long ban a FEW (and i say a FEW), given time to reflect on what they had written and how they had written it and had a change of heart to appreciate that others, maybe, do NOT have the same character and belief-systems (in the very widest sense here) as they do became valuable contributors again - some lol apologised publicly and one even became a co-administrator :)

But they came back on ONE PROVISO and ONE PROVISO ALONE. If you do ANYTHING that i have repeatedly warned you not to do - and THE MAJORITY of the people who frequent this forum have enough manners to abide by them - so THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE and MAYBE THINK AGAIN- i will have NO MERCY and re-institute the ban - no warning no discussion no explanation.

That is my penny's worth :)


Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ah Tom Oh Reilly proving Godwins Law :)
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if i got censured for using the words “very inexperienced” my future wife would never have gone out on a date with me.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember that hand Tony…you put your cards down and splayed BOTH of your hands on the table.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Never thought i would hear Shakespeare been quoted on Bridge Winners :)

In the words of Iago (might as well use the same play)

“A good wench, give it to me” hasn't served me very well over the years…. :p

Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
sororicidal? fratricidal? homicidal?

I think i will opt for MARITICIDAL…(killing of one's spouse)

Many years ago, I was playing with my (ex) wife in Tokyo. A very similar hand came up (reverse the majors and minor suits) and her switch crucified my hand, much to the amusement of the Japanese opp who kept bowing his head in deference, for what appeared to be longer than it takes a Pole to bid over 4, with a smile on his face that made me want to stick a bamboo-shoot up it. When we left - with the Japanese man still fookin bowing his head in the background - she had realised what she had done and mumbled a muffled apology as if she had been chewing a toffee-apple. Her comeback was simply to remind me that i had to wash-up from the previous night and go buy some washing-powder.

Needless to say, it took me ages to stop the floor-boards from creaking at our apartment after my fateful retrun from the supermarket with a box of Persil Extra White.

On a less macabre note, I agree with Kieran, tlumpo squeeze with the Samaritans phone number handy, as it were.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
lol Narsingh :) i never kid :p
Oct. 10, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top