You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Stephen Mejias
Stephen Mejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Nov 7 2010 - 3:35pm
On Banning Ourselves

I receive a surprising number of requests from forum members asking (or, even more surprising, demanding) that I ban another forum member. I have no sympathy for this.

JA has suggested a rule, which I find quite attractive:
No forum member can request the banning of another member without also being banned.

How does that sound?

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Love the rule!

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Werks fer me!

I have personally banned myself from the odd forum, but I have never 'taken anyone out' at the same time. Presently, I have banned myself from contributing to the DIYAudio forum,as it gives me ulcers dealing with near entire forums of people similar in attitude and design as Arny and Ethan. I don't go to Audiocircle, either. For the same reasons.

I have friends who peruse the forums but don't post and are not members who have remarked on one particular acoustical guy's behaviour on other forums as well.

As the forum size increases, you will get a lot more of this type of behaviour/situations.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
Love the rule!

I felt it appropriate because if someone is sincere about wanting to suppress freedom of speech for another forum member, then he should be prepared to accept it for himself. No pain, no gain.

If you don't like the rule, then stop emailing Stephen asking for him to ban someone or stop posting messages asking for someone to be banned.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

No, I don't think much of it at all. I may be a PITA to some people on this forum but as someone who is regularly getting hit with drive by's and has been challenged to a bar fight and physical violence by two members of this forum, had people who want to embarrass me like the fake BS posted about me by Ethan that was even denounced by Ethan's friends and then had him tell me he's been watching me with GoogleEarth and wants to look inside my house - all on a thread where I wasn't even engaging Winer - only to have him post his BS poll about what he believes to be my system, I think the rule stinks.

I think the rules stinks big time and is just another way to not establish any rules.

You're tired of hearing it, Stephen, and I'm tired of posting it. You don't have any rules on this forum so trying to enforce rules you make up on the spot isn't a great way to go about civility. Everything you do to try to get civility on this forum has been reactionary. The lack of consistency about any rules you have made up only makes the whole thing worse.

Make up real rules not this BS.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 2 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Oh, Jan, you're really pushing it.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

So you think the posting of material specifically meant to embarrass another member or threatening them with violence is "free speech"? John, that's even dumber than thinking "The Little Black Kid" joke was "free speech".

You don't have any real rules for this forum. Without rules you get anarchy. That shouldn't be hard to figure out after all this time. Establish rules and then we can live by what has been established. This making stuff up as you go along is not going to get anything accomplished on the forum itself.

All I see happening is the insults and attacks get worse as everyone has to live with what the other guy dishes out. That's pretty much what we have now except you two get less email.

Sorry, that doesn't sound like a solution to me.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Stephen, you're limiting free speech.

Establish some rules before you take action.

What's so difficult about that?

Be consistent with your actions.

That's all I've ever asked of you two.

It seems to me there were some basic rules when I first arrived here but they got removed when everyone kept complaining about dup breaking them.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Do I have to remind you just the other day you were interested in page count above all the noise?

So what is it, John? Are you trying to have it both ways?

Pro-active rules would stop that.

Reactionary rules aren't going to accomplish much or change much on the forum.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:

No forum member can request the banning of another member without also being banned.

How does that sound?

So, if I was willing to fall on my sword (jump on the grenade,) I could take someone with me?

Sort of as a service to my fellow man?

Call it maybe a form of suicide banning?

If we paired off just so, we could leave the place clean for Elk and Clifton!

Also, who are we going to sacrifice for DUP's banning, or is this new rule not retroactive?

(Sorry for being silly, just enjoying this game theory form of interent forum strategy.)

Pete B
Pete B's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 1 week ago
Joined: Jul 21 2007 - 11:49am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
Oh, Jan, you're really pushing it.

I think anyone who says the rule stinks should be banned, LOL!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Bet you wouldn't if someone else's name was in that sentence.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:

Quote:
Oh, Jan, you're really pushing it.

I think anyone who says the rule stinks should be banned, LOL!

Did you ever see the old Night Court episode where they had two guys fighting, both claiming to be God?

One guy would say, "I smite you!" to the other, and the other would smite him in return.

It was great.

I like the new rule, that way we don't end up being a bunch of Red Queens.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
So, if I was willing to fall on my sword (jump on the grenade,) I could take someone with me?


LOL, that's perfect. I will gladly accept being banned as long as I get to choose who else is also banned.

--Ethan

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Can I ask why there aren't any rules on this forum and how long it would take to get some rules for this forum? Aren't there "forum rules 101A" somwhere that you could copy/paste from another forum?

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

A great idea.

I bet the only ones who won't like it are our resident PITAs

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:

Quote:
So, if I was willing to fall on my sword (jump on the grenade,) I could take someone with me?


LOL, that's perfect. I will gladly accept being banned as long as I get to choose who else is also banned.

--Ethan

So, if you won't pick me, I won't pick you!

I'm starting to feel like that Star Trek episode with the guys with opposite painted faces.

I keel you!

No, I keel you!

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Ok, Stephen, and JA, what if it is the same peoples names you see all the time.

Maybe some merit in the requests???

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
Oh, Jan, you're really pushing it.

JV pushing it ? Never

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

The way I see it is that people should be allowed to or be given the chance to govern themselves. This seems to be the case here, as it seems to have always been the overall policy at Stereophile, with regards to letters and comments. What you are seeing is a longstanding policy that has been in place, largely, for the life of the rag.

However, this policy--it is now attached to a forum.

Does this mean that changes need be made? Is the situation fundamentally different? Only time will tell -as it is beginning to tell.

IMHO, some people make an ass of themselves repeatedly, for all to see. To me..that is a good thing. Sometimes it is me that is the ass. I don't mind, as I am fully aware of it when I'm doing it.

In the same moment, these people create arguments that less, er, rambunctious audiophiles might not be pleased with and those arguments may make the decision for that particular audiophile to never post at all..whereas...if the atmosphere was a bit less contentious, meaning NO DBT OR ABX discussions allowed, period-penalty of forum membership death!..maybe some of those other potential members might show up. Maybe. Maybe some might come back. (only a few have left? Hard to tell, really)

Sadly, this is all debatable.

Remember, Stephen..I mentioned to you that as the forum evolved..that your moderator stick would have to get bigger - and would end up being used more often. Sadly, in my experience with forums..this has always been true.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Is that why you have been ignoring my requests to ban Lamont Sanford?

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
The way I see it is that people should be allowed to or be given the chance to govern themselves. This seems to be the case here, as it seems to have always been the overall policy at Stereophile, with regards to letters and comments. What you are seeing is a longstanding policy that has been in place, largely, for the life of the rag.

However, this policy--it is now attached to a forum.

Exactly so, KBK.


Quote:
Does this mean that changes need be made? Is the situation fundamentally different? Only time will tell -as it is beginning to tell.

We expect posters to remember that they are adults. Sadly, there are those on both of sides of every debate who are a little too ready to forget that fact. However, Stephen and I have no wish to be people's parents or policemen. I believe most forums (hate the word "fora") are too heavily moderated, so from the outset, we wanted this forum to be self-regulating as much as possible.


Quote:
In the same moment, these people create arguments that less, er, rambunctious audiophiles might not be pleased with and those arguments may make the decision for that particular audiophile to never post at all..whereas...if the atmosphere was a bit less contentious, meaning NO DBT OR ABX discussions allowed, period-penalty of forum membership death!..maybe some of those other potential members might show up. Maybe. Maybe some might come back. (only a few have left? Hard to tell, really)

Indeed. Sadly, almost every on-line forum gets to the point where it dominated by those with the loudest voices and the thinnest skins. Stephen and I shall continue to take stock regularly.

And everyone please note that this new rule is mooted, not implemented. But I do wish that those calling for others to be banned would chill out, at least for a while.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

JA apparently doesn't share the U.K. fondness for banning people for thoughts and opinions. I always knew he was a left leaning libertarian.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

How about this rule, Stephen; no one can be banned? Since you want free speech and no one really seems to think they will get banned no matter what they say or post, why not just say it's an open forum and let it be that?

If you make that plain up front, then everyone knows what sort of forum to expect. If you hold banishment over our heads or offer it as a punishment for bad behavior but so infrequently and inconsistently apply the rule, then that has different expectations for everyone on the forum. Testing the limits is not an uncommon activity. No limits and then no banishment.

It's not the sort of forum I would care to stay at but it is a way to deal with this and not have to answer emails all the time.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

At first glance, I thought the idea novel and amusing. But a few seconds later, I realized this could be frought with abuse. For the member who, say, only came here recently from another audio forum, say a forum with a very different slant on audio, and who, say, kind of hates audiophiles anyway, and who say, only came here to kick up dust and never planned on staying on a forum like this anyway... well he gets to take his favourite opponent out this way? Someone who may have already been here, say, for 2 years already? Nuh-uh. I don't think that's fair!

And no sooner had I thought that, when I come across the next page of this thread and read this:

"LOL, that's perfect. I will gladly accept being banned as long as I get to choose who else is also banned."

We've seen the "vengeance test" here recently, we'll see the "vengeance ban" if this rule is seriously considered!

No forum needs a thousand moderators. And that's what happens if every member thinks they can do a better job of being moderator than the moderator. I trust the moderator to be a better judge of banning someone, than any member who pesters the mod to do so. Because they are not going to base the decision so much on their personal feelings about the other member, as the member who demands someone's head is doing. If someone is that bad that they require banning, then it's not like it's going to be this big secret to the moderator, which is being revealed by the complainant. The complainant tries to influence the moderator, but I feel a good moderator already knows whether someone should or shouldn't be banned, and doesn't need unsolicited help in knowing or deciding something like that.

Hell, there's a lot of people I'd like to see go here, but I have never asked the moderator to get rid of them for me,
because in no way am I arrogant enough to think I can or should do his job better. So the only time I've contacted moderation to make a complaint against someone was over the SPAM threads. And even then, only because I felt they make our forum look bad.

In fact, I have never in 20 years emailed an admin to ask him to ban someone. That's just beyond lowlifeness, in my book. If you can't tolerate comments you disagree with, if you think the world should revolve around you and your beliefs, if you think you or your opinions are more important than others and should be accorded more consideration than someone else, then buddy, you're in the wrong place. Just stay away from all public discussion forums, or create your own, and boot people off at whim. See how many people are actually going to stay!

(I once created my own audio discussion forum but guess what? I made a place for the DBT freaks to have their DBT freak-outs, and debate whether 256kbps can be heard over 192kbps, or whatever it is the specheads like to waste their time debating. I just did it in such a way that those who wanted to be left alone to discuss audio in a meaningful way as it was meant to be discussed, had their place as well. As much distaste as I have for the DBT warriors, I did not ban them from my forum. Because I felt the quality of free speech is important enough that I'd be a bit hypocritical to leave anyone out who wanted a voice, within the theme of the forum).

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

How fast can you type, dude?

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Ok, I've watched these forums for over 4 years now, posting seldom........but, i've pretty much figured out who is whom, meaning who to listen to. I've learned a bunch, most of which helped me build my "rig" up to what I consider is pretty damn good. I've seen many of the people that helped me drop away, due to, I guess the BS about DBT, personal attacks and what not...I'll still read, but not post. Most internet boards spiral down to this point. I've been around since the alt.rec days, and I see the same things over and over. Most of you seem to spend more time posting than listening. So' I'll ban myself, and be done with it. Thank God. get a life, enjoy your "rigs", listen to music, be thankful for what you have. Nuff said.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

One time a professor asked me if I had my "paper" completed yet. My answer was, "no". He replied, "if you don't complete your paper you will get an F for the course. I replied back, "I've gotten an F before". This was even before the Internet. Troublemaker till the end.

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

And?

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

ooops broke my ban, Game On.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

And? I've been banned before.

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

So? I got laid once.

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

And then it happened again and again. With a bit of luck it'll happen in a bit.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

jj got lucky the other day - or so they say.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Skellum? Can I call you Skullfuck?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
Ok, I've watched these forums for over 4 years now, posting seldom........but, i've pretty much figured out who is whom, meaning who to listen to. I've learned a bunch, most of which helped me build my "rig" up to what I consider is pretty damn good. I've seen many of the people that helped me drop away, due to, I guess the BS about DBT, personal attacks and what not...I'll still read, but not post. Most internet boards spiral down to this point. I've been around since the alt.rec days, and I see the same things over and over. Most of you seem to spend more time posting than listening. So' I'll ban myself, and be done with it. Thank God. get a life, enjoy your "rigs", listen to music, be thankful for what you have. Nuff said.

Wait!

Don't go!

Oops, I replied to post 33. Never mind.

Welcome back!

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

I have an idea:

Any time anyone asks for another forum member to be banned, DUP gets a day in the sun!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 3 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Axon
Axon's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 2 2005 - 1:44pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

I'd much rather have a rule prohibiting abusive language, and have it actually enforced.

Too many people here act like this is RAO. If that's what the mods want, then go ahead, but I prefer my forums (more) civilized. (And yes, I have seen administrative action come down on pro-DBT people there.) People are a lot friendlier when there are real, impartial consequences to flaming somebody out.

That said, I certainly don't think Stephen can do that aggressive a job of moderating on his own, but I'm not exactly sure who else would be qualified. I'm certainly not volunteering.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:

That said, I certainly don't think Stephen can do that aggressive a job of moderating on his own, but I'm not exactly sure who else would be qualified. I'm certainly not volunteering.

Me!! ME!!! ME!!! me!!! ME!!! Pleaseee, Mr. Ko-tteh!

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

I have said this in different ways before, so listen to me now and ignore me later.

The psycho-wars are just tedious and boring. No one wants to read a 10,000 word dissertation on the history of hurt feelings and name calling. How can members with such obvious intelligence and knowledge about a HOBBY take themselves SO FUCKING SERIOUSLY and resort to the immature whining and nauseously repetitive FINGER POINTING and TATTLETALING that would embarrass a 3rd grader?

HOW CAN THIS BE? HUH? HOW? IT'S INSANE!

AND GRATUITOUS CAPITALIZATION!! WITH EXCLAMATION ABUSE!!

NUTS!!!

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

But of course Lamont! Not a great Dead album, but an iconic cover.

Can I call you Honey?

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

We should ban Mejias, isn't he an admitted stalker ? Wasn't he following Cruise's wife?

Ban JA too. Why? He is British, that says it all.

Alex is a liberal so he's gotta go, Buddha too.

I'm a liberal , a university prof AND a musician, a C word musician (that's classical for you smut minded out there)

I never should have been allowed on in the 1st place.

Hell, let's just ban everyone . This forum will be the better for it.

Wasn't Ban a deodorant popular in the 50's ?

The 50's were the golden age of audio, therefore banning is good.

About time we had some logic here.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
But of course Lamont! Not a great Dead album, but an iconic cover.

Can I call you Honey?

You sure do have purty lips.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

You should see what he can do with em.


Quote:

Quote:
But of course Lamont! Not a great Dead album, but an iconic cover.

Can I call you Honey?

You sure do have purty lips.

Skellum
Skellum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 6 months ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 5:07pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

Not for you,,,,,,,honey

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
Not for you,,,,,,,honey

Explain this to me again. I didn't know somebody could shoot themself with their own arrow. We killed a man, Skully. Shot him in the back. A mountain man. A cracker.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

who said you had a choice

Quote:
Not for you,,,,,,,honey

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: On Banning Ourselves

DUP stepped over the line. Not just once, but several times. DUP persistently and consistently insulted anyone who did not believe in Saint Van Alstine, or Legacy speakers (and this is just the short list). For me, belief in ANY sonic specific is cause for banning. Sonic specific. Sound is general and specific. You zero in to what fits your style. When you start ridiculing others for not agreeing with your own style, it is time to say
sayonara.

Good riddance. This was not a one-time offense.

We all love music, or we wouldn't be posting here. We all want ideas as to how to improve what we hear in our own listening spaces. Constructive ideas, not destructive ones. I am certain Stephen Mejias has spent sleepless nights on this issue. He is a good guy who loves music, live and recorded, and he hates to be the axe-man. But somebody has to draw lines, and Stephen is he. Because he loves music, live and recorded, and hates to be the axe-man.

The sort of bullshit that gets passed for sound argument, now occurring on this thread, is why I am no longer interested.

Let's be specific. "Why I am no longer interested" is not an encoded whine. The key phrase is, "...no longer interested," NOT "pissed and arguing because nobody agrees with me." "No longer interested." This has become boring shit. Bitch fights about who is "right" about the sound of music have become boring and contentious.

Then more bitch fights about censorship and why nobody has unlimited license to insult sensitive souls. Not to mention why MY ears are not universally accepted as "right."

What happened to the music?

Fuck y'all. I'm goin' fishin', and when I come back, I'm gonna listen to my tunes, as best as I can afford to put 'em quasi-live into my living room.

And, happy tunes.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves

You're not going fishing. You're going to change your Depends and watch Law & Order. You've always been a prima donna here. I'm sort of glad you're "no longer interested". You ran out of things to talk about years ago. You're the one that is boring.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On Banning Ourselves


Quote:
You're not going fishing. You're going to change your Depends and watch Law & Order. You've always been a prima donna here. I'm sort of glad you're "no longer interested". You ran out of things to talk about years ago. You're the one that is boring.

I would have to agree with you on that call, Lamont.

Clifton is guilty of every behavior he has criticized but doesn't have the self perception and/or honesty to admit it.

Let's add self deluded to prima donna.

Pages

  • X