Lifetime ban on AGD

[37!ws]

I think it is based on the person's IP address, in which case, the person could use somebody else's computer to visit the site, but they couldn't be at the location of the banned IP address to do so. I could totally be mistaken, however.

Blocking IP addresses is useless these days. As someone else commented earlier, many ISPs have dynamic addresses. Also, blocking an IP address could actually block someone else who had nothing to do with anything. And, of course, it's very easy to spoof IP addresses.

[Juice Brohnston]

What is AGD up these days? Hasn't posted on BBB either. Anyone in touch with him? I gotta figure the ban was hard on him.

[37!ws]

No, he's quite active, actually.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

What is AGD up these days? Hasn't posted on BBB either. Anyone in touch with him? I gotta figure the ban was hard on him.

He has been posting vacation photos on Facebook and appears to be fine.

[Dave in KC]

The only run-in I had with AGD was when I was complaining about POTUS(BHO) in the Summer of 2009. He said I probably had "a problem with his skin color."  That certainly wasn't the case.  I did not respond, but it came out in the wash I was right about how bad he is for our country. Very bad.

[the captain]

Yeah, it has been terrible coming out of a recession and expanding human rights despite an entrenched, absurdist obstructionsim. Let's pretend that's true.

[pixletwin]

The only run-in I had with AGD was when I was complaining about POTUS(BHO) in the Summer of 2009. He said I probably had "a problem with his skin color."  That certainly wasn't the case.  I did not respond, but it came out in the wash I was right about how bad he is for our country. Very bad.

Yeah he was terrible. Terribly awesome! 

[Robbie Mac]

The only run-in I had with AGD was when I was complaining about POTUS(BHO) in the Summer of 2009. He said I probably had "a problem with his skin color."  That certainly wasn't the case.  I did not respond, but it came out in the wash I was right about how bad he is for our country. Very bad.

Yeah he was terrible. Terribly awesome! 

But but but but, he's an Evuuul Muuuuslim Socialist!!!!!!

[jeffh]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

[drbeachboy]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

Not likely using PM's. The receiver's are who took offense and ratted him out.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

If I understood it correctly there was no potential libel from AGD, the potential libel was on some un-named source.

[Emily]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

If I understood it correctly there was no potential libel from AGD, the potential libel was on some un-named source.

It's unclear to me whether he was knowingly passing on false information, which is the key to that question.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

If I understood it correctly there was no potential libel from AGD, the potential libel was on some un-named source.

It's unclear to me whether he was knowingly passing on false information, which is the key to that question.

I thought it was made clear AGD attributed the information to a source. Also, it wasn't published, it was private. I'm not a lawyer but the only potential libel might be the published claims that AGD committed "potential libel".

[Emily]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

If I understood it correctly there was no potential libel from AGD, the potential libel was on some un-named source.

It's unclear to me whether he was knowingly passing on false information, which is the key to that question.

I thought it was made clear AGD attributed the information to a source. Also, it wasn't published, it was private. I'm not a lawyer but the only potential libel might be the published claims that AGD committed "potential libel".

regarding "libel", yeah yeah -defamation.
It really depends on details that I'm not privy to: mainly, when he passed it on, did he know it was untrue but indicate it was true, would be the main question.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if it's already be said, I couldn't slog thru all 25 pages.

It should be noted that after the mods became aware of AGDs potentially libel pms, had they not put a stop to it, they, the mods, could have perhaps put themselves in in legal jeporidy. Stranger things have happened.

If I understood it correctly there was no potential libel from AGD, the potential libel was on some un-named source.

It's unclear to me whether he was knowingly passing on false information, which is the key to that question.

I thought it was made clear AGD attributed the information to a source. Also, it wasn't published, it was private. I'm not a lawyer but the only potential libel might be the published claims that AGD committed "potential libel".

regarding "libel", yeah yeah -defamation.
It really depends on details that I'm not privy to: mainly, when he passed it on, did he know it was untrue but indicate it was true, would be the main question.

"yeah yeah -defamation"?

I think that has already been answered as AGD attributed it to a source, so the potential libel would be on the source.  Plus it was private and not published, so not even potential libel by AGD it seems to me.

[Emily]

Sorry if that came across as a little rude. In my head it was a more friendly, teasing tone.
You're right, it would not be libel, it would be another form of defamation - slander. I think people often use the word 'libel' when they mean, more generally, defamation.
Again, if someone knowingly passes on defamatory information, indicating it is true, they could be held liable, whether or not they are the source of the information and whether or not they indicated the source.
I have no inside knowledge of what happened with AGD, so I don't know if this pertains.

[Cam Mott]

Sorry if that came across as a little rude. In my head it was a more friendly, teasing tone.
You're right, it would not be libel, it would be another form of defamation - slander. I think people often use the word 'libel' when they mean, more generally, defamation.
Again, if someone knowingly passes on defamatory information, indicating it is true, they could be held liable, whether or not they are the source of the information and whether or not they indicated the source.
I have no inside knowledge of what happened with AGD, so I don't know if this pertains.

OK, got ya on the tone.

Slander is libel spoken publicly right?  If so, still doesn't apply to AGD as so far explained which didn't claim he passed it on as truth as far as I remember.  Maybe I've forgotten something.

[Emily]

Sorry if that came across as a little rude. In my head it was a more friendly, teasing tone.
You're right, it would not be libel, it would be another form of defamation - slander. I think people often use the word 'libel' when they mean, more generally, defamation.
Again, if someone knowingly passes on defamatory information, indicating it is true, they could be held liable, whether or not they are the source of the information and whether or not they indicated the source.
I have no inside knowledge of what happened with AGD, so I don't know if this pertains.

OK, got ya on the tone.

Slander is libel spoken publicly right?  If so, still doesn't apply to AGD as so far explained which didn't claim he passed it on as truth as far as I remember.  Maybe I've forgotten something.

It doesn't have to be spoken publicly; it has to have a public nature: as in, damaging to a public reputation. So a 'whisper campaign' can constitute slander.
I'm a little uncomfortable having this conversation in this thread though, because I wouldn't want people to infer from my statements that that's what AGD did or that I believe that that's what AGD did.
I will reiterate, I have no particular knowledge of AGD's activities.

[Lee Marshall]

Not that I'm in favour of the things 'they' say he did... ... ...not at all... ... ...but...I miss Andrew.  After 13 years, or so, of trading thoughts with him he was an ongoing part of the whole on-line trip.  And his site...thanks to his friends and contributors as well...is an outstanding resource.

Geez it's a shame we've ALL ended up doing without.

[Emily]

Not that I'm in favour of the things 'they' say he did... ... ...not at all... ... ...but...I miss Andrew.  After 13 years, or so, of trading thoughts with him he was an ongoing part of the whole on-line trip.  And his site...thanks to his friends and contributors as well...is an outstanding resource.

Geez it's a shame we've ALL ended up doing without.

I didn't have 13 years interacting with him, but I miss his presence here, too, sometimes.

[Jay]

Hell, I miss the cranky old guy myself. If what I've heard is true then he deserves to be banned. But I still miss him.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

I'd take Carol Kaye over him any day.  But I'd trade them both for Mikie.

[Beckgtr09]

To me sometimes whenever I'd post something or want to reply to a posting, he seemed like an " online bully " to me. Maybe it's just me. Granted I don't post 10 to 15 posts a day or even a week, but still, I feel weakminded and dumb whenever I ask something or wish to address something. I sure hope that maybe I can overlook that feeling and wish to make a comment every now and then.

Ted

[Emily]

To me sometimes whenever I'd post something or want to reply to a posting, he seemed like an " online bully " to me. Maybe it's just me. Granted I don't post 10 to 15 posts a day or even a week, but still, I feel weakminded and dumb whenever I ask something or wish to address something. I sure hope that maybe I can overlook that feeling and wish to make a comment every now and then.

Ted

Hi Ted, certainly he could be rough and insulting. Please don't let anyone intimidate you from posting. Just let that sort of rudeness roll off your back. I would love to learn what you have to say.

[jeffcdo]

To me sometimes whenever I'd post something or want to reply to a posting, he seemed like an " online bully " to me. Maybe it's just me. Granted I don't post 10 to 15 posts a day or even a week, but still, I feel weakminded and dumb whenever I ask something or wish to address something. I sure hope that maybe I can overlook that feeling and wish to make a comment every now and then.

Pretty good summary of my feelings regarding the Smiley Smile board in general.  I'm a longtime lurker but rarely post, as people are very quick to "jump down your throat" here.  I've never really understood the undercurrent of nastiness that pervades this site.