Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
J0nny Ling0

Where's Bumpy?

Recommended Posts

Darn splinters under the flesh: first they poke-and-prick at you, then they fester, puss up, burst, and hopefully eject themselves. They cause more aggravation than is needed. Spoken from one who works with their hands for a living.

~HAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, why shouldn't I? I wasn't asking specifically YOU why he got kicked off, I was asking those who had witnessed whatever "untoward behavior" in some particular thread he may have been involved in, including you as well as others. I was soliciting their/your OPINIONS on the matter. That's what drives this place right? People's opinions concerning their experiences when involved with The Way. Soliciting peoples' opinions concerning their many things we deal with here, there, and all over the place. And so, since when has "publicity" in the GreaseSpot Cafe been an issue? Why has the Grease Spot Cafe become a place of intense "moderation" which amounts to nothing more than severe CENSORSHIP? It used to be a place where one could speak one's mind without fear of being CONTROLLED by SOMEONE HIGHER UP, but nay, no more it seems! Ya know, I may have a some fond memories of times in The Way, BUT, I too did not like the SUPPRESSION of personal thoughts and beliefs, and it certainly seems as if things have come full circle here at the GSCafe.

Opinions have not been suppressed. As far as going "against the mission of GS Cafe". That's a phrase I've used a few times. In particular, on the Losing the Way thread, I felt that some were being disrespectful unnecessarily to Kristen and to posters that were clearly victims. The thread was a discussion of her journey through the Way, NOT a thread on how great VP Wierwille was. That person is free to start his own thread on that subject. What was violated, in my opinion, not respecting the rights of other posters. The two posters, oldiesman and White Dove, will be hard pressed to say I do much censoring of them, but they probably won't volunteer that info. The other instance was with MIKE. He, admittedly, has his own mission. I've told him to keep the doctrinal conversations in the doctrinal section. In About the Way, his posts generally derail meaningful discussions.

We are not suppressing or controlling anyone, that is in your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really want to play the telephone game, but bumpy says he never got an email ... unless it was sent somewhere he hasn't checked for some time.

I'm not sure what is normal when banning someone ... just the banning is an embarrassment, but I can see not making it public if it wasn't done in public.

Anyway ... company is here ... time to play ... :)

(removed somethin that referred to something someone else removed ... )

Edited by rhino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhino,

I'm not going to try to track down Bumpy. But I used the email in his profile, if that isn't correct not much I can do.

he may remember calling someone something that exterminators search for. Not the first time he's done it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so, I can see that although there are some here who didn't particularly share Bumpy's point of view, it does seem that there are definitely those here who express their belief in his right to have shared his own point of view here. And so, really, I think this has become a valid discussion, even though Rumrunner has simply dismissed it as "crap". Hey, whatever dude. And so now, after having gone back and read Bumpy's "Auf Wiedersehen" thread (good bye in German-and is that high German or low German?), I am mystified as to why that thread was locked? Why was Bumpy's thread "locked out"? Go ahead and read it.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=17603

After the last post where Excathedra says; "you take care", there is a little icon that says; "closed" with a little "padlock" on it. Just what is up with that? I mean, it was a pretty innocuous thread and only eight posts long. Yes, I agree that Bumpy has been a provocateur couched with his brand of humor with a will to promote "moving on and enjoying life now" a not so terrible sentiment as LZ expressed, but I don't see that as a reason to kick his bloomin arse out of here or lock his thread down ya know?

I remember when I once "bid my adieu" here (yes you remember-yes, I know it was overly dramatic-sorry-and yes, I'm still here :rolleyes: ), that the dang thread went on for over twenty pages! Socks even came along at one point and said something to the effect of; "Ya know, before long, this long good bye thread is going to become a welcome back thread"! And that thread got ugly and nasty if I recall correctly, but it didn't get locked down. So, why has this happened? It certainly seems to me that the wind has changed around here and that the free speech aspect of the GSCafe is not what it once was. My opinion of course.

Yes, as Rummrunner, with his poetic ability said of Pawtuckett; "It's his time and his dime", and to this I have to agree. Pawtucket can do whatever he wishes with his own site. But it seems to me as if "what once was" has now morphed into something else here and that the "bait has been switched". If opinion and debate is encouraged, then why is an opinion that differs from someone elses not only discouraged, but also "moderated out" by forcing the whole human being out? Kind of like; "Oh, you are out of the Shrine!" Take your Fez and little go-cart and hit the road Jack!"

I remember once when a gal stood up at Emporia before VPW and LCM and stated her opinion on something that differed from that of VP and LC, that VP told her to "shut up and sit down! You got yer brains in yer a $$ girl!" and she ran crying from the room. I was aghast, but like a good drone, I figured that there must have been something wrong with her "spiritually" ya know. Well, I think Bumpy's dissenting opinion (WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NOT PRO-TWI) should be welcome here. Look, I and many others here have had our feet held to the fire, and I think that no one should be exempt from the same, including the owner of the site. I didn't start out to do this, but simply was asking "why"? But now that it seems to have made the Owner of the site very uncomfortable for the publicity of this question, I wonder why he would want to cover up his reasons for kicking Bumpy out. Or, has this site morphed into a "TWI hate site, all dissenting opinions unwelcome" ? If that is the case, then there is no debate and those who disagree really should be kicked out, and I am fine with that. That's what happened in The Way. I disagreed with LCM and the others and was summarily kicked out. Fine and good riddance. But I didn't think that this was one of those places, that's all...

By the way, Bumpy, with a plate of oysters and a glass of wine says "howdy do" from some dang place Across The Pond. He and I and his wife and mine are goin fishin once he gets here to Alaska!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, Bumpy asked me to post this, a note he got from a friend:

Hey bumpy,

Just saw a news report that you were on. Cool! Here is the link: www.News3Online.com

Best,

Edward K.

And, Bumpy asked me to post this, a note he got from a friend:

Hey bumpy,

Just saw a news report that you were on. Cool! Here is the link:

http://www.news3online.com/index.php?code=...1Qz5ne19b41e7O5

Best,

Edward K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that anyone has solicited my opinion on this bumpy matter, but I've not really had a problem with his views.

Perhaps that's because he seems like an equal opportunity jerk and makes himself a nuisance to many.

His social skills irritate me (mildly) rather than endear him to me.

Indeed, I do NOT miss him, but neither did I mind him being here. When he tried to bug me (and he did put effort into it for a short time), I just ignored him. He apparently went on his way to see who else he could bug...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lingo - read what Rocky wrote - that is my opinion entirely - I don't care about Bumpy's views - and - to my recollection never took issue with him about his views. However my statement still stands that GSC is owned and run by Pawtucket. If you think he is a censoring bastard then feel free to not show up again - or feel free to castigate him - whatever. You walk in my door and I offer you a shot of good scotch - you don't like the brand? go away - buy your own scotch.

For a fellow who I recall as being pretty intelligent you do yourself a series of injustices on GSC

Not that anyone has solicited my opinion on this bumpy matter, but I've not really had a problem with his views.

Perhaps that's because he seems like an equal opportunity jerk and makes himself a nuisance to many.

His social skills irritate me (mildly) rather than endear him to me.

Indeed, I do NOT miss him, but neither did I mind him being here. When he tried to bug me (and he did put effort into it for a short time), I just ignored him. He apparently went on his way to see who else he could bug...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And so now, after having gone back and read Bumpy's "Auf Wiedersehen" thread (good bye in German-and is that high German or low German?), I am mystified as to why that thread was locked?
If you go back and re-read the thread, you'll see that Bumpy started the thread. So what? If he started the thread, then he wasn't banned or suspended at the time he started it. As I stated near the end of that thread, Bumpy, who also posted as "Grumpy", in an attempt to get around an earlier suspension, was asked to choose one handle and that the other would be deleted. His thread gives the impression that he was being kicked off Grease Spot, which was a lie.

I'm the one who locked the thread, and I locked it because Bumpy was promulgating a lie about actions taken on this website. The final post came after my remarks but before I locked down the thread. rather than delete the thread, I chose to lock it down and post an explanation, hoping to eliminate the need to start yet another discussion on why an action by a moderator was taken.

Now you know.

Pawtucket's decision to finally suspend him had nothing to do with my decision to lock down the thread, as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember when I once "bid my adieu" here (yes you remember-yes, I know it was overly dramatic-sorry-and yes, I'm still here :rolleyes: ), that the dang thread went on for over twenty pages! Socks even came along at one point and said something to the effect of; "Ya know, before long, this long good bye thread is going to become a welcome back thread"!
Yeah, how is it going now that you've got all that oil money coming in?
Well, I think Bumpy's dissenting opinion (WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NOT PRO-TWI) should be welcome here.
Why do you think Bumpy was booted for his "dissenting opinion"? Despite several posters, including me, making mention of opinions that distract from the "mission of GSC", pawtucket never said that Bumpy was out due to his "dissent".

The only thing that pawtucket mentioned was:

he may remember calling someone something that exterminators search for. Not the first time he's done it
- apparently he used his skills at personal attacks once too often. Edited by Oakspear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you go back and re-read the thread, you'll see that Bumpy started the thread. So what? If he started the thread, then he wasn't banned or suspended at the time he started it. As I stated near the end of that thread, Bumpy, who also posted as "Grumpy", in an attempt to get around an earlier suspension,

Every other privately-operated board I've ever been on, if you attempt to go around a suspension through any means

and are caught, you earn a PERMANENT BAN, NO DISCUSSION.

The GSC is FAR too lenient, IMHO, to permit ANYONE to post who pulled that at all.

was asked to choose one handle and that the other would be deleted. His thread gives the impression that he was being kicked off Grease Spot, which was a lie.

I'm the one who locked the thread, and I locked it because Bumpy was promulgating a lie about actions taken on this website. The final post came after my remarks but before I locked down the thread. rather than delete the thread, I chose to lock it down and post an explanation, hoping to eliminate the need to start yet another discussion on why an action by a moderator was taken.

Now you know.

Pawtucket's decision to finally suspend him had nothing to do with my decision to lock down the thread, as far as I know.

Anyone with experience as a moderator or as admin would require very little explanation.

Staff has to act in the best interests of the board-as they interpret those best interests.

In other words, either you can give Paw and staff the benefit of the doubt, or you can't.

If you can, you can take any questions to him privately, and accept his word as to any replies.

That means making a federal case out of every decision is unwarranted, and a colossal waste of the staff's time.

Having to stop and compose multiple posts justifying in excruciating detail every decision they make is

ridiculous, and this is the first board I'm on that even entertains that.

If you can't give Paw and staff the benefit of the doubt, you can do what I do when I don't trust the staff at a board,

and just DON'T GO THERE and DON'T POST THERE.

There is no inalienable right to post at the GSC in the US Constitution.

And there's a right and wrong way to approach the staff at a messageboard.

Don't think I haven't disagreed with Paw- but you'll be hard-pressed to find me posting publickly on it-I take it

to him privately. I've disagreed with him a number of times, but I also acknowledge that all GSC decisions are,

after all, HIS decisions, and just because they aren't the way I would do them doesn't mean they are wrong.

You'd have a whole different perspective on this if you'd ever been a moderator or an admin on a reputable

messageboard on your own. (I've been moderator AND admin, more than once, on a number of boards.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting viewpoint WordWolf - just posted something private to someone about a similar experience running a MUSH... I think your points are cogent to the discussion - thanks for chiming in as you did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of anything else, Bumpy was guilty of sockpuppetry and trolling. Both are considered disruptive behaviors on most forums. I don't believe his opinions were ever the issue. More so was his divisive style of stating them as a troll and then refusing to enter an honest debate about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of anything else, Bumpy was guilty of sockpuppetry and trolling. Both are considered disruptive behaviors on most forums. I don't believe his opinions were ever the issue. More so was his divisive style of stating them as a troll and then refusing to enter an honest debate about them.

I looked up those terms on wikipedia. I suppose there are other places to learn what the generally accepted definitions are. However, as stated in wikipedia, Jim is absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pawtucket asked:

Linda, are you asking me to publicly state what someone did to get suspended?

Not exactly (I'll explain in a sec).

Would you rather have dozens of people PMing you to ask if someone got banned? If you just said, "So-and-so was suspended for breaking the name-calling rule," then there would be no need for you to answer a bunch of individual posters privately. It would be out in the open. IMO, that would take the wind out of the sails of Bunpy's attempts to stir things up behind the scenes.

So to answer your question, I don't think it's necessary to give the specific details. I do think, though, that there'd be a lot less speculation and behind-the-scenes "buzz" if it were just stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pawtucket asked:

Not exactly (I'll explain in a sec).

Would you rather have dozens of people PMing you to ask if someone got banned? If you just said, "So-and-so was suspended for breaking the name-calling rule," then there would be no need for you to answer a bunch of individual posters privately. It would be out in the open. IMO, that would take the wind out of the sails of Bunpy's attempts to stir things up behind the scenes.

So to answer your question, I don't think it's necessary to give the specific details. I do think, though, that there'd be a lot less speculation and behind-the-scenes "buzz" if it were just stated.

Linda, if I did that there would be a thread for each action that I have taken. I generally tell the person being suspended and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So to answer your question, I don't think it's necessary to give the specific details. I do think, though, that there'd be a lot less speculation and behind-the-scenes "buzz" if it were just stated.

I agee.

Still, I guess it would get cumbersome, looking at how you put it, Paw-T. :)

I'm highly in flavor of the simplest approach, whatever that is.

I definitely don't think - if it were me - I'd get into a lot of back and forth he said/she said stuff. If it seems like a problem and there's a warning and a disagreement, it's a free country. No one's forcing anyone to come here and endure reading posts they don't like. Don't like them, don't read them. Or post an opposing opinion.

But if I'm warned and I disagree, some interpretation of the rules of the board will prevail and that's that. If I don't like it and it goes against my view, tough tookies. That's the way it goes. That's the way it goes in life, I don't always get to do everything I want, the way I want, whenever I want, regardless of what others think of it and even if they don't like it.

Expecting that here is unrealistic. Labelling it as some form of post-Way-Bad-WayBrain-You'reNoBetterThanTheyWere control is silly.

Taking a bunch of time to manage everyone's online posting problems has got to be a thankless and marginally useful activity. I wouldn't do it, I know that. We either get along and work it out online or not. If someone can't find the balance of what works and doesn't work here, I've said it before - start another board and expand the resources there. See where that goes. Nothing preventing anyone from doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny...I don't know about all that. I agree with Rumrunner...Paw runs this place on his own dime...and he OWNS it. This isn't a democracy! This is an anti twi website...period.

...not trying to run anyone off...I'm just sayin'...

Upon more reflection I must admit that, in practice, Groucho's description seems to be accurate.

Linda, thanks for at least acknowledging my points, and Simon's. More than from anyone else. getting answers is something else, though some, as noted above, seem to be obvious.

With that.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of us, in spite of those who want to cling to their twi memories of good times and giggles, are trying to warn people about the dangers of a cult. I thought that when Richeson started his elite, waycorps, bless you, you're God's best, let's all bullsh *t each other, bogus, website...maybe some of the twi "lovers of the good things that this insideous cult did for my life" jagoffs...would congregate elsewhere.

...not trying to run anyone off...I'm just sayin'...

And here I thought I was the master of cheap shots, I am humbled by this greatness and see I have much to learn before I can be a true master........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, how is it going now that you've got all that oil money coming in?

Good point :B)

And, by the way, he never did leave--not even for a day after posting that. Your actions speak so loud I can't hear what you're saying comes to mind, but I never like to put anyone in a box, so I won't say it....

Edited by waterbuffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opinions have not been suppressed. As far as going "against the mission of GS Cafe". That's a phrase I've used a few times. In particular, on the Losing the Way thread, I felt that some were being disrespectful unnecessarily to Kristen and to posters that were clearly victims. The thread was a discussion of her journey through the Way, NOT a thread on how great VP Wierwille was. That person is free to start his own thread on that subject. What was violated, in my opinion, not respecting the rights of other posters. The two posters, oldiesman and White Dove, will be hard pressed to say I do much censoring of them, but they probably won't volunteer that info. The other instance was with MIKE. He, admittedly, has his own mission. I've told him to keep the doctrinal conversations in the doctrinal section. In About the Way, his posts generally derail meaningful discussions.

We are not suppressing or controlling anyone, that is in your mind.

Well since my name is mentioned I suppose I'll respond now. First regarding censoring I believe that I acknowledged that fact in my response to your post.

I have found you to be generally fair in your decisions, which is why I was surprised at your request. You think I crossed a line, I think I was in the boundaries of the rules, in the end it was your decision, you pay the bills. I'm good with that.
As to:
As far as going "against the mission of GS Cafe". That's a phrase I've used a few times. In particular, on the Losing the Way thread, I felt that some were being disrespectful unnecessarily to Kristen and to posters that were clearly victims. The thread was a discussion of her journey through the Way, NOT a thread on how great VP Wierwille was.

I do have to say had it not been for the personal attack which I'll point out had nothing to do with the subject and the GreaseSpot mission either. I had no intention of posting there.( I also have not posted on the I read the book thread either and won't unless someone decides to take a cheap shot at me.) This also was disrespectful unnecessary and an assumption that we live in any state of denial or otherwise. It contributed nothing to the subject at hand as you pointed out and yet it stands uncontested to this day as well as the other attacks directed through the tread which also contribute zero to the threads point. It would be easier to accept that your goal was to maintain the purpose of the thread had those posts been addressed as well rather than only those that disagreed with the general GreaseSpot mission.

...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...

...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independent "twigs", and the many who belong to the Way Corps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...

shame on them all...

Exactly what? does this remark have to do with a discussion of her journey through the Way? I submit nothing......

As far as the charge that we were promoting how great Wierwille was , totally bogus... I responded to peoples posts I simply put forth that everyone ,and that includes VP has a right to their fair day in court before being convicted that's a right I take seriously ,maybe you don't but I'd find that hard to believe. If we let it slide once based on who we like or don't like then it slides for all of us. I'll speak out against that, read the lives of those who were wrongfully accused and you'll see why.

The whole problem on the thread can be traced back to the original post which you allowed. Had it been deleted it would have ended the mess. It wasn't which left the choice to fend for myself, which I chose to do. I could have started another thread but the posts were on that one, I believe I remember something about not dragging other threads into one another at one point being discussed. You think I was disrespectful ,your opinion I don't I never called her any names , I have no beef with her. I simply pointed out that her book may have several motives for being published, that's a fair statement. I also never said it was true or untrue, only that it had no documentation other than her opinion, or testimony, that also is a fair statement. As such it makes the book a here it is believe it or not choice each can accept it on their own criteria. Mine requires more than I said so. I'd do the same with any other book . I think those are honest considerations when spending money, you don't Each to their own.

Regarding victims you say clearly , because you accept their story, the truth is there is no hard documentable proof , there is no legal opinion either. so it comes down to which side of the fence you choose to live on and believe. I have stated many times ,but for the sake of saving someone posting again a wrong perception I'll say again here while there is no documentable evidence for the case as well there is none against it either. It comes down to whose word you believe. Me I prefer to not convict anyone without fair hearing some others don't share that American right, I'm glad it is not up to them to choose.

In the end what's done is done you made your choice, so be it........ If you asked in this case do I believe it was a fair one ? I'd have to say No. Because I fail to see where any rules were broken, I doubt any of the words on the thread will go down in time as any great substance so no great loss there being deleted. As far as the continuing snipes on a thread where we can't respond I suppose I could start a thread Snipe At Whitedove Here..... I'm ok with that.........

Edited by WhiteDove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...

...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independent "twigs", and the many who belong to the Way Corps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...

shame on them all...

You continually deny that you are a "Wierwille apologist" and yet you found offense in a quote that didn't name you specifically. Groucho didn't say, "How long will the Wierwille apologists, WhiteDove et al, continue to live in denial?..."

He used a generic term. He named a group of folks. Why did you take up the cause for a group you urgently claim has no relation to you?

You could have said to yourself, "Huh... doesn't apply to me. I wonder what's going on on another thread." Even if you suspected you were implied in that statement, you could have declined to answer to a title that you say isn't your's. The statement could have been buried on the thread amidst other comments about the interview and the pending release of the book.

*Edited to fix grammar*

Edited by doojable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sweat it Dooj - WD also fails to recognize that in every court in the US what is called eye witness testimony is given precedent over "circumstantial" evidence. While there are admitted weaknesses in so-called eye witness testimony it has been shown over many years to be the most trustworthy. Now I grant you that if 50 people claim to have been abducted by aliens and anally probed - well - that is probably subject to further question since there is no particular reason that anal probing goes with alien abduction by inference. However, given the AMPLE and BELIEVABLE testimony given by both women and men about sexual abuse in TWI - in any court - if the drunken cr@Pmouthed, lunatic, abusive, Vic were still alive - he'd be in tough shape in any court in this country. He would fare better in a court where women are considered second rate citizens - perhaps in a country that believed in ritual genital mutilation as a male prerogative. But WTF - since he is dead (thank goodness) we can't take him to court for those crimes of rape and abuse. So let WD have his day - besides - come on - if you egg him on it provides more interesting reading.

Edited for bad grammar

Regarding victims you say clearly , because you accept their story, the truth is there is no hard documentable proof , there is no legal opinion either. so it comes down to which side of the fence you choose to live on and believe. I have stated many times ,but for the sake of saving someone posting again a wrong perception I'll say again here while there is no documentable evidence for the case as well there is none against it either. It comes down to whose word you believe. Me I prefer to not convict anyone without fair hearing some others don't share that American right, I'm glad it is not up to them to choose.

You continually deny that you are a "Wierwille apologist" and yet you found offense in a quote that didn't name you specifically. Groucho didn't say, "How long will the Wierwille apologists WhiteDove, et al continue to live in denial?..."

He used a generic term. He named a group of folks. Why did you take up the cause for a group you urgently claim has no relation to you?

You could have said to yourself, "Huh... doesn't apply to me. I wonder what's going on on another thread." Even if you suspected you were implied in that statement, you could failed to answer to a title that you say isn't your's. The statement could have been buried on the thread amidst other comments about the interview and the pending release of the book.

Edited by RumRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...