Hogeye returns [split from Creator of Galt files for Soc. Sec.]

[Dardedar]

====
This is Hogeye Bill.

That was pretty obvious, within a couple sentences.

I’ve been banned for about five years now.

Well kinda, and for reasons we won't cover again. But you have popped by from time to time under different names. I suppose you do that quite a bit since you brag about getting kick off of forums.

Are you guys still too cowardly to allow radical libertarian thought to be presented on this forum?

You're not a libertarian, you're an anarcho... blah blah blah anarchist (I don't remember all of the other qualifiers you add). It's not a matter of cowardice. I can't comprehend the idea of someone being afraid of your idea. Amused, bored, annoyed, yes. Aside from the specific details of why you got the boot, which I largely forget, in my opinion (I'm not the moderator, SAV is) the reason you are a forum killer is because you must take over every conversation with piles of hyper aggressive pseudo babble about statism and what reads like hatred, basically, of society. I've never known a person who found it remotely persuasive and after a while it's juvenile beyond tiresome.

If Darrel, the owner, want me to stay away I’ll respect his wishes, since he is the owner.

That's the nice thing about Randian anarcho types, they do respect property.

A quick perusal leads me to think you need something other than “liberal” authoritarian drivel.

Hogeye, you are a unique piece. Folks might like to look, and give you a poke and observe that actual anarchists can occur but, that's about it. Your ideology is not going anywhere. It's so upside down and bizarre no place on the earth is even willing to try it. You will need your own planet for this. IMO, it's something like homeopathy in the respect that I find it rather difficult to take seriously. But, there it is.

Do see if you can put a meeting presentation together on it. 15-20 minutes or so. Sometime this spring perhaps. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll convert everyone to anarchy and will need to change the name of the group.

[kwlyon]

Let me know if you ever do prepare a talk John. I will make sure to attend. Ohhh, and you will earn a name tag with "presenter" on it! I will be sooooo jealous:)

[Savonarola]

You want all the benefits yet you want everyone else to pay for them.

Or, using today's definitions, a Republican.

This is Hogeye Bill. I’ve been banned for about five years now.

You were banned fewer than four years ago for violating forum rules. Rules established for the smooth operation of the board, independent of the big, bad State. Rules established by a free market of ideas. You violated those rules repeatedly. We even gave you lots and lots (and lots and lots and lots) of leniency. Even now, you cannot be expected to follow these rules. You know that you are banned and are evading that ban.

Are you guys still too cowardly to allow radical libertarian thought to be presented on this forum?

What do you mean, "still"? You and your radical libertarianism made over one thousand posts on this forum. To my knowledge, not one of these libertarianism-promoting posts were deleted. Despite your banning years ago, your prolific posting still has you as the fifth-most active poster on the board, authoring more than 1 out of every 20 total posts. It is asinine to claim that we refuse to allow your views to be presented.

If Darrel, the owner, want me to stay away I’ll respect his wishes, since he is the owner.

I'll let him speak for himself, but it seems to me that he made it clear in the thread I linked above. (In fact, I argued against your banning for a while before you went way, way overboard.) As you are here now, knowingly evading your ban -- as you have been doing numerous times for a long time -- I find it unlikely that you want to respect his wishes. As it stands, we are now in the unfortunate position of having to choose only one of allowing people to post without registering as a user and allowing a banned user to evade his ban.

[L.Wood]

.

As far as I'm concerned, one should rip off the State early and often. Anything that reduces the State's power and income is a good thing.

Have you tried the Tea Party? NeoConservatives' seek to "Starve the Beast" using the identical reasoning you suggested above. It was the official slogan of Republican inside power brokers in 2001.

.

[Hogeye Bill]

Sav, I’m still not sure what forum rules I supposedly violated. I suggested to someone that it is bad form to hijack a thread, and was accused of impersonating a moderator. I published an email message admitting I might be banned for content; the email evidence was deleted and the banned for content threat denied. You have yet to state what specific forum rule I allegedly broke.

Darrel is asking me questions, so I infer that it’s okay to continue posting.

Wood, although the Tea Party has some libertarians, they are mainly a bunch of warmongers. They say they’re for limited government, but most don’t understand that you can’t have small government with big military. As Randolph Bourne said, “War is the health of the State.” Besides, they are into electoral politics, and I think voting condones the State. Same for neo-cons. Neo-conservatism is pretty much the opposite of everything I stand for.

[Dardedar]

Perhaps this laundry should be done in private. Oh well, all done before.

#1) I am loathe to be involved in banning or censoring anything. I've asked SAV to lean towards maximal freedom in exchanges and posts and he has. As far as I know we haven't deleted a single post out of over 18,000+ on this forum (aside from porn spam and one guy known for trolling atheist/skeptic sites with violent threats). Which shows the absurdity of the assertion that we would.

#2) But even more important than the above goal, is that we be able to have a working, functional forum where normal local folks, including nice little old ladies (or me), can post something without being yelled at with some warmed over knee jerk anti-government anti-"statist" anarcho cult screed.

Clearly Hogeye's little visit today shows once again IN SPADES that he is really angry and pissed off for whatever reason and has no compunction about not just shitting all over everything as before. He's a one trick pony and with over a thousand posts and, good lord almighty Himself knows, we've seen the trick. He's already chased off my wife and a few others from this forum and I'm not interested in that kind of purposeful anti-social behavior screwing up this most import #2 goal (which trumps #1).

SAV:



D.

[Hogeye Bill]

At least Darrel is honest enough to admit he wants me banned for content rather than breaking forum rules. Okay, I'll stop posting here.

[Dardedar]

Hogeye shows how anarchy works in reality. If allowed, the lowest denominator wrecks it for everyone else.

[Savonarola]

To open this post, I will quote nothing but Hogeye's claims and just the opening sentence of message (plus emphasis) that I sent him.

Sav, I’m still not sure what forum rules I supposedly violated.

Despite being warned about derailing threads for the purposes of discussing anarchy, you have once again hijacked the Political Quotes thread.

I published an email message admitting I might be banned for content;

Despite being warned about derailing threads for the purposes of discussing anarchy, you have once again hijacked the Political Quotes thread.

You have yet to state what specific forum rule I allegedly broke.

Despite being warned about derailing threads for the purposes of discussing anarchy, you have once again hijacked the Political Quotes thread.

To pretend that he was banned for content instead of for derailing and hijacking threads is the height of lunacy. None of his content has ever been deleted.

I suggested to someone that it is bad form to hijack a thread,

But both active moderators made the determination that the post in question was not a hijack.

and was accused of impersonating a moderator.

Because he was. It was ludicrous for Hogeye, the only person we've ever had who made a habit of hijacking threads, to pretend that he had any ability to distinguish between what was hijacking and what was not. It would be just as ludicrous for the moderators to pretend that Hogeye's telling people what is acceptable would be acceptable. There is a process for a user to request moderator action, and the directive to do so is elucidated in the forum rules. Hogeye knows this because he did it once; he requested that I move a thread, and I agreed with his assessment. Therefore, he was aware of this forum rule and opted to violate it.

the email evidence was deleted

It was deleted from public viewing because it is standard practice not to post private messages from other people. Regardless, now I -- the original author -- have publicly posted the sentence in question, so that Hogeye will no longer be able to make these asinine claims that he was not notified of having broken rules, was not notified of in which cases he broke rules, and was banned for content.

and the banned for content threat denied.

I do not remember denying such a thread, but I can see that I might considering there was already an active thread addressing the same topic: the one I linked in my previous post here. There was no reason to start another in the first place. Furthermore, the second sentence in the aforementioned message was:

The fact that I have split your post into a new thread does not negate the fact that it violated the conditions you have agreed to follow with your participation.

Because I split his post, it is unreasonable for Hogeye to think that derailing/hijacking was not -- at the very least -- one problem. Because I did not delete the post, it is unreasonable for Hogeye to think that he was being penalized for content.
For the record: My entire private message to him was forwarded by me to Darrel for independent review upon the lodging of the complaint.

Typically, when acting as Mod@Large, I'll close by expressing appreciation for cooperation, as I repeatedly did when asking Hogeye to conform to the rules. The extent to which his behavior had exceeded acceptability is indicated by how I ended the message in question:

Your cooperation is no longer simply appreciated, it is mandatory in order to retain your status as a user.

But even more important than the above goal, is that we be able to have a working, functional forum where normal local folks, including nice little old ladies (or me), can post something without being yelled at with some warmed over knee jerk anti-government anti-"statist" anarcho cult screed.

At least Darrel is honest enough to admit he wants me banned for content rather than breaking forum rules.

Notice that Hogeye is engaging in selective reading. Instead of paying any attention to the point of having "normal local folks" post something without it being turned into a screed on a different topic, Hogeye sees only the mention of content. This is exactly the same fallacy he has willfully made (and repeated) regarding my private message.

Hogeye's claims have no basis in reality.

[L.Wood]

.

Dar:

Your ideology is not going anywhere. It's so upside down and bizarre no place on the earth is even willing to try it.

.
Have you considered that Galt/hog's ideology is alive and operating in Somalia?
.

[Dardedar]

.
Have you considered that Galt/hog's ideology is alive and operating in Somalia?
.

Actually I have. See how his defense of:

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

worked out for him (circa March 2006).