Replies

Ok, now that we agree that there was a conspiracy in the most benign sense (working in harmony to achieve a common goal)

You mean now that YOU agree, this being a definite change in tone from "[g3k] was conspired against and banned". Unless you still believe the "goal" was aimed prejudicially at particular freepers (as to opposed to any freeper engaging in gratuitous and excessive flammage).

Would you like to venture a guess as too how many were involved? Other than those already stimpulated

You mean by name? I don't know any of the moderator's names, and wouldn't reveal them if I did. Involved were Jim and some number of his moderators. Pretty much everyone regularly involved in the crevo threads knew that the Mods were giving their threads increased scrutiny. THEY PUBLICLY SAID SO. Which is why I continue to put "conspiracy" in quotes.

"THEY PUBLICLY SAID SO."

"THEY" being the moderators. IOW the moderators posted messages on the crevo threads alerting participants that attention was being paid to these threads and that the moderators were determined to resolve the problem with flame wars.

Which again is why g3k's behavior was so bizarre and over the top. The admin bent over backward warning him and trying to AVOID banning him. The moderators had already banned the main troublemakers, led by a poster named "ALS", who (seemed to be) working in a little cabal that did not include g3K. But gore3000 (behaved as if he) was determined to get banned.

Which is why I continue to put "conspiracy" in quotes.

That's fine.. Can we agree on a different term to describe the act more appropriately?

this being a definite change in tone from "[g3k] was conspired against and banned".

The tone was inferred by you. I simply defined my use of the term, as I inferred that you perceived my use of it in a negative light... My intended tone has remained intact..

You mean by name?

Sure why not? whattajoke has already admitted his involvement and claimed the scalp. (if he wasn't kidding, I can't tell). By acclimation the mods can't and don't read every post. Someone wanted some action taken or they wouldn't have mashed abuse or sent the mods freepmail. I'm just wondering if anyone will own up to it. If, as everyone proclaims g3k got what he deserved, why don't those who helped purify the forum step up to the podium? It is possible that they have, but I missed the posts.

Shall we examine the dictionary definition of "conspiracy"?

con·spir·a·cy Pronunciation (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

[emphasis added for the benefit of the delusionally paranoid]

Notice in every instance, the definitions of "conspiracy" contain an element of criminality, subversion, or sinister intent. Mother Theresa did NOT "CONSPIRE" to feed the poor and help the needy. The police did NOT "CONSPIRE" to investigate the criminals. No one "CONSPIRED" against g3k; he hoist himself on his own petard.

The continued use of the word "Conspiracy" by this raving nutter, in the face of an utter and complete lack of evidence that any pernicious plan or sinister cooperative venture was afoot, by either the Evos or the MODS, belies a delusional paranoia of immense magnitude.

From the Compact OED:

conspiracy
• noun (pl. conspiracies) 1 a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2 the action of conspiring.
[emphasis added]

End of argument.