A Conversation for Discussions Relating to the Lifetime Ban of Quincy

Don't Ban Quincy

Post 81

Potholer

I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to take sides here.

A place I lived one year, we'd frequently get several phone calls per week, sometimes several per night, any time between midnight and dawn, from f***-witted security guards who weren't even capable of dialling the area code of their control centre, so I *really* do empathise with that particular problem. I'm sure most people who have read through so far would sympathise, and anyone who doesn't probably won't.

I've got the gist of what various researchers feel about LeKZ, which as far as I can tell is pretty much what they felt months ago, and debated at length both then and seemingly ever since in various other places, but I'm not sure how relevant either positive or negative opinions are here.


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 82

Deidzoeb

Hoovooloo,

NBY's post was very mild. Yours was raw, ad hominem attack.

"...would you characterise someone else stating as bald fact their inaccurate and obviously biased speculations about my motives as "antisocial"? If not, why not?"

This happens all the time to everyone in every walk of life. Depending on the situation, it could be an innocent misunderstanding, or it could be an attempt to misrepresent you. Everyone does this to friends and opponents all the same, as we try to understand and clarify things through conversation. If it's a friend, then we laugh and tell them what they misunderstood about us. It certainly doesn't match the level of calling someone "that bloody woman."

Repeated late night phone calls might be anti-social if you've asked that person to stop. If it's a current researcher from h2g2, you should tell the h2g2 staff that you're being harassed. Actually it has nothing to do with this discussion, unless you're talking about NBY. If it is NBY, it still doesn't excuse your behavio(u)r.

"Would you characterise publicly implying that I have somehow deliberately "injured" someone who I am doing my level best to have nothing whatever to do with "antisocial"? If not, why not?"

You are doing your best to be in the forefront of every conversation relating to the banishment of Quincy and Satyagraha, because of your grudge against LeKZ.

I agree that Quincy's flame was not bad enough for suspension, perhaps, but probably deserves a warning. The severity of Quincy's flame doesn't mean that you should be allowed to flame on. The sarcastic bit about calling NBY "genius," is minor, but calling someone "that bloody woman" seems to qualify for what the House Rules describes on flaming.

Meanwhile, you try to rationalize your consistent flaming yet again, failing to see that *even people who agree with you* on the substance of your words will continue to be put off by your rude behavior.


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 83

Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs)

Yes, I have to agree.

Hoovooloo, you sound like you have a giant chip on your shoulder. Your anger has no place here.

I don't know the details of your disagreement with... a certain person... and I don't want to know. That's your own private, personal biz. It's not relevant here.

Only your observational skill is required - does Quincy sound like LeKZ/Arpeggio? If you feel the need to defend yourself in other matters, zoom on over to the Lifetime Suspension threat and type away.


Two Points

Post 84

The H2G2 Editors

Hi.

A couple of points, which aren't us adding opinions, but instead asking for further information that can help us make a decision.

1. Just a reiteration that this process does *not* provide a complete picture of the opinions and evidence we have received. In this case we've received emails from a significant number of Researchers who have declined to post to the suspension-related Conversations on site; this is mainly because these people don't want to get dragged into on-site politics. These emails are from both sides of the argument, by the way. However, it dawned on us that only those who *know* our email address can actually send us emails, so if you have an opinion that you would rather *not* post on site, you can email us at [email protected] and we'll consider your comments when we come to make a decision.

2. Another thing we'd like to explore (we believe it's relevant) is the possibility that this account is being operated by someone who is not a banned Researcher themselves, but who is posting content originating from a banned Researcher or Researchers. We're not saying this is the case - there is no proof - but it has been suggested by some Researchers via email that this may be the case, and it's our duty in the role of evidence gatherers to ask for opinions here.

At the end of the day, the important question is whether this account has ever been used to give an h2g2 presence to banned Researcher(s), and we welcome comments from all parties on this, either in these Forums, or via email.

The Eds


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 85

Hoovooloo

Re post 82: "your grudge against LeKZ"

Just to correct yet another inaccurate statement about my motives (is there something about me which says "hey, folks, read my mind, and don't forget to tell everyone what you *know* I'm thinking!"?), I DON'T have a grudge against LeKZ.

In fact, in my last communication with her, I stated to her directly that when she chose to come back to H2G2 under a false name, while I didn't care one way or another about her doing it, I would rather not get involved in conversation with her. Since I had no wish to get in the way of her use of the site, I suggested that when she did come back, if I did inadvertently talk to her, not realising it was her, a prearranged exchange of words would let me know that this new account was in fact her. I promised at that time that if and when that happened, I would quietly stop talking to her new account, and say nothing to the Editors. This is hardly the suggestion of someone with a grudge.

She made no protest at my assumption that she would indeed try again to come back under a false ID. She agreed to the suggestion of a brief identifying phrase for use under those circumstances. She hasn't used it. If she were to use it at some time in the future, I would do exactly as I described, and quietly cease interacting with the relevant account without telling anyone.

I have NOT complained to the Editors about Quincy. I have posted to the "Don't Ban Quincy" thread. I have repeatedly stated that if he is what he says he is, he should NOT be banned.

I have NOT complained to the Editors about Satyagraha. I have posted, very very briefly, to the "Ban Satyagraha" thread.

I have NOT complained to the Editors about anyone else.

In fact, I have NEVER complained to the Editors about another researcher. I have NEVER requested that another researcher be banned, suspended or warned.

I have no grudge against LeKZ. If she wants to start another account here, she is obviously perfectly able to. I have no wish to interact with her here or anywhere else. Unfortunately, at present the only way I can see of ensuring that this is the case is not to interact with anyone here at all.

Re: post 83. "you sound like you have a giant chip on your shoulder". Another mind reader. How surprising.

"I don't know the details". I forgive your ignorance.

"It's not relevant here". Given your admitted ignorance, you are not in a position to make that statement.

As for my observational skill - "does Quincy sound like LeKZ/Arpeggio?" In my opinion, in some ways, yes, definitely, and I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so. If you want links, ask someone else - I'm sure Lucinda among others can point you to the relevant threads (sorry to use your name, Martin, but that's the price of being someone (a) knowledgeable and (b) relatively impartial). There are certain specific things he posted in various places here which sound very much like LeKZ, sometimes almost word for word reiterations of things she's said elsewhere.

If you state outright that you think Quincy sounds NOTHING like LeKZ, I personally assume one of three things:

(1) you've not read enough of what Quincy posted, or what LeKZ posted. If you don't have the information, you can't hold an opinion (parallel example - what's your opinion on Evgeny's Podkletnov's claim to have built a working gravity shield? You don't have enough information to form an opinion, do you? So why would anyone care what you think?)

(2) you do see a resemblance, but are not saying so or are questioning the relevance of the resemblance for reasons of your own. This is perfectly understandable for a friend of LeKZ.

(3) you have all the information, and honestly don't see any resemblance at all. I have an opinion of people who fall into this category. Just once, I'm inviting the mind-reader herd to guess what it is.

I shalln't be posting in Lifetime Suspension, because anything I or anyone else said in that thread would be either off topic (since the stated topic is LeKZ's original ban) or retreading a dead issue (for precisely the same reason).

This will be my last posting for a while. I'm sick of people who know nothing about me telling everyone what I'm thinking, why I'm doing things and what's going on in my head. I'd be less sick if even just one of these dolts ever, even once, got a single thing RIGHT. No danger of that, it seems.

I'm also bored of running into verbose people who want to drag up old subjects interminably, people who just by chance happen to sound a bit like other people, have similar obsessions, and just happen by pure chance to be part of the same 0.0003% of the world's population as someone I'm trying to avoid.

'Bye all.

H.
No loss.


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 86

wall flower girl

smiley - bigeyes unrelated to the several postings above...

this quote from the editors in post #35 just got my attention as possibly significant... and um, also actually relevant.

"So the issue is whether anyone here can provide information to determine whether Quincy is or isn't LeKZ. If Quincy doesn't appear to be LeKZ, then he gets let back in, and we apologise for the suspension. If Quincy does appear to be LeKZ, then we close the account, as LeKZ is banned."

what i noticed is the use of the words "appear to be", which is not the same as "being". smiley - doh if quincy doesn't "appear" to the editors to be lekz, i think is what they mean, right? a lot of people in this thread have said he doesn't appear to us to be anything but what he says. what "information" is anyone here likely to have? he was here what, a week or less?

the people who think it's a "no-brainer" that he's lekz aren't willing to put there names to it publicly, which i don't think is so cool, but i might feel the same way if i accused somebody of something like that, and there was a chance i could be wrong, and he could be back. i'd put my name to it, and risk having to apologize though, because the alternative is worse.

if quincy somehow /stops/ appearing to the editors to "obviously be lekz", then he gets back in, supposing he even would want to come back. now his accusers can interact with him, or try to pick fights with him, or try to get him to do anything to break the rules and he doesn't know who to avoid. i'm really not liking where this is going... help me out here smiley - yikessmiley - cry. he's going to get an apology and it's all not over with at all, because these secrety people are going to be hanging around.

then there's the last sentence "if quincy does appear to be lekz" which the editors already said they thought was "obvious", then they'll have just only banned lekz again so that's all fine. they'll have done the right thing, even though they've now said he didn't even really misbehave (and by comparison to some flaming in this thread i'd call his angry outburst flicking his bic), and they can't prove he's anyone other than who he said.

it's not about proof. it's about how it "appears to the editors"? that would be no matter whether or not it's true? smiley - ill i suddenly have a really icky feeling in my stomach.

i'm maybe not going to be back here. smiley - cry i was meeting really nice people but there's such a thing as really morally wrong and i'm getting scared the editors here may be about to do something really morally wrong because of some hateful people who are too chicken or too sneaky to even say who they are. quincy, if you read this, i wouldn't give them any proof if i were you. you know you're innocent until proven guilty. there's no proof. it's all about "appearing".

boy am i upset. smiley - wah i thought this was going to be fun. phooey.

wendy

wall flower girl


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 87

Barton

Editors,

This latest question is really infuriating.

Could these accounts represent other people who are posting for LeKZ?

It sounds as if, you are seeking any possible short sequence of words that might be attributable to LeKZ as an excuse to ban these two folks despite all that we have posted here.

Yes, I assume that you ask the question because some person or persons, who is or are not willing to stand up in the community and say what they think, made that suggestion to you and you feel bound to ask us about it.

This is even more inflamatory because it is even more impossible to prove. Unless someone can provide an exact quotation clearly and absolutely provable to have been from LeKZ and which can be shown to be, word for word, posted on this site under some other person's account AND which cannot be attributable to that person's having read what LeKZ posted somewhere else in the world without having had direct contact with LeKZ and having agreed to have posted such material for them on h2g2, there can be no valid charge of that person having posted FOR LeKZ.

Such charges cannot be proven, they can only be self-admitted. If you wish to find out then if either party has posted for LeKZ, you will need to ask them and trust in their basic honesty.

To invite us to speculate on such things is simply to imply, as I know you now have reasonable indication, that neither of these people is LeKZ but that you are still seeking some way to appease the invisible accusers who seem to be writing to you out of spite rather than out of any real desire to seek good for this community.

I speak here of those who are twisting your ear to ban these people. Those who are speaking to you not to ban them are merely desirous not to be tarred as 'LeKZ-lovers' in the midst of this continuing witch hunt. There is no other reason not to speak out against this injustice.

Those who speak against Quincy and Satyagraha in secret and now suggest that they may be mere mouthpieces are simply looking at words that I and others have written here, and which are known to be truthful, and are searching for ways in which we might still be seen to be lying. So be it.

Let me close that possibility off right now. I am convinced that Quincy and Satyagraha are individuals separate and distinct from LeKZ or any of their alters. I am convinced that they are posting for themselves and are not posting anything on behalf of LeKZ. Any sentiments or ideas which they may have expressed which might be taken to be similar to sentiments or ideas expressed by LeKZ are simply the result of intelligent people having similar knowledge and/or opinions.

Those who believe that ideas that oppose their own must be the result of oppostion by LeKZ are simply fools who cannot face the fact that the world does not rest on their own limited outlook and understanding. If this whole issue comes down to their inability to believe that anyone could find fault with what they find proper and absolute then we have *certainly* been wasting a vast amount of energy and time here.

Barton


Two Points

Post 88

wall flower girl

reply to point 2, originally posted at "clarification needed from the editors" because somehow i missed your post, between the flames...smiley - bigeyes

i don't mean to spam, honest. i just realized this was where the post belongs, and probably in the "don't ban satyagraha" thread too. sorry about the repetition, but no one would see it where i stupidly wrote it. sorry.

"on behalf of?" smiley - huh like as in these people knew each other before, and agreed to open new accounts under their own names, and then let lekz email them content to post, only in their own words? or some other kinda conspiracy? did i get that right? if i did, that's a little, um, farfetched-sounding to me. smiley - ufo i mean, as soon as the people who hate lekz spotted what they thought was lekz-like, the show would be over. why would anyone agree to do anything so silly? i can't see it. quincy said he was a coroner, and then he talked about stuff he'd seen and experienced as a coroner, which has nothing to do with posting "on behalf of" anybody but quincy.

besides, that's even more completely impossible to prove as being either true or not true than the idea that these guys are lekz, isn't it?smiley - bigeyes

i really have an icky feeling in my stomach. smiley - ill i get the feeling you're determined to ban them because you said you believe they're lekz and you can't risk them coming back because you'd look bad.

i could never say it if it was me, cause i'm a stupid smiley - bunny in car headlights, but i can stick up for other people so: you look bad to me for what you're doing to quincy and satyagraha on the basis of hearsay and rumor. i'm new, i'm timid, i hate politics smiley - grr. i'm terrified of what you're going to do to me now cause now you're going to say i'm lex too or those anonymous emailers smiley - yikes are. i'm also not blind (tho i did miss your big old post in this thread), read up on all the conversations -- there weren't a lot -- and decided on my own, like you said we should do. i think what you're doing makes you look crummy and like you'd be afraid to let quincy and satyagraha come back and prove themselves on their own merits.

if people hate lekz so bad they won't share cyberspace with anyone who even seems a little /like/ her, that's their own problem, not quincy's or satyagraha's. this is a big website. geez smiley - steam
if you get rid of people pre-emptively, to "prevent" any actual flame-wars or any actual medical advice from being given, because things that looked like they almost were -- but were not -- a flame war or medical advice had happened, you're setting a smiley - weird precedent. not a fair one, or a nice one, or a civilized one, but it sure is smiley - weird.

i know i just really came on strong but i already stuck my neck out so you can only cut my head off once. sorry i'm so mad. smiley - blue

sorrier people are so mean to each other all the time.

smiley - ufo this is way too far-fetched. it's just too hard to believe. how can you allege that "on behalf of" stuff? how can anyone prove they aren't or are? if people read the same books sometimes they quote the same things, and think the same way. they sometimes believe in the same god and things too.smiley - wow

"there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - shakespeare, "hamlet", act i, scene 1, i think, maybe scene 2? i bet lekz has used that quote. that proves i'm quoting on her behalf, right? i bet lots of other people i've not met have used that quote, so i'm quoting on their behalf too! i know! quincy and satyagraha were channelling lekz and they didn't even kn... er... well... maybe not. smiley - silly i get stupid when i'm panicky, and i get panicky when i get mad or outspoken and i've been both.

smiley - cry never mind me. nobody ever has. there's a reason for that. i'm not that important. sorry for wasting your time.

wendy

wall flower girl

waiting for my page to vanish, like quincy said his did, in mid-posting....


Two Points

Post 89

7rob7: Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)

The cosmos is working against me. After two days and half-a-dozen attempts to get caught up with this thread, I posted the most incredibly brilliant bit of writing I've ever come up with here this very morning! smiley - wow I solved all the problems and got the world on the road to peace. ( And it included my notes regarding the cure for cancer, too...)

Somehow I turned off the computer before it was sent.

All I remember is this: if Not Banned Yet - who would know best and surest - says that neither Quincy nor Satyagraha are any part of LeKZ, why are we even discussing it? Personal differences with others onsite aside, NBY has proven himself again and again to be an honest and honorable person. The PTB should acknowledge that; and - as far as I'm concerned - to continue to speculate that Q and S are LeKZ or LeKZ' ventriliquist (sp?) dummies is an insult not only to the Banned but to the Not Banned Yet.

(Which addresses nothing regarding the fact that Q and S have been 'suspended' simply because they have the gall to remind anonymous complaintants of a banned researcher. Sheesh! That - the last time I looked - isn't a punishable offense.) (So far.)

Don't ban either one of them.

-7rob7

(I decided to omit the cure for cancer on the grounds that it might be construed as distributing medical advice.)


Two Points

Post 90

Lear (the Unready)

The allegations against Quincy seem to get more far-fetched every time I look at them. One thing gets knocked down, to be replaced by something even more outlandish. Presumably, by the time the week is up, we will be debating whether Quincy is or isn't an Al Qaida terrorist using h2g2 to transmit secret messages to his devoted followers across the globe. I mean, you never know. Wouldn't it be easier just to drop the case now, and be done with it? There obviously isn't really a case at all to speak of...

Lear, increasingly disenchanted


Two Points

Post 91

Deidzoeb

h2g2 Editors wrote, "Just a reiteration that this process does *not* provide a complete picture of the opinions and evidence we have received."

I agree with the way this process is being handled, allowing people to speak out publicly with positive or negative character witness stuff. But if some witnesses want their testimony to remain private, then we researchers may not see all the "evidence" against the accused. This seems fair also. I don't know how else it could be done without publicizing a witness who wants to remain anonymous, or without discouraging future witnesses if they cannot speak anonymously.

After all is said and done, we may be left with a picture of Quincy or Satyagraha being banned because of circumstantial evidence, while the real evidence is necessarily kept hidden, and might be quite substantial.

I don't know what to think anymore. Too bad LeKZ couldn't be granted amnesty and new researchers allowed to behave or mess up on their own merits.

smiley - huh


Two Points

Post 92

Potholer

I'm unsure how allegations against Quincy are becoming ever more far-fetched. The initial suggestion that Quincy was another side of LeKZ seems still to be the principal one.

Logically, the full suite of possibilities are :-

a) Quincy is precisely what Quincy claims to be.

b) Quincy is not entirely what Quincy claims to be, but has no close connection with LeKZ.

c) Quincy is not entirely what Quincy claims to be, has some close connection with LeKZ, but does not inhabit the same body as LeKZ.

d) Quincy is not entirely what Quincy claims to be, and does inhabit the same body as LeKZ.

a) - No problem.
b) - To some extent, the same could be said of many personas on h2g2.
c) - I'm not sure waht anyone would make of that.
d) - Presumably, case closed, as far as TPTB are concerned.


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 93

Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs)

HVL: I do have one question - how do you interpret "you sound like you have a giant chip on your shoulder" as me trying to read your mind? Your response to that particular comment also sounded very defensive. Again - no mention of what you might be thinking, feeling, or wanting. I'm just telling you how you're sounding to me. I know - you couldn't care less. Ah, the anonymity of the internet!


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 94

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

As entertaining as it might be, I don't think this is an appropriate place to psychoanalyze Hoovooloo. It only detracts from the purpose of this thread.

Mikey


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 95

David Conway

Mikey... Bravo.

Everyone else...

Quincy does not inhabit the same body of LeKZ and posted only his own words and thoughts here. Period.

I've exchanged a few emails with the man since his account got suspended. I like the man. I have no reason to believe that he is not really exactly who he presented himself to be during his brief stay here.

He was hoping for a place where he could relax and have a bit of fun, while recovering from the trauma he endured in the course of doing his job the past few months.

So much for that idea.

NBY


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 96

Lentilla (Keeper of Non-Sequiturs)

Quite right, Mikey - thanks for injecting a note of reason! Sorry, HVL - ignore that, and we'll move on.

I'm starting to believe that every researcher should stand on their own merits - if they do something to warrant a ban, that membership is removed. They would be free to create another one and continue. If that membership is also banned, so be it. Unless the BBC is willing to totally reorganize their membership/password setup, there's not much else that the h2g2 editors can do, except rely upon the good will of its users not to abuse the privilege of creating too many log-ins.

As for Quincy being LeKZ - I am not absolutely certain, but the jury's 70/30 on the side of it not being LeKZ. There are similarities - they both use New Yorkese, which is different from any other dialect on the globe. They're both Jewish, which adds another shared cultural element to their speech. So I can't say that their writing is completely different, but it doesn't mean that Quincy is LeKZ.

LeKZ has stated unequivocally that it's *not* her. I believe that she believes that. I also believe that an alternate personality can do things that the 'main' personality doesn't know about. But her good friend NBY has said that Quincy or Satyagraha isn't part of LeKZ, and he would know. So it's good enough for me.

I don't think that Quincy is 'channeling' LeKZ, either. It sounds like way too much trouble for anyone to go through to get their words on line. This is not the only place on the internet for people to spout their opinions! LeKZ has several other venues for intelligent conversation.

I appreciate the offer to send an e-mail, but I'm one of those out-in-the-open sorts of people. If I can't say it here, where anybody can read it, then I won't say it at all.

Lentilla


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 97

GTBacchus

Wallflower Girl (hi!) raised a point that I hadn't considered before. In the US, unless my memory has just been hijacked, people have the right to face their accusers. I don't know whether this is generally true in polite societies (not necessarily implying that the US is a polite society; that's off topic).

I find it creepy that there are people who are unwilling to share a website with anyone who reminds them of someone they hate so much, and who are afraid to say so in public. That's dirty, and witch-hunty, and inquisitiony, and I don't like it one bit.

I don't see any excuse for this anonymity unless these accusers are doing something they're ashamed of. People who are doing the right thing don't have to hide. If their excuse is that they don't want to get involved in site politics, then why are they getting involved in site politics? If someone is so offensive, then yikes the offensive posts, but don't campaign behind closed doors to have them banned!

Maybe this is offtopic, but I'm not sure where else I ought to post it.

GTB


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 98

Hoovooloo

Mikey - thanks. Much appreciated.

I doubt anyone else would point this out, so here goes...

For reasons I'm not going to speculate on, people persist in treating this process as though it is some form of trial (e.g. "the jury's 70/30" - what jury? we're NOT the jury, in case you hadn't noticed. We're the public gallery, the tabloid press. The jury, and judge, and executioner, is the Editorial team. Try not to forget this.)

So people are talking about it like it's a trial, when - duh - IT'S NOT. One of the reasons trials are possible in the real world is that we pay tax to fund police and judges. Hands up everyone who's paying to use this site? Anybody? (and don't, please mention the licence fee, we did that last year...)

None of the tax I pay goes to fund a police or legal system for h2g2. If the Editors ever propose instituting a police and legal system on the site, thereby giving them the resources to guarantee rights and responsibilities like those of citizens, I for one would leave the site that day, as I have no wish to pay the access fees that that would require. I simply don't care that much about this site. However, since the concept of this as a trial seems to be a common misconception, let's go with it for a moment.

Even people who are paying almost no attention at all know this site is hosted and run from the UK, so observations on the legal systems of other countries are at best of academic interest.

As for the right to face the accuser... let's go with the concept, for a moment, that this IS a trial, in the UK. Some observations on the progress of trials under UK law:

If the accuser, or one of the accusers, is a minor, the accused does NOT have the automatic right to "face their accuser" - evidence can be and often is given from behind screens or even by video link, and the identity of the accuser is protected by law (granted, the accused *may* know who they are - but their identity may not be made public, by the accuser or anyone else). (Many users of h2g2 are minors).

If the accuser is a member of the security services, the accused does NOT have an automatic right to face their accuser. (irrelevant in this case, I think). But all of that is assuming one crucial point of procedure has been satisfied.

The first, the VERY FIRST thing that happens in *any* trial under UK law, sometimes days or weeks before ever any "accusers" (i.e. witnesses) are called, is that the accused must attend the court, and confirm under oath their full name and address, IN PUBLIC in order to ensure that the court is prosecuting the correct person. If everyone is so very keen for this to be conducted just like a trial, why not have Quincy's full name and postal address publicly posted on this site before we even BEGIN to "discuss the ban"/"conduct the trial"?

If anyone thinks that would be a gross intrusion on privacy - I agree. It's possible that this is a hint that we shouldn't be treating this process as a trial.

But if you must - the FIRST question asked of the accused in a real trial is "are you the person we're prosecuting?", and they are required to answer under oath. If they fail to attend the court, they may be convicted in their absence. By failing to provide sufficient evidence of identity to the Editors (who are legally bound to hold such evidence confidential), Quincy is in effect, failing to turn up to the court. He cannot then complain about being tried and found guilty in his absence, and nor can anyone else.

I wish he would provide the evidence. He hasn't done anything to warrant a ban, and I'd like to see him back here, for reasons I've detailed elsewhere. I'm not alone in wanting him back here. So his refusal to even "turn up to court" is growing more frustrating by the day for someone who would consider themselves a supporter of him.

H.


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 99

GTBacchus

Hoovooloo, I'm sorry if I came off sounding like I thought this was a trial. That's not why I brought up the idea of facing one's accusers. It was just a free association, coming from my not liking that people are trying to get people thrown off the site while remaining anonymous.

Looking back at my post, I didn't say that this is a trial, I didn't say that the right to face one's accusers need apply here, hell, I didn't even properly segue from the first paragraph of my post to the second. Shall I accuse you of trying and failing to read my mind? No, I shan't. I understand why you made the connections you did, but I think you carried my words further than I would have.

Need the principle of "right to face an accuser" or the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" *only* apply in trials? Are they not good principles that *might* carry over into informal situations? Is even discussing whether to apply such principles a bad idea?

Additionally, it's not mine to say what Lentilla *meant*, but I'll say that I received a different impression than you did when I read her remark that the jury's 70/30. Considering the context, she seemed to me to be using a common expression to talk about her own mental state. She said she's not entirely certain, but maybe 70% certain. That's how I read it anyway. That my impression at all coincides with her intention is of course pure speculation, which I don't consider criminal (literally or figuratively). If I'm told that my impression was wrong (hopefully politely), then I'll say "my bad", and there's no harm done.

-GTB


Don't Ban Quincy

Post 100

7rob7: Give Me Love (Give Me Peace On Earth)

Well, it's sorta like a trial; but not really. The "Ban/Don't Ban" threads are - I think - 'witnesses' for both the defense and the prosecution. What's unique about this is that the judge and jury are the same entity, and they decide how open or closed the proceedings are. So I would intrepret Lentilla's remark to refer more to a an 'opinion poll' than anything else. Or, at least, a Neilsen rating.

(However: in post #96 Lentilla stated that Not Banned Yet's declaration of Quincy's (and Satyagraha's) non-LeLZness was "good enough" for hir, which was essentially the same thing as I said in post #89. "Obvious"ly she is me and I are she and we are all together. Goo-goo-ga-joob.)

I can add that, like GTB, Lentilla and other TrusTees, I have been allowed to read copies of e-mails from both Quincy and Satyagraha, and they are markedly dissimilar to anything I have read by any of LeKZ.

-7_it's_off_to_work_I_go_7


Key: Complain about this post