[All I get is a big blank white screen. Can't read anything unless I go somewhere else and log on with a different IP address.]
The following is an email thread started when I attempted to respond to comments that specifically mention my name by forwarding my responses to others who are not banned to afford me an opportunity to answer my critics.
It includes comments from some friends, council member Gordon Smith and the SH Administrator on my status at the website and my recent attempts to address and resolve this matter.
-TIM PECK
Replies to Certain Scrutiny Hooligans Commenters
From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 12:03:05 PM
Subject: reply to john, matt
John Baughmann
September 16th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, Tim. He once said that co-ops are immoral because they didn’t make a profit. I’m still not sure what that means…
1. I have never commented on the morality of co-ops.
2. Your comment appears to be in support of a previous comment regarding a ban in place for supposedly violating a rule. However, the point of your comment is a complaint about a point of view; which is not the subject of any ban. It seems you are in support of a ban based on opinion and that would be inconsistent with the comment rules set forth by the administrator.
Matt Rawlings
September 15th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Dixiegirlz: Tim Peck doesn’t need to post here–Franzi is posting. Ever notice on other blogs how often Peck’s quotes are Franzi’s?
No, Matt, I've never noticed how often my quotes are actually Franzi's. Certainly you can point readers to many such examples to support your claim.
At any rate, I am unsure as to how the fact that Erika Franzi posts here would obviate my interest in commenting on topics or replying to others here as well. Any expanded explanation of your point would be appreciated.
How's that Coffee Party coming along?
From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 11:54:47 AM
Subject: comment ban
Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.
And just how would someone go about apologizing for flooding comments on a comment board that I have been banned from commenting on?
Here's my apology:
"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."
From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:07:07 PM
Subject: scrutiny hooligans
Looks like they did not forgive you. The posts I made for you seem to have been removed.
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:12:21 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans
There must be some mistake.
From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 2:01:25 PM
Subject: Scrutiny Hooligans
COMMENT POSTED:
D.D.
September 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
ADMIN: “Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.”
I saw Mr. Peck’s version of what transpired and his apology.
What’s he supposed to do, self-flaggelate with a cat-o-nine tails, in Pack Square till no more flesh is on his back?
Earlier this year there were discussions about other affiliates coming here to voice opinions (but there was hot comment about the level of literacy that was expected)….Mr. Peck always writes articulately and well, though he tends toward a different mindset.
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 11:57:34 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans
Please forward to your weblog administrator and I'll add my comments from below.
Here's my apology:
"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."
From: D.D.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 11:07:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: scrutiny hooligans
The lame-o excuse given by whoever admin dude is, is a cover.
The fact is they are not that comfortable with sharing a forum to opposing points of view. Mores the pity. There's been quite a bit of arm twisting to vote straight Democrat of late. They are not at all appreciative of new blood entering the fray. It appears to be a thinly veiled tool to sway voting.
That said...it's not like they have a tremendous amount of traffic on Scu-Hoo...there are days with no comments, what-so-ever.
D.D.
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:51:02 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
Can we now dispense with the idea that I was banned from Scrutiny Hooligans for violating a technical rule of the comments policy?
From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Cc: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 5:43:18 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
Who ever actually believed it? That is, outside of that cadre of pseudonymous commenters who mindlessly tap out ad hominem attacks against all those with an original thought, yet crow about their love of diversity of thought. Diversity of thought for these guys means having two thoughts in one day. And remembering both of them.
You know I like you a lot Gordon, but at the risk of further pissing you off, you really should take out the actual trash in the SH comment section, if there's to be one. Tim raises the level of discourse. The usual commenters simply make the comment section palatable to other progressives. It has been my observation that you are somewhat above that sort of partisan hackery and nonsense. I hope I haven't been wrong.
Awaiting my own banishment.
E
From: Tim Peck
To: Erika Franzi
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 6:21:37 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
Exhibit 1:
Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
"Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned. But, because John Galt said that he owes nothing to his brothers, I’m guessing that we’ll never see his smiling Gravatar again. It’s ironic, really, that a blogger who disallows commenting on his own blog would act like such a grade-A spammer jerk on ours."
From: Gordon Smith
To: Erika Franzi
Cc: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:14:00 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
Hi, everybody.
I've forwarded the conversation on to Admin. Admin is sovereign.
As to the "trash" - You don't have to visit if it's offputting. Based on your opinion of the ScruHoo commenters you must find it very offputting. Alternately, you could have conversations at other blogs. It is a big internet after all. Some people even begin their own blogs and foster their own commenting community. Lots of choices, y'all! As to "banishment", it's pretty easy to read the comments policy. Tim is one of only two or three people in six years of blogging that have had their privilege suspended.
I think we've done an excellent job creating a smart, funny, and sometimes absurd commenting culture at ScruHoo.
Lastly, I never expect to pass the ideological or philosophical purity tests given by many different types of True Believers.
We'll wait to hear from Admin,
Gordon
From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:20:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: scrutiny hooligans
Let it go.
He is the artful dodger. Didn't answer a single issue and he never will. What he did is suggest that we are overly sensitive to their comments and should go elsewhere.
He's insulting and not particularly bright. I am quite disappointed.
I'm done here.
E
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:46:14 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
Let me attempt to carefully interpret Erika's email for Asheville's freshman city council member Gordon Smith:
The Administrator for your declared community weblog is lying asshole.
Thanks for your concern in this matter. Let me know,sir, if you need any help in others that might come across your desk about which you are completely baffled.
From: Gordon Smith
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:23:49 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
You missed your calling, Tim. You ought've been a diplomat.
I'm sure you're not spending too much time thinking about your commenting status at ScruHoo what with the many efforts you're helping to spearhead with the Asheville Tea Party. I appreciate your candor and endless patience.
G
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:26:50 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans
It's not too much to get to the bottom of abject duplicity in local politics. In fact, it's a pleasure. The laughter alone is worth the effort.
From: Gordon Smith
To: timothypeck@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:46:21 PM
Subject: In response
Tim,
I received this from Admin today:
Mr. Peck,
Thank you for your continued interest in Scrutiny Hooligans. We will soon be implementing programming measures that will attempt to address and hopefully improve many of the issues that we've been having with the way our installation of WordPress handles comments. We're running tests right now, and we're estimating that we're three to five months away from a solution. Until then, we won't be making any decisions about the removal of any IP addresses from our blacklist.
Regards,
Management
From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 11:51:37 PM
Subject: Re: In response
Translation: "I'm a dick."
Thanks for your clarification. I'll be sure to pass this along to the others.
Regards,
My ass
RELATED
BlogDrama Open Thread
Scrutiny Hooligans weblog | October 7, 2010
Dixiegirlz: I still think the reasoning for barring Tim Peck is lame. He should be allowed back into the fold. Our country is better for opposing, yet polite points of view.
Matt: Are we REALLY still discussing the comments policy & TP? If you really feel the need to read his pointless and offensive comments-look at the abundance on other local blogs/news media sites. I have yet to see one of his posts add something new to a discussion or wasn’t simply repeating the words of his master, the local tea brewer. I find the lack of TP comments on this blog refreshing. Now, can we discuss solar panels and the White House?
Tim Peck: It might be helpful to Mr. Matt Rawlings (of now-defunct Coffee Party fame) to know that there is no commenting rule that allows for the barring of participants due to the disagreeable nature of the content of their comments; no matter how "refreshing" their absence might be to the simple-minded. Even the "pointless and offensive" (and undecipherable) comments offered by Mr. Rawlings are still allowed to stand at Scrutiny Hooligans.
