Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

djb · 08-19-2002, 07:15 PM

<<

<< It wasn't a shot... I said nothing negative about murph personally in my post, just that the level of hositlity as decreased, which is true. >>

Incorrect - you posted "Lack of activity has nothing to do with a member's absence". You are talking about murph, right? Then you said "(lack of hostility, yes. lack of activity, no.)". You are implying that murph was hostile, correct? If you are talking about murph in a negative light then that is tacky since YOU were the one who banned him and now he can't defend himself. And you brought up murph, nobody else.

And I don't care what your reports say, POSTING activity on this board is almost nonexistant. There's rarely any posts - even in the lounge which was humming along. And don't call this a boycott by murph's friends, I think it's more of a case that YOU have offended a lot of long time posters. >>

An no I wasn't implying murph was hostile. No need to put words in my mouth. I implied that his absence resulted in less hostility. Meaning debates which often erupted into namecalling flamewars are no longer a common occurence. He wasn't the cause of all such "debates" but he was often involved in them, on both ends (both giving and receiving).

08-19-2002, 07:15 PM	#61
djb Administrator Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 5,279	<< << It wasn't a shot... I said nothing negative about murph personally in my post, just that the level of hositlity as decreased, which is true. >> Incorrect - you posted "Lack of activity has nothing to do with a member's absence". You are talking about murph, right? Then you said "(lack of hostility, yes. lack of activity, no.)". You are implying that murph was hostile, correct? If you are talking about murph in a negative light then that is tacky since YOU were the one who banned him and now he can't defend himself. And you brought up murph, nobody else. And I don't care what your reports say, POSTING activity on this board is almost nonexistant. There's rarely any posts - even in the lounge which was humming along. And don't call this a boycott by murph's friends, I think it's more of a case that YOU have offended a lot of long time posters. >> An no I wasn't implying murph was hostile. No need to put words in my mouth. I implied that his absence resulted in less hostility. Meaning debates which often erupted into namecalling flamewars are no longer a common occurence. He wasn't the cause of all such "debates" but he was often involved in them, on both ends (both giving and receiving).