mushrat Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 So, He want to explain himself. I'm going to put it to the populus (thats the rest of you guys) as we may merely be opening ourselfs to aditional drama over what is really a minor issue in the overall scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersianPride Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Nah screw it. It only gives his blog more attention and respect then it deserves. You don't get a second chance to make a first impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauldavis Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 i really couldn't care less...besides it would probably just provide him with more negative material, i am sure he could spin anything that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioannisds Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 No. Funkin. Way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[LB] Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 he needs to edit that article though because it is simply untrue. Thats all, were being misrepresented, i dont think anyone reads those articles anyway though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyGuy Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 I'm damn tired of all the drama to the 100000000th power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersianPride Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Also mushy if I can suggest another option for the poll: 'Sure, if he sends us a video tape of a gang of bikers mercilessly beating Hookah Panther' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skimo Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 I say yes, I like a good argument and there is no way he's going to win it. I want to see how long he can argue before stating false things lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilqueToast Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 I say no. No amount of explaining really justifies his actions. Plus, I just don't care what he has to say. He's already proven himself not to care about proof, or truth, or decency, so what good could come of it? I think we should just let him have his little blog of a magazine. Let him say what he wants. Not that many are actually reading what he has to say (outside of this forum), but maybe someone will get curious to see what we're actually about. They might ceate an account, and our actions speak louder than what Doug's blog has to say about our character. He's got a chip on his shoulder, and we're just giving in to him by perpetuating the situation. Guys, he lied to us from the get-go. He doesn't care what we really have to say, and we should not give validation to his silliness. Also, if he's picking on our forum, it means he's leaving someone else alone. We can handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliteHookah.com Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 In all fairness, you can't ridicule the guy for not responding and then ban him. That's like torturing a person for information after cutting out their tongue. Besides, who honestly doesn't like the drama? That's what makes this whole thing fun to read. What do we have to lose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushrat Posted October 14, 2006 Author Share Posted October 14, 2006 well, we tried to contact him, to no avail. we gave him plenty of time to reply to the threads here, nothing, now once we ban him, what a week later, THEN he cries he wants to talk. He had plenty of chances to before, now that he can make another ISSUE out of it, he cries we're being unfair.... Elite: its just more of the same crap. He stays banned and he can say anything he wants about us, oh wait, he's already doing that. He says one thing that can be consider libelous, False with the intent to defame or damage someone reputation, he might find out what LAWYERS are for. and since we know where he is..serving him will be easy... Personally, I'd prefer to keep the drama friendly...Better things to do than ride herd on dougie and his like... And for the record...Caro, his likely "myster whiner" isn't actually banned as far as I know...he can still state his case he's an insurance salesman from ny..but we'll be happy to provide a fair amount of information showing he's not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliteHookah.com Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 But aren't we doing the same thing to him that we are accusing him of doing to us? As in writing things that may or may not be true (subject to opinion and perspective) without giving the party in question a chance to defend themselves? It seems sort of hypocritical to me. Edit: I can't believe there's actually drama about the drama now. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushrat Posted October 14, 2006 Author Share Posted October 14, 2006 nope..he had about a week to respond openly, subject to our removing it. We have to e-mail through HIM, which he apparently ignored, to get our side heard on HIS ezine. Next time perhaps he'll consider what he's doing..cause a whole lot more people come here and see bad things about his ezine than go there and see bad things about us... :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Let him explain. What is the worst that can happen? More offensive remarks? Those who don't want to read it don't have to. It may just be giving him more rope, it may end in an apology, who knows? But in the big scheme of life I would not sweat this too much. If I have had words with someone and they want to clarify I will listen because for me at least I think it puts the ball back in my corner and my response says more about me than about them. Just because I feel like I am dealing with an asshole does not mean I have to come down to their level. Did he say things to piss me off and did the e-mag article offend me? Yes. But the first part of this post is still my position. I have a wife and three daughters so I am used to things bothering me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macho555 Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Hmmm. As much as Elite has a point, I still say to just let him be banned. If he was truly interested in exlaining his case, than he would have responded before he got banned, in emails people have sent, to the reviews that people sent him, or left a number that actually led to him in some way. He had plenty enough time to make his case. Honestly, I can't figure that anything worth listening too would leave his mouth anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 No. Two reasons: 1. I say when we make a decision, right or wrong, we stick by it. Statistically, there will always be a cross-section of decisions that are wrong. If you second and third guess everything, you exponentially increase the number of decisions (and errors) exponentially. 2. This guy is trying to increase his readership by sticking it to people...negativity sells, in his opinion. He doesn't care whether he's being fair or not. He just wants another chance to use bitterness and negativity to push his muckraking publication. If he wanted to be fair and explain himself, he could have done it most effectively in his first two issues. If there is some subtext that he doesn't publish, that will smooth over the situation, I DON'T want to hear it. As I said before, I tried contacting them several times, but they decided to ignore me. They, then, must have my email address. They could have sent me an PM here, if nothing else. If they wanted to be fair in their reporting, they could have contacted me before they published false claims about me and gotten an explanation as to the rules of the Forum and why my conduct is acceptable while people who were banned's conduct was not acceptable. That is how professional journalists operate. They confirm facts before forming their opinions, rather than wait until they have pissed alot of people off and then try to make nice. A professional editor would also then ask about the sources of opinions of the reporter...Doug had two oportunities to explain himself, rather he had two opportunities to be fair and accurate. He chose to stick it to the Forum. I am sick of this and other drama around here. Its a waste of my time. Edit: Strike "False claims", insert "innuendo". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yashman19 Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 Voted no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushrat Posted October 14, 2006 Author Share Posted October 14, 2006 Well naw tan..er...sonthert formerly known as Tangier. Our decision to ban (or atleast mine) tend to be to stop a situation at the time. If the situation can be resolved, i see no reason to let the person come back... Though in this case the Nay's have it. Elite, tell Doug to take a leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angemonkwj Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 i say no also. who cares what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now