The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning.

14.12.05, 01:57
waldek1610 napisał:

> russh napisał:
>
> > There has been a general banter and expression of opinions that I have
> > enjoyed - sometimes humorous, sometimes serious, but rarely offensive to
> anyone
> > ,
> > or any peoples. There has, for me been one exception to this - Waldek. To
>
> expla
> > in;
>
> This is your opinion, I think that offensive were many of Maggies post, you
of
> course didn't sense because she didn't offend brits...To end discussion
about
> her let me just add that she is a pole who appearantly spend few years in
UK
> and know she is trying to talk for all poles while she is actually copying
> attitudes she picked up in Britain. What's even worse is that she claims
that
> hers is polish point of view. But I don't buy it especially because she
ends
> all her post with words "In Her Majesty service, Manners"..don't you think
she
> is a brown- nose?

OK, Waldek. You have had your say on a number of topics. At this point I feel
that having been ungentlemanly enough to call a lady member of good standing
on this forum a "brown-nose" for having a sig which you don't even
understand, and also having gone ad hominem on her on a number of occasions
as well as going ad hominem on His Excellency yesterday, I am going to put
this to the vote now.

Every forum member with at least 1 post in this forum prior to this moment
gets a vote. Votes must be in by Saturday night Polish time, and the
referendum question is

"Do we ban/suspend Waldek from this forum?"

The possible answers are

1) Outright ban
2) Suspension for one month
3) Neither, he has still managed to stay within the limits of free speech.

I will go with the democratic flow, but to give him the benefit of the doubt
I will make my vote a (c).

I don't like censoring or banning people, but I am getting a lot of calls
from people to do something about him, and I think this group is now big
enough to make a democratic decision.

If the total of a) and b) outweighs the total of c) votes, then he will get a
suspension, and if the a) votes outweigh the b) and c) votes, then he will
get an outright ban. If the c) votes outweigh the a) and b) votes, then he
carries on as before.

Like I told Kylie, this is not MY group, this is OUR group, and that's why
this is going to the vote.
    • bartis_ervin Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 09:17

      No doubt about it that Waldek has crossed the line. And not once but a good
      couple of times. But I am not a fan of banning so I will agree with Dave on this
      and vote for C/3.

      However, if he will stay and won't get the message and the next month will be
      the same, then maybe we can do this once more. Dave, I remember that you don't
      agree with organising referendum too often.

      Ervin

      Thebartiski.blogspot.com
      • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 11:33
        Hi, What is the meaning of brown-nose by the way?

        I agree with both of you, the question is delicate because of the "freedom of
        speech" stuff but what I really think is this:

        Waldek shouldn't no more to reply people or posts he doesn't like or doesn't
        agrees with - I do like that - is fare.

        The ones who don't like Waldek should express they're thoughts and opinion in
        the forum instead of calling the manager and doing the "papa that boy pulled my
        hair can you beat him please?"

        Portulaco, defending Democracy most of all!

        • varsovian Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:03
          You must be out of your mind wanting to ban Waldek!!!

          He's given me endless hours of fun and various seconds of reflection.
          Sure, he's possibly overweight with a moustache and an oversized buccal cavity,
          but I don't hold that against him - let's face it ... that's a good description
          of half the women in England.

          I vote to ban all bans - Were you a Commie censor in your former life?
          • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:23
            varsovian napisał:

            > You must be out of your mind wanting to ban Waldek!!!
            >
            > He's given me endless hours of fun and various seconds of reflection.
            > Sure, he's possibly overweight with a moustache and an oversized buccal
            cavity,
            >
            > but I don't hold that against him - let's face it ... that's a good
            description
            >
            > of half the women in England.
            >
            > I vote to ban all bans - Were you a Commie censor in your former life?

            I don't want to ban anybody. Read what I wrote. I'm giving the forum a
            democratic choice. My own vote was a c) ie. not to ban.

            "Oversized buccal cavity" - heh, you crack me up.

            Ribbit, ribbit!
            • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:28
              I'm sure that you folks are fluent in English but I'm not...

              Can somebody tell me what the heck is a brown-nose? I can think is somebody
              with s... on it. uncertain

              Thanks
        • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:30
          portulaco napisał:

          > Hi, What is the meaning of brown-nose by the way?

          You know what a "dirty Sanchez" is?
          Well it's a bit like that, only it is self inflicted from ingratiating oneself
          in too physical a manner, and affects the nose rather than the upper lip.

          >
          > I agree with both of you, the question is delicate because of the "freedom of
          > speech" stuff but what I really think is this:
          >
          > Waldek shouldn't no more to reply people or posts he doesn't like or doesn't
          > agrees with - I do like that - is fare.
          >

          He maybe should do that. A bit of a barney here and there is all well and good
          but I think following a lady poster around from group to group vicimising her
          is a bit cowardly. I have no problems if he wants to pick on me, or some other
          thick skinned Usenet ruffian.


          > The ones who don't like Waldek should express they're thoughts and opinion in
          > the forum instead of calling the manager and doing the "papa that boy pulled
          my
          >
          > hair can you beat him please?"

          "Don't you know that it's different for girls?"

          >
          > Portulaco, defending Democracy most of all!
          >

          Uncle Davey, defending democracy, ...... and women.
          • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:46
            Noble attitude of yours defending women, I don't know maybe is because I'm
            Southern European but I have a feeling that Mrs. nasza-maggie knows very well
            what she wants and what's she doing besides reading her posts is a proof of
            that, but ok you're an English Gentlemen and I say this with no irony ok?

            Maybe you don't believe but I don't know what a "dirty Sanchez" is and you used
            quite a difficult english here:

            Well it's a bit like that, only it is self inflicted from ingratiating oneself
            > in too physical a manner, and affects the nose rather than the upper lip

            sorry.

            • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 13:12
              portulaco napisał:

              > Noble attitude of yours defending women, I don't know maybe is because I'm
              > Southern European but I have a feeling that Mrs. nasza-maggie knows very well
              > what she wants and what's she doing besides reading her posts is a proof of
              > that, but ok you're an English Gentlemen and I say this with no irony ok?

              OK. I cannot help that.


              > Maybe you don't believe but I don't know what a "dirty Sanchez" is and you
              used
              >
              > quite a difficult english here:
              >
              > Well it's a bit like that, only it is self inflicted from ingratiating oneself
              >
              > > in too physical a manner, and affects the nose rather than the upper lip
              >
              > sorry.
              >

              Well, I was trying to avoid going into graphic details, but I will say it very
              simply: we say someone is "brown nosing" if that person is "licking someone's
              ass", from the idea that a person could come away from such an activity with
              pooh on their nose, and I don't mean Winnie.

              People refer to over-obvious sucking up to someone as "kissing/licking
              someone's arse/ass" and this brown nose phrase is referring to that.

              Obviously, it's not a nice think to say to a lady.

              Hope this helps.
              • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 13:27
                Thank you! Fiat Lux! I guess I needed the scheme to understand, eh eh...

                Well we don't have that idiomatic expression in Portugal, we use something
                like "shoeshine" or "brush".

                I'm waiting for the victim to defend herself here, lawyers are accepted.
        • waldek1610 The ballot box is open on polish voice's banning. 15.12.05, 07:30
          portulaco napisał:

          > The ones who don't like Waldek should express they're thoughts and opinion in
          > the forum instead of calling the manager and doing the "papa that boy pulled
          > my hair can you beat him please?"

          By "pulling their hair" they mean that I dared to opose theirs (predominantly
          anglo-saxon poin of view).... I guess that's a crime.....

          > Portulaco, defending Democracy most of all!

          God Bless You for that! I don't care what those EU atheists say...
          • ianek70 Help! 15.12.05, 08:39
            waldek1610 napisał:


            > By "pulling their hair" they mean that I dared to opose theirs (predominantly
            > anglo-saxon poin of view).... I guess that's a crime.....
            >
            > > Portulaco, defending Democracy most of all!
            >
            > God Bless You for that! I don't care what those EU atheists say...

            Oh, no, Waldo's been listening to Radio Maryja.
            • waldek1610 Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 15.12.05, 10:24
              ianek70 napisał:

              > waldek1610 napisał:
              >
              >
              > > By "pulling their hair" they mean that I dared to opose theirs (predomina
              > ntly
              > > anglo-saxon poin of view).... I guess that's a crime.....
              > >
              > > > Portulaco, defending Democracy most of all!
              > >
              > > God Bless You for that! I don't care what those EU atheists say...
              >
              > Oh, no, Waldo's been listening to Radio Maryja.

              I can't tell difference between demagogy of the BBC and demagogy of Radio
              Maryja...Quite different views of the World, but same one sided tactics...
              • ianek70 Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 15.12.05, 20:13
                waldek1610 napisał:

                > I can't tell difference between demagogy of the BBC and demagogy of Radio
                > Maryja...Quite different views of the World, but same one sided tactics...

                Well, have you ever watched Polish TV? They quite often use the BBC as a source
                of information if they don't have their own reporter on the scene.
                But the British media rarely say, "And according to Radio Maryja, the
                earthquake was caused by Jews and masons."
                Why is that?
                • usenetposts Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 16.12.05, 00:10
                  ianek70 napisał:

                  > waldek1610 napisał:
                  >
                  > > I can't tell difference between demagogy of the BBC and demagogy of Radio
                  >
                  > > Maryja...Quite different views of the World, but same one sided tactics..
                  > .
                  >
                  > Well, have you ever watched Polish TV? They quite often use the BBC as a
                  source
                  >
                  > of information if they don't have their own reporter on the scene.
                  > But the British media rarely say, "And according to Radio Maryja, the
                  > earthquake was caused by Jews and masons."
                  > Why is that?

                  That's the third time today you've cracked me up.
                  • waldek1610 Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 16.12.05, 08:33
                    usenetposts napisał:

                    > > Well, have you ever watched Polish TV? They quite often use the BBC as a
                    > source
                    > >
                    > > of information if they don't have their own reporter on the scene.
                    > > But the British media rarely say, "And according to Radio Maryja, the
                    > > earthquake was caused by Jews and masons."
                    > > Why is that?
                    >
                    > That's the third time today you've cracked me up.

                    Where's the punch line?
                    • usenetposts Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 17.12.05, 03:02
                      waldek1610 napisał:

                      > usenetposts napisał:
                      >
                      > > > Well, have you ever watched Polish TV? They quite often use the BBC
                      > as a
                      > > source
                      > > >
                      > > > of information if they don't have their own reporter on the scene.
                      > > > But the British media rarely say, "And according to Radio Maryja, t
                      > he
                      > > > earthquake was caused by Jews and masons."
                      > > > Why is that?
                      > >
                      > > That's the third time today you've cracked me up.
                      >
                      > Where's the punch line?

                      I heard that in your case, that's what they call the line of flesh and
                      cartiledge that keeps our two nostrils separate.
                • waldek1610 Re: Help! You needs somebody's mentoring? 16.12.05, 08:38
                  ianek70 napisał:

                  > But the British media rarely say, "And according to Radio Maryja, the
                  > earthquake was caused by Jews and masons."
                  > Why is that?

                  I don't argue that BBC has more viewers than Radio Maryja/TV Trwam...my point
                  was that whenever the BBC mentions the later..they describe it as "ultra"-
                  catholic media....But why? Just because they stay true to catolic ideals and
                  don't accept gays; women priests, married priests? What the BBC forgets is that
                  catolics are not anglicans for the reason..
      • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 12:34
        bartis_ervin napisał:

        >
        > No doubt about it that Waldek has crossed the line. And not once but a good
        > couple of times. But I am not a fan of banning so I will agree with Dave on
        thi
        > s
        > and vote for C/3.
        >
        > However, if he will stay and won't get the message and the next month will be
        > the same, then maybe we can do this once more. Dave, I remember that you don't
        > agree with organising referendum too often.
        >

        You've got a good memory!

        That's right, I don't, because what happens is you keep asking the people until
        one fine day they happen finally to give you the result you want, and then even
        if they change their mind a month later and a virulently of the other opinion a
        year later, they never get asked again.

        If a democratic system decides it wil have regular referenda on any theme, they
        should also continue with the same regularity for a fair period after giving
        the result the party in power was hoping for.
        • usenetposts Re: The summary so far. 14.12.05, 12:40
          So far we have only c) votes in this referendum:

          Uncle Davey
          Bartis Ervin
          Portulaco
          Varsovian

          Waldek has not voted, but I assume that he will also vote for himself to have
          full freedom of speech, and so those in favour of the banning or suspension
          have a bit of catching up to do.

          There is slighty under 84 hours left of voting time.

          I will provide summaries at regular intervals, or anyone else who feels like
          making a summary or a commentary is of course welcome.
          • russh Re: The summary so far. 14.12.05, 13:12
            Hi Guys,

            I'm for not banning him. As Vasarvian, I've now started enjoying the stupidity
            of the banter, although I will not be adding to it by responding to him, as it's
            futile.

            One thing, away from the thread, but introduced by you earlier - I have qualms
            relating to protecting women more than men - they have dished out enough over
            the past years, and as far as I'm concerned they've got total equality, with all
            that it entails.





            • usenetposts Re: The summary so far. 14.12.05, 15:02
              russh napisał:

              > Hi Guys,
              >
              > I'm for not banning him. As Vasarvian, I've now started enjoying the stupidity
              > of the banter, although I will not be adding to it by responding to him, as
              it'
              > s
              > futile.
              >
              > One thing, away from the thread, but introduced by you earlier - I have qualms
              > relating to protecting women more than men - they have dished out enough over
              > the past years, and as far as I'm concerned they've got total equality, with
              al
              > l
              > that it entails.

              They are not the same as men, and I refuse to be drawn into acknowledging the
              fiction that has been weaved on that head.

              The day they make enough ovas to populate the whole planet during a single
              orgasm is the day we'll be able to treat them as equals, Russ.

              As it is, we have to do like it says in the good book, and look after them a
              bit.

              It's perfectly true that if they are equal to men in rights then they equal in
              responsibilities, but I've never swallowed that guff about them being basically
              the same as us. We have to compete for them, not they for us, usually, and that
              basically means accepting that they have to be treated as equals, and then some
              special treatment on the top.

              A man with broad shoulders takes that in his stride.

              What I don't like, though, is the British legal system, which gives them all
              the rights and us no rights at all, for the simple reason that the legal
              industry knows it will milk more out of divorce cases and family cases that
              way.

              It's easy to get bitter with women having divorce laws like we do, but
              actually, it's not even their fault, it's the bloody lawyers, and they are
              actually the main beneficiaries.
              • russh Re: The summary so far. 14.12.05, 15:30
                Hi,

                I've no bitterness towards women at all - the contrary.

                I just feel that, as in many things, you get out what you put in.

                If respect is merited, then it is given. If it is not, then it's not given.

                I am a great believer in being gentlemanly, especially towards women, but not if
                the situation or person does not deserve or merit it.

                In this context, the protection of Maggie above anyone else, just because she is
                a woman, is not merited.

                If I found a woman taking advantage of her sex to gain certain privileges, then
                again I would not act in a gentlemanly manner towards her.

                I am the first person to open a door for women, offer to carry their bags and
                all of the other normal acts that are considered to be gentlemanly.
                • waldek1610 Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza).......... 15.12.05, 08:11
                  russh napisał:


                  > I am a great believer in being gentlemanly, especially towards women, but not
                  > if the situation or person does not deserve or merit it.
                  > In this context, the protection of Maggie above anyone else, just because
                  > she is a woman, is not merited.
                  > If I found a woman taking advantage of her sex to gain certain privileges,

                  ...and next day she calls herself "Nasza.." (ours)....If you consider just that
                  you'll understand you're dealing with a person that is a demagouge...Since I
                  can say I'm here and I don't think she's "mine" or speaks for me for that
                  matter...

                  • usenetposts Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 15.12.05, 23:42
                    waldek1610 napisał:

                    > russh napisał:
                    >
                    >
                    > > I am a great believer in being gentlemanly, especially towards women, but
                    > not
                    > > if the situation or person does not deserve or merit it.
                    > > In this context, the protection of Maggie above anyone else, just becaus
                    > e
                    > > she is a woman, is not merited.
                    > > If I found a woman taking advantage of her sex to gain certain privilege
                    > s,
                    >
                    > ...and next day she calls herself "Nasza.." (ours)....If you consider just
                    that
                    >
                    > you'll understand you're dealing with a person that is a demagouge...Since I
                    > can say I'm here and I don't think she's "mine" or speaks for me for that
                    > matter...
                    >

                    But that's not what "Our Maggie" means in Northern English, Our Walter!
                    Aa'righth?

                    So: caaalm down, caaalm down!

                    Or, American is not the only form of English, there is the real one too.
                    • waldek1610 Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 16.12.05, 08:42
                      According to the webster dictionary word "our" means; of or belonging to us...
                      Come on, whoever calls himself/herself "our" intends to portray itself as liked
                      and accepted by all....I'm far from accepting a rude demagouge..
                      • usenetposts Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 17.12.05, 23:21
                        waldek1610 napisał:

                        > According to the webster dictionary word "our" means; of or belonging to us...
                        > Come on, whoever calls himself/herself "our" intends to portray itself as
                        liked
                        >
                        > and accepted by all....I'm far from accepting a rude demagouge..

                        And since when has Websters been a dictionary of British English?

                        Hmmmmmn?
                        • usenetposts Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 17.12.05, 23:38
                          Right, subject to any late entries in the last half hour, the results are:

                          In favour of banning:

                          Kylie,
                          Chocise,
                          Ms Jones,
                          Russ,
                          Nasza Maggie

                          and Against:

                          Waldek (assumed)
                          Davey
                          Ervin
                          Portulaco
                          Varsovian
                          Ian
                          Firemouse

                          If I have gotten anyone's intention wrong then please speak up ASAP, other than
                          that the verdict is, we're not banning him, but I hope he takes the closeness
                          of the outcome as a warning to look at himself.

                          We don't want to see stalking of individuals going on around here, neither
                          should acquaintances of mine who are not here to defend themselves, like
                          Charles Crawford, be subjected to abuse either. If you can keep to those
                          requests on my part, Waldek, then as far as I am concerned this is home sweet
                          home for you.

                          Other than that, it would be nice, it being Christmas, if you caould have a
                          truce with Maggie. And I know you love her, so it's what you want, really.

                          I'm off to unstick the thread shortly.

                          Best,

                          - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
                          :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
                          • waldek1610 Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 18.12.05, 06:50
                            Davey,
                            Thank you for your support, I really appreciate your open-mindness! Regarding
                            Maggie case, I'm sure that you would agree with me that while dames deserve
                            respect,they to have to earn it.

                            If she altered her ways a bit, and acted like a dame I would in return be more
                            gentelmenly to her. This is the price of the emancipation of women, hence with
                            rights come the responsibilities. She can't bring up the heavy altirery against
                            me, at the same time count on it, that Waldek will give up his right to defend
                            himself...
                            • usenetposts Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 18.12.05, 15:24
                              waldek1610 napisał:

                              > Davey,
                              > Thank you for your support, I really appreciate your open-mindness! Regarding
                              > Maggie case, I'm sure that you would agree with me that while dames deserve
                              > respect,they to have to earn it.
                              >

                              I think that human beings deserve by default to be treated with a modicum of
                              respect. It may be they lose respect, or earn more, but they have some respect
                              the moment they walk in the door.

                              And it doesn't matter at that point whether we are talking about a woman or a
                              man.


                              > If she altered her ways a bit, and acted like a dame I would in return be
                              more
                              > gentelmenly to her. This is the price of the emancipation of women, hence
                              with
                              > rights come the responsibilities. She can't bring up the heavy altirery
                              against
                              >
                              > me, at the same time count on it, that Waldek will give up his right to
                              defend
                              > himself...

                              I haven't seen anything unwomanly about her.

                              For all I know she might clomp about town in military fatigues and 12 hole doc
                              martins like a lezzah, but to my mind that doesn't show up in her posts.

                              "She's alway's a woman, to me", as the prophet Joel said.

                              Billy that is. Not the one in the Bible.
                            • kylie1 Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 18.12.05, 19:33
                              dames deserve
                              > respect,they to have to earn it.

                              You make me sick, Waldek
                              Where did you grow up? In Afghanistan?

                              > Thank you for your support, I really appreciate your open-mindness!

                              Talk about support, don't you think you should thank all the folks here for
                              THEIR support in allowing you to stay here? Pay attention here Waldek: Dave
                              said:

                              "I think that human beings deserve by default to be treated with a modicum of
                              respect"

                              Did you read that, Waldek? He still thinks you deserve respect eventhough you
                              certainly weren't willing to give Maggie any. Think about it and don't blow
                              your chances.
                              • waldek1610 Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 19.12.05, 06:15
                                Kylie,
                                You sound like I suppouse to suck up to you and others, in order to
                                be "allowed" to participate in this forum. This is exactly what we Poles loath
                                about old EU, they act like we suppose to be happy just to be allowed in...

                                Kylie, just like myself you have to earn my respect, and you certainly are not
                                going to succed in that by bullying and being arrogant. You are not the alfa
                                and omega, so please next time don't lecture me on what's proper and what's
                                not. I initialy did give Maggie respect, and I would continue to do so, only if
                                she didn't dismiss my opinions right away, just because she thinks
                                they "reinforce bad stereotypes about Poles" ..whatever that means.

                                What did you expect, that a Pole doesn't have a right to think indepedently?
                                • kylie1 Re: Before you name yourself "Ours" (nasza)...... 19.12.05, 06:35
                                  > Kylie... you have to earn my respect,


                                  Waldek you can kiss my ass!

                                  I haven't laughed so hard in a long time!

                                  smile smile
                        • waldek1610 which verion of english is "it"? 18.12.05, 06:39
                          usenetposts napisał:

                          > waldek1610 napisał:
                          >
                          > > According to the webster dictionary word "our" means; of or belonging to
                          > us...
                          > > Come on, whoever calls himself/herself "our" intends to portray itself as
                          >
                          > liked
                          > >
                          > > and accepted by all....I'm far from accepting a rude demagouge..
                          >
                          > And since when has Websters been a dictionary of British English?
                          >
                          > Hmmmmmn?

                          Good question Davey! I'll be frank with you; although British English is the
                          original version of the language, it can no longer be considered the
                          only "correct" version of english language. No offense my friend. Because of
                          the decline of Great Britain on the World stage...(the fact that I'm sure
                          you're very well aware of)...and rise of other anglofonic nations, especially
                          the USA..the american -english seems to take lead from english spoken in UK
                          capital.
                          • usenetposts Re: which verion of english is "it"? 18.12.05, 15:19
                            waldek1610 napisał:


                            > > And since when has Websters been a dictionary of British English?
                            > >
                            > > Hmmmmmn?
                            >
                            > Good question Davey! I'll be frank with you; although British English is the
                            > original version of the language, it can no longer be considered the
                            > only "correct" version of english language. No offense my friend. Because of
                            > the decline of Great Britain on the World stage...(the fact that I'm sure
                            > you're very well aware of)...and rise of other anglofonic nations, especially
                            > the USA..the american -english seems to take lead from english spoken in UK
                            > capital.

                            I am not arguing that. I am stating that the term "Our Maggie" is to us only a
                            sign that someone has spent a lot of time in and/or is showing affection for
                            northern England, especially north west England.

                            Where a southerner would say

                            "You think you've been sitting here longer than me, Peter, but you haven't,
                            matey!"

                            a Liverpudlian would probably say "You think you've been sat here longer than
                            me, our Peter, but you've not!"

                            here in one sentence you see three variations just in dialects of British
                            English, all as valid as each other, and as valid as US English also.
                            • waldek1610 Re: which verion of english is "it"? 19.12.05, 06:28
                              usenetposts napisał:


                              > I am not arguing that. I am stating that the term "Our Maggie" is to us only
                              a
                              > sign that someone has spent a lot of time in and/or is showing affection for
                              > northern England, especially north west England.

                              Except the fact that she calls herself "Nasza Maggie" and a polish
                              word "nasz/nasza" (our) is meant to show acceptance and love...by everyone.
                              Which in her case is far from true. Just like in the Communist times, Soviet
                              Union insisted that we Poles refered to them lovingly as to "our
                              brother"...Poles joked, unofficially that, Russians are in fact our brothers,
                              because, you can choose friends, but you can not choose who's your brother.


                              > Where a southerner would say
                              >
                              > "You think you've been sitting here longer than me, Peter, but you haven't,
                              > matey!"
                              >
                              > a Liverpudlian would probably say "You think you've been sat here longer than
                              > me, our Peter, but you've not!"
                              >
                              > here in one sentence you see three variations just in dialects of British
                              > English, all as valid as each other, and as valid as US English also.

                              Well, my point was that living in US I use Webster's dictionary because it's
                              the most popular dictionary on american english....at not ocassion I said
                              Webster is based on British english...
                              • usenetposts Re: which verion of english is "it"? 19.12.05, 18:30
                                waldek1610 napisał:

                                > usenetposts napisał:
                                >
                                >
                                > > I am not arguing that. I am stating that the term "Our Maggie" is to us o
                                > nly
                                > a
                                > > sign that someone has spent a lot of time in and/or is showing affection
                                > for
                                > > northern England, especially north west England.
                                >
                                > Except the fact that she calls herself "Nasza Maggie" and a polish
                                > word "nasz/nasza" (our) is meant to show acceptance and love...by everyone.
                                > Which in her case is far from true. Just like in the Communist times, Soviet
                                > Union insisted that we Poles refered to them lovingly as to "our
                                > brother"...Poles joked, unofficially that, Russians are in fact our brothers,
                                > because, you can choose friends, but you can not choose who's your brother.
                                >

                                Hmmn. You can't choose who's on your Forum either.

                                Only joking, Waldek.
                • usenetposts Re: The summary so far. 16.12.05, 00:07
                  russh napisał:

                  > Hi,
                  >
                  > I've no bitterness towards women at all - the contrary.
                  >
                  > I just feel that, as in many things, you get out what you put in.
                  >

                  That doesn't always hold true in a leper colony, but I get your drift.
    • firemouse My answer is 3) 14.12.05, 13:15
      > 3) Neither, he has still managed to stay within the limits of free speech.

      Just to make it clear.

      I think that I really don't know what exactly happened between Maggie and Waldek
      and I don't believe simple posting or signature issue might cause such
      aggresiveness towards her. As for me this is private thing and they should sort
      it out on a private ground.

      More less these are my reasons.

      Dictionay.com says that forum means:

      1.
      1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was
      the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
      2. A public meeting place for open discussion.
      3. A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper
      or a radio or television program.
      2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among
      experts and often including audience participation.
      3. A court of law; a tribunal.

      I don't want this forum to have a main meaning of 3. I'd prefer to stay with 1.2.

      FM
      • usenetposts Re: My answer is 3) 14.12.05, 13:22
        So far, it's looking pretty unanimous....
    • ianek70 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 13:29
      Don't ban him.
      It's been said before, he is undeniably a pain in the arse, but by clicking
      on "moje forum" and then putting his nick in "nieprzyjaciele", he ceases to
      exist while you're logged on.
      Then if, for whatever reason (masochism? hangover?), you want to reply to him,
      you simply log off then on again.
      • kylie1 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 22:06
        Well, looks like I will be the first one here to disagree on a couple of issues
        with all of you guys.

        I don't think bringing up the "commies" censorship has anything to do with a
        simple forum ettiquette. It's very plain and simple. It's called RESPECT.
        Believe it or not, respect DOES exist in democracy and is a huge part of it.
        Personally, I choose my forums where I know people are fun to be around, they
        know how to say positive things about each other.... and most of all MAKE YOU
        FEEL WELCOME. I think most of us would agree that we all like a warm and
        friendly atmosphere, little friendly jabs, humor, jokes etc. Mods are there to
        make sure that no one steps out of line and no one gets hurt. After a while we
        naturally begin to form some sort of a bond with each other and personally it
        bothers me to no end when I see someone stalked and pestered on daily basis.
        That's wrong and that should have no place at all.

        I am VERY SURPRISED I haven't heard ANYONE yet say that they understand the
        seriousness of what Waldek has done. I haven't heard anyone say they truly feel
        for Maggie and what she was put through. I find it somewhat insensitive,
        almost indifferent. I am surprised Maggie was willing to stay with us that
        long. And for the life of me I can't understand how anyone can get away with
        this for so long. I am glad Dave is doing something about it right now and it
        sure couldn't be a day too soon. Thanks Dave.

        For you, Waldek here is my two cents:

        You have been really nasty about Maggie and in all honesty your visits should
        have been terminated from here a long time ago. You desperately craved support
        from all of us to add to the bashing of Maggie but that didn't work, did it?
        Your threads were amusing and interesting at times but that should not be your
        ticket to stay here and pretend like nothing's happened. I found your comments
        very offensive, demeening and unaccaptable.

        The question I would have for you, Waldek, is "are you a gentlman enough to
        appologize to Maggie"? If not, I wouldn't allow you back. Period. If you can't
        make some sort of committment right now, how is this supposed to change a month
        from now? If I were to choose between you amusing us with your threads and
        Maggie, you probably know my answer.

        smile

        • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.12.05, 23:37
          I must say you've got a very valid point relating to the ethics of a forum, and
          the need for respect; the lack of either sometimes validates the need for some
          form of censorship.

          My view still stands though that I agree with Dave that he (Waldek) should be
          given a chance to change his comportment.
          • waldek1610 Who's ideas are"ultra" Waldek's or"Polish Brit's"? 15.12.05, 09:05
            russh napisał:

            > I must say you've got a very valid point relating to the ethics of a forum,

            Yes, Nazi Germans would say they had ethics too......unfortunatelly they
            excluded non-arians from deserving to be treated ethically...


            > My view still stands though that I agree with Dave that he (Waldek) should be
            > given a chance to change his comportment.

            You want me to sell out and close my eyes to the polish point of view? You gous
            might be friendly folks...but at the same time anything that don't fit your
            definition of the "normal (British way) you automatically call unacceptable
            or "ultra"-this or ultra that.

            If you listen to me you would understand that to me bult of your ideas are in
            the same way unacceptable and "ultra"
        • waldek1610 The ballot box is open on polish voice banning. 15.12.05, 08:55
          kylie1 napisała:

          > I don't think bringing up the "commies" censorship has anything to do with a
          > simple forum ettiquette. It's very plain and simple. It's called RESPECT.

          I agree with you Kelie, I would like to have a right to say what I think even
          if Maggie, Ianek or Russh disagree...They find my opinions unacceptable on
          basis of ideology, but again it's only their opinion. After all is Radio
          Maryja "ultra...(catholic) just because BBC calls it so, or is the EU parliment
          gay & lesbian loving because it seems so, or is Waldek unacceptable because
          Maggie, Ianek and Russh says so?


          > I am VERY SURPRISED I haven't heard ANYONE yet say that they understand the
          > seriousness of what Waldek has done. I haven't heard anyone say they truly
          feel
          >
          > for Maggie and what she was put through.
          This woman has persecuted me on English Only forum just because I was not
          brainwashed in England like herself....As the admin she says there's no
          discussing politics, but later she brings up political subject that suites her
          anglo-saxon propagnda purpouse...Is that OK Kylie?


          > For you, Waldek here is my two cents:
          > You have been really nasty about Maggie and in all honesty your visits should
          > have been terminated from here a long time ago. You desperately craved
          support
          > from all of us to add to the bashing of Maggie but that didn't work, did it?

          In democracy they report civil rights violation, so should we bash Mr.
          Vissentall for hunting down crimes and violation commited by Nazi Geramany?

          > Your threads were amusing and interesting at times but that should not be
          your
          > ticket to stay here and pretend like nothing's happened. I found your
          comments
          > very offensive, demeening and unaccaptable.
          >
          > The question I would have for you, Waldek, is "are you a gentlman enough to
          > appologize to Maggie"?

          The real question is; would you appologize to Yoko Ono, for breaking up the
          best rock&roll band in history? Would you appologize to Catrine the Great,
          Imelda Marcos, Elena Caucescu, for bashing they deserve? and self
          proclamed "Nasza" Maggie is certainly the Imelda Marcos of the English Only
          forum, where nobody can discuss politics but her....
          Sure lady deserves respect but not all women are ladies...


          > If not, I wouldn't allow you back. Period.

          When will you realise that Brits don't have a monopoly for being right?
          • ianek70 Re: The ballot box is open on gobshite banning 15.12.05, 09:42
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > I agree with you Kelie, I would like to have a right to say what I think even
            > if Maggie, Ianek or Russh disagree...They find my opinions unacceptable on
            > basis of ideology, but again it's only their opinion. After all is Radio
            > Maryja "ultra...(catholic) just because BBC calls it so, or is the EU
            parliment
            >
            > gay & lesbian loving because it seems so, or is Waldek unacceptable because
            > Maggie, Ianek and Russh says so?

            Yes.
            And anyway, it's not a question of whether something's unacceptable or "ultra",
            you just write the same things again and again and again, and either ignore or
            don't understand people's explanations that you're wrong, and that you're not
            representing Poles, just yourself.
            And you give pointless comparisons, for example:

            > The real question is; would you appologize to Yoko Ono, for breaking up the
            > best rock&roll band in history? Would you appologize to Catrine the Great,
            > Imelda Marcos, Elena Caucescu, for bashing they deserve? and self
            > proclamed "Nasza" Maggie is certainly the Imelda Marcos of the English Only

            And you constantly repeat weird stereotypes that only exist in your head, for
            example:

            > When will you realise that Brits don't have a monopoly for being right?

            And you don't have a monopoly on writing repetitive irrelevant crap, Waldo, but
            you're trying.
            • waldek1610 Hello! this is not gobshite coutry..to jest Polska 15.12.05, 10:19
              ianek70 napisał:

              > And you constantly repeat weird stereotypes that only exist in your head, for
              > example:

              > > When will you realise that Brits don't have a monopoly for being right?
              >
              > And you don't have a monopoly on writing repetitive irrelevant crap, Waldo,
              > but you're trying.

              Sure, I don't....because that's exactly what you are doing. Not once you were
              man enough to admit you were wrong by saying something like:"Well, Waldek I
              agree with you, after all I'm a Brit and what do I know about Poland.. "

              But, you constantly repeat same old stuff....
              • ianek70 Re: Hello! this is not gobshite coutry..to jest P 15.12.05, 19:43
                waldek1610 napisał:

                > Sure, I don't....because that's exactly what you are doing. Not once you were
                > man enough to admit you were wrong by saying something like:"Well, Waldek I
                > agree with you, after all I'm a Brit and what do I know about Poland.. "

                Why should I admit I'm wrong when I'm not?
                You think people can live in a country for years and not know anything about it?
                Even you probably know a bit about America by now.
                • waldek1610 Re: Hello! this is not gobshite coutry..to jest P 16.12.05, 08:46
                  ianek70 napisał:

                  > waldek1610 napisał:
                  >
                  > > Sure, I don't....because that's exactly what you are doing. Not once you
                  > were
                  > > man enough to admit you were wrong by saying something like:"Well, Waldek
                  > I
                  > > agree with you, after all I'm a Brit and what do I know about Poland.. "
                  >
                  > Why should I admit I'm wrong when I'm not?
                  > You think people can live in a country for years and not know anything about
                  it
                  > ?
                  > Even you probably know a bit about America by now.

                  In fact I know a lot, but I'm far from teaching americans what their country is
                  all about...Here's the difference!
        • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 15.12.05, 10:57
          Kylie,

          I can't see Maggie expressing her opinion on Waldek anywhere. As said before,
          this is in my opinion a private issue between these two. Let them sort it out.

          I can't speak for Maggie and why should I anyway. I don't engage in private
          matters of others, because this brings only the pain for me and never resolves
          the situation.

          Waldek has his point of view for certain things and even if I do not agree with
          him this solely is not a reason for banning. On the other hand, if he's
          offensive to Maggie, why she does not defend herself? Nor she asked anybody for
          help.

          If I see the offensive comments sprading against other users, I reconsider my
          point of view, but right now I see no reasons for banning.

          FM
          • kylie1 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 15.12.05, 22:11
            > On the other hand, if he's offensive to Maggie, why she does not defend
            herself?

            Why on earth would you want to see that? Would you want Waldek's frenzy to go
            overboard for the 158th time? IF it IS a private matter, why do you feel it's
            OK for him to drag all this into a public forum? Is it so hard to see that
            Waldek is using Dave's forum to meet his own personal agenda?
            And for the record, Maggie did not ask for help. Where did you get this from,
            FM? Heard it somewhere perhaps? Did she address YOU on that particular issue?
            She has the right to enjoy Dave's forum like you and everybody else. We
            welcomed Maggie when she joined us. Once Waldek showed up to pursue his
            stalking, the fun ended.

            >offensive to Maggie, why she does not defend herself

            For one thing, it's not a court of law, FM. It's a place that's supposed to
            provide hours of fun and companionship. By logging onto Dave's forum I expect
            others to respect a few simple GROUND RULES for participation. They are VERY
            simple rules, however, for some unknown reason,impossible to meet by some.

            So here we are: thirty or forty answers later and Waldek hasn't made any
            commitments to make me think he is going to stop his silly behavior. In fact he
            is thriving on your support and encouragement that you readily provide.



            smile

            • ianek70 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 15.12.05, 22:31
              kylie1 napisała:

              > So here we are: thirty or forty answers later and Waldek hasn't made any
              > commitments to make me think he is going to stop his silly behavior. In fact
              he
              >
              > is thriving on your support and encouragement that you readily provide.

              Nobody is denying that Waldo is a pain in the arse, but look at this
              kittenwar.com
              Well nang, if you ask me.
              • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 15.12.05, 23:44
                ianek70 napisał:

                > kylie1 napisała:
                >
                > > So here we are: thirty or forty answers later and Waldek hasn't made any
                > > commitments to make me think he is going to stop his silly behavior. In f
                > act
                > he
                > >
                > > is thriving on your support and encouragement that you readily provide.
                >
                > Nobody is denying that Waldo is a pain in the arse, but look at this
                > kittenwar.com
                > Well nang, if you ask me.


                Heh heh heh. Amihotornot for felines.

                That's cool for cats.
            • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 10:53
              Kylie,

              Athough you are right, I will stick with my point of view. Put the emotions
              aside and I will clarify it once again.

              I am of the opinion that if somebody is attacked then (s)he should defend
              her/himself. It has nothing to do with court of law. This is simple right to
              protect own sphere of freedom, privacy or whatever you call it. If somebody
              writes here that I am *** I _will_ react, you can be sure of this. Maggie did
              not and this surprises me at least.

              I agree that participants here should observe basic rules of behaviour, but if
              you browse through forums here you will quickly notice that every forum has its
              enfant terrible, and Waldek is ours. As of now, he has not attacked anybody else
              than Maggie, so I stick with my private conflict theory. Saying this, I have no
              monopoly for truth and my view may prove wrong, but I'll go with it for a while.

              Now, if this is a private thing, I do not support dragging this into public. If
              somebody does so, he writes his own notes, so to say.

              And I am neither supporting nor encouraging Waldek. What is the big deal, I
              barely read him. Some of his thesis made me laugh, but I decided on my own that
              reading his posts would be just waste of time so I stopped. If he comes with
              something more reasonable, I can start reading him again, but right now nothing
              convinces me to do so. In this way I am enjoying Dave's forum like you suppose
              me to do.

              And please be sure: if he starts to be aggresive towards others, I will be first
              to opt for shutting him up. Would be nice from him to tell us why he despises
              Maggie so much too.

              Have a nice day.

              FM
              • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 11:10
                Hi Firemouse (why Firemouse?),

                I understand you point-of-view, although I do not agree with it - but no problems.

                I think that this whole thread has incorrectly become Waldek vs Maggie. The
                original intention was to use his comportment towards Maggie as just one of the
                examples. He has offended me (although his posts now - figuratively speaking -
                go in one ear and out of the other) both intellectually and as a Briton. He has
                a fixation regarding the Anglo-Saxon / American culture, and continually posts
                his belief that we are all anti-Polish - a complete load of rubbish. In short,
                he has become a nuisance.
                • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 12:03
                  Hi Russh,

                  Why Firemouse? Have a look:

                  www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780553111774
                  Except of Mac is so nice, this description suits me very well.

                  I haven't noticed he offended you too. As wrote before, I am not reading him.
                  Much. Bores me.

                  Everything you say is right, but I'll give him a chance. If he takes a use of
                  this, OK. If not, well. Everybody has a choice.

                  FM
                  • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 12:06
                    Understood. I've never heard of it before. Shows i'm getting old.
                    • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 12:38
                      No, this just shows your kids don't read it smile
    • waldek1610 Was Robin Hood criminal? Depend's who you ask..... 15.12.05, 09:38
      usenetposts napisał:

      > "Do we ban/suspend Waldek from this forum?"

      It's up to you Usenetpost, you can ban me if you want, and you can also keep
      all EU subsidies for yourself, after all Great Britain just can not afford to
      be poor....

      Poland meanwhile can sit comfortably in poverty and Waldek can listen as Brits
      make decision on what's acceptable, what fits British ideals and what does
      not....

      P.S. Being inteligent person, you certainly realise that what you call
      unacceptable or ultra, for people belonging to other nation can be not only
      quite OK but also praiseworthy. I might get annoying at a times, because I
      can't just sit and let others deside what's good for Poland.

      If I was a Pole living in London I would certainly not dare to go on Foreigners
      living in Britain forum and tell Brits what they shoul be saying, and what's
      acceptable and what's not.....Do you get the point my friend?
      • portulaco Going around in circles 15.12.05, 09:49
        Stop please!!!

        I'm I wrong, or the subject here was about Waldek's baning from this forum?

        Even if most of us don't like his attitude the men is at least coming here to
        defend himself.

        I don't see Mrs. Nasza-Maggie around, why?

        I guess she's amused with this "fiesta"

        I want a confrontation, civilized of course...

        Portulaco says: don't make the Portuguese guy turn the table! smile
      • ianek70 The Three R's 15.12.05, 10:20
        waldek1610 napisał:

        > usenetposts napisał:
        >
        > > "Do we ban/suspend Waldek from this forum?"
        >
        > It's up to you Usenetpost, you can ban me if you want, and you can also keep
        > all EU subsidies for yourself, after all Great Britain just can not afford to
        > be poor....
        >
        > Poland meanwhile can sit comfortably in poverty and Waldek can listen as
        Brits
        > make decision on what's acceptable, what fits British ideals and what does
        > not....
        >
        > P.S. Being inteligent person, you certainly realise that what you call
        > unacceptable or ultra, for people belonging to other nation can be not only
        > quite OK but also praiseworthy. I might get annoying at a times, because I
        > can't just sit and let others deside what's good for Poland.

        The 3 R's according to Waldo:
        Repetition
        Repetition
        Repetition
        • waldek1610 I already know what you think. Answer my questions 15.12.05, 10:35
          ianek70 napisał:

          > The 3 R's according to Waldo:
          > Repetition
          > Repetition
          > Repetition

          And you constantly repeat same crap about Waldek, instead of answering my
          questions. You dismiss important questions, and you miss the opportunity to
          learn. After all its you that need mentoring on how to think polish way, after
          all I don't live in your country....you live in mine, so quit gobshiteing and
          start... myslec po polsku.
          • varsovian Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 11:26
            I'm bored with this.
            Can we start having fun again, please?
            • waldek1610 Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 11:31
              why, don't you like when someone makes fun of you for a change?
              • bartis_ervin Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 12:47

                Dear Waldo,

                as already Ianek pointed out, you are not helping your cause by writing in
                English (looks like you also have a "British agenda") on a forum for foreigners.

                Start a forum to protect Polish language and culture, you can meet people who
                think like you, get together and set up an NGO. EU has numerous funds
                (especially for culture, publishing, translations) and you can apply. I promise
                that if you do this, I will help you write a project and look for grant. Go down
                to Czarne, talk with Stasiuk, maybe he'll help too.
                This is not a joke, do it for real. Don't be one of those who spends his time
                complaining. Do something about it!! Or how Nike put it: "Just do it!"

                I would also like to draw your attention that in this forum there are not just
                British, but French, Canadian, Italian, Hungarian and probably this is not the
                end of the list. So drop your crap on the "British agenda" which exists solely
                in your head.

                Ervin

                Thebartiski.blogspot.com
                • waldek1610 Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 13:04
                  Dear Bartis,
                  I have my name and you don't need to americanize it, it's not like my name is
                  unpornouncealbe.... Just say Waldek...after all I don't alter your name
                  to ...Barby.

                  About the "British agenda", don't you think if at least one person pointed it
                  out there must be reason behind it. My poin is that you don't question much
                  less ridicule Romans while in Rome...So as long as you are living in Poland at
                  least try do do an efort to do things polish way. Tehrefore if I'm voluntering
                  free advice for foreigners be more apreciative about it.
                  • bartis_ervin Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 13:57

                    Well, I don't think anybody asked for your advices. As far as I am concerned, I
                    rather take my Polish wife's advice than yours.

                    Your volunteering has not been excepted yet. Where are your credentials?

                    Your point is that you have no point. Do something except talking and talking
                    and repeating and repeating.

                    Check the following: Act on Aliens of 13 June 2003 (Journal of Laws of 2003, No
                    128, it. 1175. If you see somewhere the obligation to do things in the Polish
                    way, please do let me know. Until then, everybody behaves in the way she/wants
                    until respecting the law.

                    And if you really want, just go ahead and call me Barby: I don't have any
                    problem with my gender or sexual identity.

                    Keep well and let me know when you have the NGO. Until then I can update you
                    regarding different grants. Learn to do something productive with your anger.

                    Ervin

                    Thebartiski.blogspot.com
                  • chochise Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 14:06
                    Advice? Nobody asked for your advice. And advice should be polite.

                    As for being in Rome. You're not in Poland or even live here! You're in the
                    USA. So who are you to be telling anyone, especially foreigners what to think
                    or how to behave?!

                    If anything you're widening the awful stereotypes many foreigners tend to have
                    about Poles or Polonia. So as I once said.
                    Shut up and pay attention.


                    • portulaco Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 14:48
                      Ok! I will turn the table!

                      Blam!

                      Waldek I'm surprised with your attitude, you remind me some polish guy in a
                      reality show called bar-europa, he's always very determined to say to
                      foreigners pearls such as "Jestes w Polsce??? Mow po polsku!!!" and I'm sure he
                      barely speaks English or other language, what a exemple of maturity of humanity.

                      When this guy will go to Portugal I should say to some friends to wait for him
                      in the airport and force the guy to speak portuguese "Estas em Portugal? Fala
                      portugues!!!"

                      Anyway worse than Waldek temper is Nasza-Maggie despise to all of this. Maybe
                      she's trying to proof the British manners by avoinding talking about her or
                      something like that but as Americans say it's quite a "Chicken" behaviour.

                      Same way there is banning for Waldek should be for Nasza-Maggie if she doesn't
                      give an answer.
                      • ms.jones Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 18:23
                        > Anyway worse than Waldek temper is Nasza-Maggie despise to all of this. Maybe
                        > she's trying to proof the British manners by avoinding talking about her or
                        > something like that but as Americans say it's quite a "Chicken" behaviour.
                        >
                        > Same way there is banning for Waldek should be for Nasza-Maggie if she
                        doesn't give an answer.

                        Portulaco, are you serious? Maybe I'm overtired and this is an obvious joke and
                        I can't see it... Don't you choose your battles? Do you get involved every time
                        someone makes an idiotic comment? Do you really think that any and every insult
                        spewed by an anonymous person on the internet deserves your time and energy? Do
                        you want to get caught up in someone's obsession so as not to let a provocation
                        go unanswered? Do you dignify unbalanced outbutsts on the net with your
                        constant attention/time/energy? Are you prepared to stoop to any level to show
                        them off? etc, etc, etc. You'd be letting someone else control your life then.
                        Would it be worth it?
                      • waldek1610 If noone in UK learns polish,for poles convenience 16.12.05, 09:38
                        why, would you expect that pole learned english so he can give direction to
                        english visitor...After all you can't expect everybody to speak all languages.
                        I believe whenever someone travels it is his responsibility to find ways to
                        communicate. How would you feel if the Mongolian tourist visited England and he
                        demanded that you spoke his language?


                        portulaco napisał:

                        > Ok! I will turn the table!
                        >
                        > Blam!
                        >
                        > Waldek I'm surprised with your attitude, you remind me some polish guy in a
                        > reality show called bar-europa, he's always very determined to say to
                        > foreigners pearls such as "Jestes w Polsce??? Mow po polsku!!!" and I'm sure
                        he
                        >
                        > barely speaks English or other language, what a exemple of maturity of
                        humanity.

                        What is really arrogant is... the expectation of english speaking person that
                        wherever he or she goes, she has a right to demand that everybody spoke english
                        for his/her convenience.


                        > Anyway worse than Waldek temper is Nasza-Maggie despise to all of this. Maybe
                        > she's trying to proof the British manners by avoinding talking about her or
                        > something like that but as Americans say it's quite a "Chicken" behaviour.

                        Yes, she thinks she knows better, because she got indoctrinated in Britain that
                        for some reason British way of thinking is superior...So she believes, she
                        ignores me, but why should I care what she thinks...

                        > Same way there is banning for Waldek should be for Nasza-Maggie if she
                        doesn't
                        > give an answer.
                        • usenetposts Re: If noone in UK learns polish,for poles conven 17.12.05, 02:57
                          waldek1610 napisał:

                          > why, would you expect that pole learned english so he can give direction to
                          > english visitor...After all you can't expect everybody to speak all
                          languages.
                          > I believe whenever someone travels it is his responsibility to find ways to
                          > communicate. How would you feel if the Mongolian tourist visited England and
                          he
                          >
                          > demanded that you spoke his language?
                          >
                          >
                          > portulaco napisał:
                          >
                          > > Ok! I will turn the table!
                          > >
                          > > Blam!
                          > >
                          > > Waldek I'm surprised with your attitude, you remind me some polish guy in
                          > a
                          > > reality show called bar-europa, he's always very determined to say to
                          > > foreigners pearls such as "Jestes w Polsce??? Mow po polsku!!!" and I'm s
                          > ure
                          > he
                          > >
                          > > barely speaks English or other language, what a exemple of maturity of
                          > humanity.
                          >
                          > What is really arrogant is... the expectation of english speaking person that
                          > wherever he or she goes, she has a right to demand that everybody spoke
                          english
                          >
                          > for his/her convenience.

                          Yeah, right. Bring back Esperanto.
                          • waldek1610 Re: If noone in UK learns polish,for poles conven 17.12.05, 09:05
                            usenetposts napisał:

                            > Yeah, right. Bring back Esperanto.
                            >

                            While a buisnessman in Warsaw, Poland might be better off to know some english,
                            it is not necessary that every street sweeper knew enlish....so he can give
                            directions to american tourist...
                    • bartis_ervin Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 15.12.05, 15:34

                      Thanks Chochise!

                      Waldek lives in US! Until now I missed this extremely valuable piece of information.

                      Waldek, you write in English, you live in US and you scream about the
                      Anglo-Saxon domination. I have some news: US is not the best place for you.
                      Maybe try North Korea or Iran. Could be Cuba, it is closer to you.

                      I would add that it is quite likely that I am more in touch with the Polish
                      realities than you.

                      Now everyting is coming together: you are the person who wrote that "a Japanese
                      girlfriend" complimented the beauty of your eyes! And from here is your Japanese
                      knowledge: Mit-su-bi-shi, To-yo-ta, O-ri-ga-tosmile
                      Thanks, you really made me laughsmile

                      Ervin

                      Thebartiski.blogspot.com
                    • waldek1610 Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 16.12.05, 08:55
                      chochise napisał:

                      > If anything you're widening the awful stereotypes many foreigners tend to
                      have
                      > about Poles or Polonia. So as I once said.
                      > Shut up and pay attention.

                      You just reinforced in me belief that anglo-americans are arrogant and want to
                      tell others what to do....After all why should I listen to english person
                      trying to teach me about my own country-Poland?

                      Secondly, why should I be quiet and listen to some self-loving outsider;
                      Jacques Chirac has that no new-european cares to listen to him, so will you....
            • ianek70 Re: Fun? 15.12.05, 20:49
              varsovian napisał:

              > I'm bored with this.
              > Can we start having fun again, please?

              How about this then:
              www.strangebuttrewe.com/knitGI.htm
              • usenetposts Re: Fun? 15.12.05, 23:47

                ianek70 napisał:

                > varsovian napisał:
                >
                > > I'm bored with this.
                > > Can we start having fun again, please?
                >
                > How about this then:
                > www.strangebuttrewe.com/knitGI.htm


                Heh heh. I loved the bit where it labels the finger in the photo.
          • usenetposts Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 16.12.05, 00:04
            waldek1610 napisał:

            > ianek70 napisał:
            >
            > > The 3 R's according to Waldo:
            > > Repetition
            > > Repetition
            > > Repetition
            >
            > And you constantly repeat same crap about Waldek, instead of answering my
            > questions. You dismiss important questions, and you miss the opportunity to
            > learn. After all its you that need mentoring on how to think polish way,
            after
            > all I don't live in your country....you live in mine, so quit gobshiteing and
            > start... myslec po polsku.

            It's not your country any more, matey. It's ours now.

            It was given to us in the referendum about 20 months ago.

            Now other EU people can come here and behave exactly like they were in their
            own country.

            It's our country also because we pay our taxes here.

            You pay yours in America. And what do the Americans say? "No taxation without
            representation". There is also the saying "he who pays the piper calls the
            tune".

            We are stumping up our countries wealth' to replenish this place after the
            decades when you had to kiss butt to the russks and send them all your ships
            and kabanosy in exchange for terran credits.

            We are paying the piper, we are calling the tune.

            You don't pay anything, ergo, your chance to call the shots as to what we do in
            this here country is precisely nothing.

            If you don't like that, you shoulda thought of it earlier. Hard luck.

            Now Poland has dealt with every invasion in its history, and so the Poles are
            very cocksure that their heart will go on in tytonic fashion, but the EU
            membership is different - it's not an invasion when you sell your own asses
            down the river for EUR information.

            You, boahy, are drinkin rum and coca cola and workin' fo the yankee dollah, and
            you sold out your country the same as your pollytickers did. This is not your
            country any more, you deracinated clown, and you wouldn't even recognised it if
            they bundled you into a van blindfolded and let you out here.
            • ms.jones Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 16.12.05, 01:29
              deracinated - what a great word! And disappointing. I expected (hoped)it was
              something rude but it's not uncertain

              If he is to stay, have you considered changing the forum's name to something
              centering on the man of the moment? Foreigners responding to Waldek1610
              perhaps. Waldek's world. Waldek contra world. 1610th amongst equals. Waldek's
              beautiful mind. Everyone talks about Waldek. Much ado about Waldek.
              His contribution to the volume of threads is outstanding. The man gets people
              talking, swearing and trading insults. His fertile mind generates debates and
              raises the collective pulse without breaking sweat. He has pretty much taken
              over for crying out loud. It's a plot. I'm bound to have nightmares tonight.
              The world according to Waldek1610. Goodnight!

              • usenetposts Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 16.12.05, 01:34
                ms.jones napisała:

                > deracinated - what a great word! And disappointing. I expected (hoped)it was
                > something rude but it's not uncertain
                >
                > If he is to stay, have you considered changing the forum's name to something
                > centering on the man of the moment? Foreigners responding to Waldek1610
                > perhaps. Waldek's world. Waldek contra world. 1610th amongst equals. Waldek's
                > beautiful mind. Everyone talks about Waldek. Much ado about Waldek.
                > His contribution to the volume of threads is outstanding. The man gets people
                > talking, swearing and trading insults. His fertile mind generates debates and
                > raises the collective pulse without breaking sweat. He has pretty much taken
                > over for crying out loud. It's a plot. I'm bound to have nightmares tonight.
                > The world according to Waldek1610. Goodnight!
                >

                So what's your vote then, Bridget, a) b) or c)?
                • ms.jones Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 17.12.05, 23:55
                  I'm glad Maggie lanced the boil. It does feel like yesterday's news now - it's
                  a relief. I'm not a fan of banning people from internet forums, but FoS is
                  rightly not considered unlimited. I'm in favour of not responding to gibberish.
                  I think women find it easier to send someone to Coventry smile

                  Hats off to Russel and Firemouse for making the effort ... but it's been done
                  before and the results are there for all to see.

              • kylie1 Re: I already know what you think. Answer my ques 16.12.05, 03:46
                I know, Hanna. He is almost gaining celebrity status! smile

                How about:

                "Good quality food with a twist - you are what you eat!"


                (Pepto-Bismol at no extra charge while quantities last).

                smile


      • usenetposts Re: Was Robin Hood criminal? Depend's who you ask 16.12.05, 00:36
        waldek1610 napisał:

        > usenetposts napisał:
        >
        > > "Do we ban/suspend Waldek from this forum?"
        >
        > It's up to you Usenetpost, you can ban me if you want,

        I know I can, but I have put it to the vote, and my own vote was note to ban
        you, as indeed the overwhelming majority here has also said.

        In other words, we do not agree with what you say, but we will defend your
        right to say it.

        That having been said, the poll doesn't close until saturday night, and I'll
        tally up the final reckoning then.

        Kylie and Chocise have been in this thread, but I don't have a clear decision
        on a) b) or c) option from either of you, BTW.


        > and you can also keep
        > all EU subsidies for yourself, after all Great Britain just can not afford to
        > be poor....

        It's not about that. It's about having accountability instead of some endless
        gravy train.


        > Poland meanwhile can sit comfortably in poverty and Waldek can listen as
        Brits
        > make decision on what's acceptable, what fits British ideals and what does
        > not....
        >
        > P.S. Being inteligent person, you certainly realise that what you call
        > unacceptable or ultra, for people belonging to other nation can be not only
        > quite OK but also praiseworthy. I might get annoying at a times, because I
        > can't just sit and let others deside what's good for Poland.
        >
        > If I was a Pole living in London I would certainly not dare to go on
        Foreigners
        >
        > living in Britain forum and tell Brits what they shoul be saying, and what's
        > acceptable and what's not.....Do you get the point my friend?

        I certainly do, and it's not what you think it is...
    • kylie1 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 01:01
      #1
    • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 09:04
      ms.jones said:

      > Anyway worse than Waldek temper is Nasza-Maggie despise to all of this. Maybe
      > she's trying to proof the British manners by avoinding talking about her or
      > something like that but as Americans say it's quite a "Chicken" behaviour.
      >
      > Same way there is banning for Waldek should be for Nasza-Maggie if she
      doesn't give an answer.

      Portulaco, are you serious? Maybe I'm overtired and this is an obvious joke and
      I can't see it... Don't you choose your battles? Do you get involved every time
      someone makes an idiotic comment? Do you really think that any and every insult
      spewed by an anonymous person on the internet deserves your time and energy? Do
      you want to get caught up in someone's obsession so as not to let a provocation
      go unanswered? Do you dignify unbalanced outbutsts on the net with your
      constant attention/time/energy? Are you prepared to stoop to any level to show
      them off? etc, etc, etc. You'd be letting someone else control your life then.
      Would it be worth it?

      I'm dead serious and I can explain you my point of view.

      Because the question here is actually a "no question" I was using irony such
      as the turning the table stuff etc, what makes me to comment here is that in
      one hand you are considering the attitude of Waldek wrong -and I agree- but
      in the other excusing nasza maggie despize.

      If I dignifty "unbalanced outbutsts on the net" with my constant attention -I'm
      an attentive person- with my time -I have plenty of it- and energy -thanks God
      I have too- my answer is, yes. The same way as the comments of everybody else
      here.

      More. Uncley Davey and other English people here were always correct, making an
      effort to write an understandable English to all, foreigners and locals -that's
      why I started participating here- but it was needed a Pole who lived a few
      years in the UK to spoil everything with this "wannabe" manners, full of
      idiomatic expressions, jargon, and "private jokes" accessible only for few who
      are aqquainted with UK reality, a little bit like some British Clubs were
      foreigners are just that... foreigners! There are plenty of this clubs in
      Algarve. Bad I must say.

      Kylie said:

      > On the other hand, if he's offensive to Maggie, why she does not defend
      herself?

      Why on earth would you want to see that? Would you want Waldek's frenzy to go
      overboard for the 158th time? IF it IS a private matter, why do you feel it's
      OK for him to drag all this into a public forum? Is it so hard to see that
      Waldek is using Dave's forum to meet his own personal agenda?
      And for the record, Maggie did not ask for help. Where did you get this from,
      FM? Heard it somewhere perhaps? Did she address YOU on that particular issue?
      She has the right to enjoy Dave's forum like you and everybody else. We
      welcomed Maggie when she joined us. Once Waldek showed up to pursue his
      stalking, the fun ended.

      I put your question like this:

      Is it hard to see that Nasza-Maggie is using Dave's forum too meet his own
      personal agenda "English only"?

      For the record Maggie didn't ask for help... it's true but somebody with real
      character should at least say something to defend himself when it's beeing
      talked in public, I believe few hundred access this forum everyday.

      She didn't adress ME and thanks God. Besides I once went to her forum and
      didn't like the "take your shoes before you came inside, don't touch this,
      don't touch that" so as you can see I don't even want that, I avoid it.

      For me the fun ended the moment this political and social issues about the UK
      ms. Nasza Maggie was posting, then the forum should be "Brits living in Poland".

      I'm very dissapointed.






      • waldek1610 The ballot box is open on polish opinion banning. 16.12.05, 10:13
        portulaco napisał:

        > For me the fun ended the moment this political and social issues about the UK
        > ms. Nasza Maggie was posting, then the forum should be "Brits living in
        Poland".
        >
        > I'm very dissapointed.
        >
        I'm glad you figured that out as well. It seems obvious that for some reason
        she thinks (and she pretends to be british) what she says everybody enjoys and
        is superior to what I say. That kind of attitude is exactly what I loath.
        Despite she's polish, she wants to suck up to Brits by saing exactly what they
        want to hear.

        I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a Scot, Pole, Brit, Hungarian or someone
        from Portugal, all are going to be unknowingly ignorant to folks that belong to
        other culture.




      • bartis_ervin Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 10:51

        Portulaco, if you have issues with Maggie that's a different thing.
        I can understand her that she doesn't want to answer, this is not a trial.
        I am also getting tired with our good old and dear Waldek. The only way is to
        ignore him: and then YES! I will be an ignorant!

        Waldek is here but he is saying the same old s***. When he gets and answer which
        he finds difficult to swallow he just ignores it. Sorry, but for me he is not
        arguing. This is selective hearing.

        Before Waldek we had fun, just as we have now, we kept in touch and also argued
        about many things. But we argued following some unwritten and common-sense
        rules. I have no problem with the fact that Dave has different views on gays, or
        PiS or Muslims, this rather makes everything more interesting. It would be
        boring to have people around me who think in the same way as me.

        But what Waldek does is everything, but not arguing. And this is not a newsflash
        to most of us. And by the way, he just called you ignorant not knowing anything
        about you.

        Ervin

        Thebartiski.blogspot.com
        • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 11:12
          Well said!
      • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 10:58
        Hi Portulaco,

        Got to say a few words re your post;

        a) Waldek vs Maggie
        The difference between Maggie and Waldek, as far as I'm concerned is simple - he
        is offensive to many people, and continually so. He has a fixation regarding
        anything Anglo-Saxon / American; Maggie may or may not be a wonderful woman (I
        don't know her so I cannot comment), but I don't believe I have seen anything
        that could be construed as offensive on any of her posts. It is her choice as to
        whether she resonds to Waldek or not. I, as a matter of interest have stopped
        responding to any of his posts, irrespective of whether they offend me (either
        as an Anglo-Saxon or just intellectually) or not.

        b) The referendum on Waldek
        As far as I'm concerned it is not just about his treatment of Maggie. It is
        about his comportment in general on this forum, which I believe is (and I said
        this on an earlier thread, where I apologised for a remark I made to him)
        ruining the spirit of the Forum, and making it less enjoyable. Too much is being
        made of Waldek vs Maggie.

        c) I am sorry that Maggies postings have given you the feeling that the forum
        has become an 'English Club'. It is a little inevitable and natural that the
        British people on the forum will post a lot about the UK - it is their homeland
        after all. If you look at other threads, concerning subjects non-British, there
        has been normal activity. If you look at the threads about Poland, they are
        certainly British-less, and in general either complementary to Poland, which is
        after all our home now, or humorous.

        I for one would certainly not like the non-Brits to leave the forum. We can all
        add to it, and all learn from the different cultural backgrounds of the people
        contributing.

        A little debate is also a good thing, don't you agree? It is only when it stops
        being a 'friendly debate', and evolves into something much heavier and divisive
        (such as the Waldek posts), should we start to worry about the probable decline
        in the generally good quality of the forum.

        Lets start posting normally again.

        What are you doing for Christmas?
        • waldek1610 The ballot box is open on fresh view banning. 16.12.05, 11:27
          russh napisał:

          > I for one would certainly not like the non-Brits to leave the forum. We can
          > all add to it, and all learn from the different cultural backgrounds of the
          > people contributing.

          Ok, I'll try to be more British and say something that you'll understatn. I
          think it's a gobshite when you say you enjoy learning from "different cultural
          backgrounds" but dismiss right away things that are important to me as well as
          many other poles....



          > A little debate is also a good thing, don't you agree? It is only when it
          > stopsbeing a 'friendly debate', and evolves into something much heavier and
          divisive

          There you go, you just admited that there's a issue of socio-linguistics,
          simply put we all write in english here but we are deaf to cultural
          differences. You simply can't have "friendly debate" if you dissmiss everything
          that is non-english and vague to you...

          > (such as the Waldek posts), should we start to worry about the probable
          decline
          > in the generally good quality of the forum.

          Are you saying you had a good guality forum until Waldek voiced his non-british
          point of view?

          > Lets start posting normally again.

          What's "normal"? Same old british banter about self-congratulating and
          unimportant things?

          • russh Read the posts on your new thread 16.12.05, 11:46
            Waldek,

            I'd suggest that you read the new posts in your thread before making any further
            comments about anything on this forum.
    • portulaco Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 12:55
      I believe it's time to put an halt to this thread or dread or whatever...

      Nobody want's banning, I'm very glad for that, really, only shows the good
      qualities of people around here.

      Solution, we only answer to what we want and who we want.

      What I consider a polemical decision from the manager of "Foreigners living in
      Poland" was the fact that he was asked to start a votation in the banning of
      one member and those who pressed uncle dave for that should came to light and
      show the face.

      The question of trial or not seems to me subjective since -in my point of view-
      that's exactly what is going on here.





    • chochise Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 13:23
      Dave

      The guy just doesn't get it. If you let him stay he will just ruin 'our' forum.
      Bridget happens to be completely right on this one.
      A is my vote.

      Now everybody relaaaaaaaaaaaaxsmile
      • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 13:34
        Chochise,

        It makes no sense. He'll be back with another nickname, then another and so on.
        We make his life up. We are sense of his life. He'll not give up on this source
        so fast.

        But I can see now that Kylie was right.

        FM
        • chochise Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 13:45
          Considering his style it will be very difficult for him to do so without any of
          us noticing wink
    • ianek70 If you love Waldo 16.12.05, 13:50
      then ban him. It's obviously what he wants.
      Ever since the issue of banning came up, he's been enjoying the attention. He
      obviously hasn't got anything new to say, but he's getting stupider by the day,
      finding new, more annoying ways of repeating the same things again and again.
      It's easy enough to switch him off, but then you still find that in some
      threads every other post is a reply from a sensible person saying, "piss off,
      Waldo."
      My vote is D) kneecap him.
      • waldek1610 Ian 17.12.05, 08:15
        take the chill pill Ian, I don't want you to get a heart attack.
    • nasza_maggie Trigger and response 16.12.05, 14:01
      I really did not want to be drawn into a debate on Waldek as this really feeds
      his appetite to insult and attack others.

      Really, I shouldn't be wrtitng about him at all as that's what really makes him
      tick and reply even more nonsense to anything I/you/we post. So, it's a dead
      end so to speak.

      Waldeks speciality is 'flaming'.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming
      The reason I have avoided writing anything here in the last few days is
      because, quite frankly I'm sick of the pathetic replies I see from Waldek and
      I'm sick of his personal comments about me or any of the other users. Now he's
      making all of us argue between eachother.

      It's just stupid how he loves to put people into categories. He wants to fight
      stereotypes with stereotypes (?). Noticed how he hasn't voted even though he
      has that opportunity?

      I am not for banning anyone. But there has to be decency. The demagogy Waldek
      knows so much about is his only means of debate. He loves the attention.

      However, I see no reason why I should stand for and tolerate anyone calling me
      names or judging me on a personal level, like Waldek has. ('obnoxiuous' 'brown-
      nose' not to mention other posts on the forums I visit where he has offended me
      in Polish).
      My answer to his silliness is simply not to answer. Why? Because as many of you
      by now have seen for yourselves, it's no use. He'll just repeat himself and not
      listen to any arguments, not to mention manners. Again, dead end.

      I set up my own forum where Waldek instantly joined and attacked me.

      He's followed me here with some silly grudge and feels he can get away with
      more, as this is a private forum and Dave has strong views on FoS.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
      Waldek takes advantage of this as on any other GW or private forums about
      Polonia or Foreigners, other mods would simply kick him off for being rude and
      illmannered. Not everyone is as patient as Davey, I guess.

      I can only presume in time Waldek will either re-log or bring some of
      his 'firends' onto this forum to aid him. Infact there is evidence of this
      already. Want to pat him on the back further?

      Nobody is perfect, right? People have good and bad days.
      Everyone has their own view on things. But why do you attack someone because of
      their signature or their nick? Maybe to you it is funny. Frankly, I don't see
      the humour.
      To me waldek really is not entertainment. And the more you explain his antics
      in this manner, the more he will 'flame'.

      I do not see why I should change my nick or signature, just because one bloke
      keeps going on about it. And then blabs on about England, Britian, history,
      anglo-saxon dominance and presumes everyone here is British and has a British
      agenda. I assume it is only because he has too much free time on his hands and
      no other (sensible) arguments come to his mind – tick any box smile

      It is difficult for Waldek to comprehend rules. That is why I agree, he should
      have his own private forum and see things from the other side of the fence. If
      he so much wants to teach and preach, what's the problem in having a private
      forum to do that?



      What I see here is hypocrisy. His problem is not WHAT he writes as much as
      HOW he writes it. The fact that there is no intonation on the net doesn't help.
      Waldek has a problem with reading and UNDERSTANDING the text, it seems. Maybe
      we can help him overcome this but education is only of use to those, who want
      to learn. Waldek doesn't, it seems.
      I won't mention the linguistics as it is easy for most of you to see Waldek has
      forgotten Polish and not learned English too well.

      See? I can get personal too. But "It's not nice and it's not normal" (Who said
      that?smile)

      More hypocrisy? Ok. He tries to tell those of us in Poland what Poles are like,
      what is good or bad what we should think, what Poles think of them, whilst
      living abroad himself. Fair enough but how much can we take? And all those
      historical hang-ups! We know our history and don't need waldek the messiah in
      the USA to ram his opinions down the throats of foreigners or anyone else for
      that matter.

      If you try reading some of his posts on the Polonia Forum you will see he
      thinks Poles in Poland are worse compared to Polonia abroad. He calls native
      Poles thieves who are lazy, rip people off etc. (So, he attacks himself
      really). Hypocrisy at its best.
      I could translate his polish posts, but why bother? I'm sure the stuff you read
      here is enough to see just the tip of the iceberg of his erm....... logic (?).

      He claims that anyone coming to America should drop their own culture and learn
      American culture for a year. Should be forced to learn English etc. He thinks
      were all to stupid to understand his other posts on GW as were foreigners.
      That's the gist of 'waldeks wonderful world of wisdom'.

      His first post here was about Eskimoes – I guess it was supposed to be ironic.
      Then he said "It's always nice to hear compliments and even a critique of ones
      culture." Seems not.

      I hate to judge but he's brought this upon himself.

      Also, he isn't the only Pole writing here. Many have Polish roots or background
      or I dare say, have lived here much longer than him and are far more 'up to
      date' and more open mindedsmile I for one can say shame. Z swoją każdą wypowiedzią
      potwierdzasz stereotypy które inni mają o Polakach. Robisz Polakom kompletną
      anty reklamę. Brawo(!).

      To finish off.

      There is something called the netiqutte.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

      I do not get personal in a discussion. IMHO that is the lowest form of debate
      you can have. I do not know anyone here personally. I cannot and try not to
      judge by what people write (ok – that may change after that party Dave keeps
      talking about takes placesmile))) )
      Waldek makes this impossible in his case, he's so desperate for attention.

      Furthermore.
      I draw your attention to the link on the 'internet troll'.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
      As for the ballot, ofourse if we want things to get back to normal then A.
      But to be fairer than fair I will say:
      An apology would be nice, then Waldek is on trial period for a month.
      One post or email from anyone on the issue to Dave and he's out.
      And as far as I am concerned it is not only me who's been insulted by Waldek
      even though it is only me he's called names.

      I want to enjoy this forum and not come here and be attacked by anyone on a
      personal note.
      To me, waldek is spoling this forum and the community it has managed to create.
      His comments have neither been useful or funny thus far.

      All in all the more we write about him or to him, the worse it will get. So
      feeding time is oversmile

      Thank you for your support and your views. Gotta dash for the Xmas rushsmile

      Sorry for the long post!!!!

      ttfn
      Maggiesmile
      • nasza_maggie eo 16.12.05, 14:04

        To explain once and FINALLY. English Only is not my forum. It belongs to Agora.
        I help look after it.

        All this is about is Waldeks hung ups that his posts where either moved or
        removed form there and that he doesn't like my signature – consequently that's
        why he's followed me here. I can only apologise that that's happened.

        As a forum moderator amongst other real 'jobs' I feel I have a little more
        experience in the psychology of net communities and forums but that doesn't
        mean I'm never wrong or don't learn new things.
        Maybe Waldek has a problem with the fact he isn't a moderator and that hurts
        his ego in some way. I don't know.

        An AES is someone who is not employed by GW or 'owns' a forum but someone who
        moderates it in their free time, free of charge. It is someone not employed by
        Agora.

        The job of an AES is to keep a forum clean. To make sure that there is no spam
        and that subjects are not off topic/offensive. GW has a very big forum as you
        can see, that's why there is a need for an AES that is the policy they have. We
        look after forums and not own them.

        There is a difference between being an administrator and a moderator. I have
        rules to obide by and people I answer to.

        There is also a difference between a private forum like Daveys, and one like EO
        run by GW.

        And finally, I will not be drawn into any more explainations on my job as a
        moderator on another forum. I come here for the same reasons the rest of you
        do, to enjoy, to read and to ask or discuss things that interest me.

        Forum EO is as they say a 'different kettle of fish' smile

        Maggiesmile
        • kylie1 Re: eo 16.12.05, 20:22
          Hello there Maggie,

          You really don't have to justify anything. Not to me anyway.

          I have already mentioned that I am not going to speak to/about Waldek anymore
          but has anyone noticed that Waldek managed to throw in yet another insult
          towards Maggie just when you were guys trying to figure out what to do with him?

          "Sure lady deserves respect but not all women are ladies..."

          He has stubbed his nose at everybody and as far as I am concerned he will
          continue to do that. Just like before he insults Maggie and nothing's happening.

          You don't deserve that Maggie and I hope you will stay with us since this forum
          has a great potential and has people that I am beginning to get to know and
          frankly I think they are a lot of fun! It's a very nice forum that Dave's able
          to run for us. I would liike to keep it clean and pleasant if that was my
          choice.

          Time for lunch.

          Kylie smile







          "Sure lady deserves respect but not all women are ladies"...

          If that's not a plain insult, I don't know what is.

      • waldek1610 who's trigger happy and ignorant 17.12.05, 08:56
        Maggie,
        You should have spoken up sooner, instead of being trigger happy on the English
        Only forum. Rules and attiquette make sense if everybody is abligued to observe
        them.

        I would not critisize you for no reason, and it was you who were breaking the
        rules as the admin at the EO by putting yourself above the rules when you
        brought up the politics on that forum....instead of enforcing them all the way
        you where picking and choosing members do you consider "friend" and
        an "enemy"..based on wheather one's opinion matches yours.


        Your comments about myslef being profficient neither in english nor
        polish....as you know is the old tactics meant to be little others. Still it
        doesn't change the fact that I don't see myself as a troll, even if you would
        loved everybody else to stand behind you and help you get rid of nasty Waldek,
        who dared to question your polishness and your integrity as a fellow pole.

        Unlike yourself I don't call myself "Nasz Waldek" in order to feel accepted.
        Therefore your theory regarding Waldek's desire for attenttion is just another
        one of yours little tricks that is baseless.

        Maggie, all I was trying to do from the begining was to convince you that you
        don't have to "think british" in order to feel accepted in the english speaking
        forum. Although you're free to associate yourself with whoever you wish, I
        don't believe its was the smart decision to use signature that associated you
        with the United Kingdom, especially when you are admin at the popular polish
        based forums.

        I don't deny I've been serving in US Marines or police, while I feel a need to
        respect my second homeland, I don't see the point in ending all my posts
        with. "Semper Fidelis!"signature... especially when visiting polish website.
        Therefore when you as the admin/moderator at the most popular polish forums
        show allegeance to the british crown it automatically seems a shady bussines....
        • usenetposts Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 17.12.05, 13:49
          waldek1610 napisał:

          > Maggie,
          > You should have spoken up sooner, instead of being trigger happy on the
          English
          >
          > Only forum. Rules and attiquette make sense if everybody is abligued to
          observe
          >
          > them.
          >
          > I would not critisize you for no reason, and it was you who were breaking the
          > rules as the admin at the EO by putting yourself above the rules when you
          > brought up the politics on that forum....instead of enforcing them all the
          way
          > you where picking and choosing members do you consider "friend" and
          > an "enemy"..based on wheather one's opinion matches yours.
          >
          >
          > Your comments about myslef being profficient neither in english nor
          > polish....as you know is the old tactics meant to be little others. Still it
          > doesn't change the fact that I don't see myself as a troll, even if you would
          > loved everybody else to stand behind you and help you get rid of nasty
          Waldek,
          > who dared to question your polishness and your integrity as a fellow pole.
          >
          > Unlike yourself I don't call myself "Nasz Waldek" in order to feel accepted.
          > Therefore your theory regarding Waldek's desire for attenttion is just
          another
          > one of yours little tricks that is baseless.
          >
          > Maggie, all I was trying to do from the begining was to convince you that you
          > don't have to "think british" in order to feel accepted in the english
          speaking
          >
          > forum. Although you're free to associate yourself with whoever you wish, I
          > don't believe its was the smart decision to use signature that associated you
          > with the United Kingdom, especially when you are admin at the popular polish
          > based forums.
          >
          > I don't deny I've been serving in US Marines or police, while I feel a need
          to
          > respect my second homeland, I don't see the point in ending all my posts
          > with. "Semper Fidelis!"signature... especially when visiting polish website.
          > Therefore when you as the admin/moderator at the most popular polish forums
          > show allegeance to the british crown it automatically seems a shady
          bussines...
          > .

          This great semper fidelis fidei defensor honoru i ojczyzny also wrote, only in
          another Forum (Polonia to be precise)

          waldek1610 12.12.05, 06:41 + odpowiedz


          wami41 napisała:

          > POLONIA (ta madra czesc) nie jest dla Polakow dobrym klientem. Nie daje sie
          > nabierac na rozne polskie businessy, nie kupuje "wycenionych przez
          > rzeczoznawcow"nieruchomosci mimo zachety i namawiania, nie lubi polskich
          bubli,
          >
          > jest bardzo krytyczna odnosnie tzw. polskiego cwaniactwa. Majetna czesc
          Polonii
          >
          > nie "szpanuje" przyjezdzajac do kraju, znaja swoja wartosc i to im
          wystarczy.To
          >
          > holota polonijna ciagle udaje, dowartosciowuje sie markami samochodow i
          roznymi
          >
          > pie..mi o zarobkach i wielkosciach kont bankowych.


          Tak, ja tez tego nie pochwalam. Zyje i pracuje w srodowisku 100% amerykanskim,
          wole kupowac ubezbieczenia, samochody i inne uslugi u amerykanow (nie dlatego
          ze udaje "amerykanina" ale dlatego ze polskie biznesy sa na dorobku i tylko
          szukaja okazji zeby oskubac polakow).

          Ale bez przesady, jesli wychowalem sie w Polsce to czasami chce ogladnac sobie
          mecz, film albo dobra ksiazke z Polski...to jestem zmuszony jechac na
          tzw;"polakowo"...i nagle traktuja Ciebie bracie jak barana, tak samo jak w
          Polsce.

          [end of quote]

          Waldek, when are you gonna stop being a hypocrite? You hold your own people in
          contempt, and then get upset because someone jokingly refers to being at "her
          majesty's service" - which, being a link to the English Only Forum evidently
          means that it is a forum for "The Queen's" English. It does not mean she is a
          British spy. British spies are not supposed to own up to the fact in public,
          recent book trends notwithstanding.

          You on the other hand by your own admittance have sworn allegiance to the flag
          of the United States.

          You are an American now, and the only reason why you want a say in Poland is
          not that you love it - quite the opposite - it's because you picked up that
          faaahn Nation's chronic control freakery and stalkerism, along with your
          American apple pie.
          • usenetposts Re: three hours more and the voting here is over. 17.12.05, 20:46
            In three hours the voting is over, and I'm totting up the official result.

            Shortly after that, I will de-stickify this thread.
          • waldek1610 Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 18.12.05, 07:08
            Davey,
            All I have to say is that, while Poles argue and can be very critical of each
            other it doesn't mean, we are so low and crocky figures. I can call my fellow
            poles the worst imaginable epiteths, but it is only sigh of high expectations
            we have from other poles.

            I have sworned to american flag, that's true, but since USA has been the Poles
            favourite country since its creation because of the similar democratic ideals
            that both Poles and Americans adhere to...serving in allied military especially
            american is just as honour as serving in "Wojsko Polskie" (polish military).
            Did you know that politically Poland closest to USA and UK, and totaly
            different in its ideological ideals from Russia, despite the blod ties?

            I don't mean to bring up sad event in UK new history, but the four terrorists
            that commited those deplorable acts in London last summer, were all british
            citizens and that means they too have sworned the allegance to the british flag
            and the obiedience to the Queen....
            • ianek70 Europe's Trojan Horse in America 18.12.05, 15:38
              waldek1610 napisał:

              > I have sworned to american flag, that's true,

              So your an infiltrator rather than a mercenary?
            • usenetposts Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 18.12.05, 15:52
              waldek1610 napisał:

              > Davey,
              > All I have to say is that, while Poles argue and can be very critical of each
              > other it doesn't mean, we are so low and crocky figures. I can call my fellow
              > poles the worst imaginable epiteths, but it is only sigh of high expectations
              > we have from other poles.

              Spin it out, and see if we buy it.

              >
              > I have sworned to american flag, that's true, but since USA has been the
              Poles
              > favourite country since its creation because of the similar democratic ideals
              > that both Poles and Americans adhere to...serving in allied military
              especially
              > american is just as honour as serving in "Wojsko Polskie" (polish military).
              > Did you know that politically Poland closest to USA and UK, and totaly
              > different in its ideological ideals from Russia, despite the blod ties?
              >

              I know they were the only country in Europe that would have voted for GWB. I am
              a fan of GWB - in fact I even named my little boy for him - and so that suits
              me. If you want to swear to the US flag, fine, only be sure that you have sworn
              your allegiance to a different power. No-one has asked me to swear allegiance
              to the Polish flag.

              I have sworn allegiance to the profession of auditor and to look after the
              public interest in this country, and I am a "maz publicznego zaufania" in this
              country, but still nobody said "swear allegiance to our flag, and forswear your
              own queen and country."

              > I don't mean to bring up sad event in UK new history, but the four terrorists
              > that commited those deplorable acts in London last summer, were all british
              > citizens and that means they too have sworned the allegance to the british
              flag
              >
              > and the obiedience to the Queen....

              In fact it doen't mean that. No one of them wil have been forced to give an
              oath of allegiance to the crown or the flag at any time.

              This habit is purely American, and we are just picking up on the idea now, as
              well as the test of citizenship. This is all new law in the UK, for your
              information.

              We have been overtolerant, allowing enemies to sneak into our country.

              I call upon people of all colours who want to live peacefully in Britain to
              stamp on the radical Muslims, and bring all their plans of violence to nothing.
              • russh Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 18.12.05, 17:43
                'I know they were the only country in Europe that would have voted for GWB. I am
                a fan of GWB - in fact I even named my little boy for him - and so that suits
                me'

                Oh Dave, up to now you've been so good!

                'In fact it doen't mean that. No one of them wil have been forced to give an
                > oath of allegiance to the crown or the flag at any time.
                >
                > This habit is purely American, and we are just picking up on the idea now, as
                > well as the test of citizenship. This is all new law in the UK, for your
                > information'

                Bit like swearing on the good book in court. You know how many perjurers there
                have been (rhetorically speaking)? It's a load of rubbish.

                What you say before and after (the above) is he only effective way; an effective
                immigration policy, and all UK residents needing to unite against ANY form of
                radicalism (with an absolute priority being the Muslim form).
                • usenetposts Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 19.12.05, 03:51
                  russh napisał:

                  > 'I know they were the only country in Europe that would have voted for GWB. I
                  a
                  > m
                  > a fan of GWB - in fact I even named my little boy for him - and so that suits
                  > me'
                  >
                  > Oh Dave, up to now you've been so good!


                  I mean it. look at the trouble we had to get the Americans to risk their butts
                  in either of the two world wars, or do NATO.

                  This guy is at least giving a bit of muscle behind making the world a place
                  where - okay, it's not safer yet, maybe apparently the opposite - but at least
                  where we stand up a bit and stand down the people who could bring down our
                  democratic western way of life in the future if left unchecked.

                  He has put a lot of money, energy and blood behind that project, and it's us
                  who benefit. I seriously respect and encourage Bush.
                  • russh Re: who's trigger happy and ignorant 19.12.05, 07:06
                    I'd respect the man (at least in this matter) if it he were consistant. I've
                    said before that I believe in 'global policing', and that the UN & the EU are
                    not capable (which leaves only a US led coalition to do the dirty work, thank
                    you France - again). The problem is that the actions are a) far too selective,
                    and b) that the aftermaths (especially in Iraq) have been very poorly handled.
                    If your going to enforce the law, and then be judge and jury, you cannot be so
                    selecive, and should be capable of handling the inevitable post-conflict situation.

                    What about the African countries?

                    The motivation is questionable, I feel.

                    Clinton also came to our aid, in the ex-Yugoslavian conflict if I remember
                    correctly.





    • nasza_maggie Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 14:05
      Portaluco,

      I thank you for your commentssmile However, please do not compare me to Waldek. I
      have not offended anyone here. I'm sure they would have told me by now!
      I have not tried to ram my views down someones throat just because they happen
      to have a different passport than mine. That doesn't mean I will always agree
      with opinions I read here.

      I see no reason why it is me who should be kicked off this forum. All in all
      this isn't a Waldek v Maggie issue. It's soleley about his behavour. If you
      have so much free time, please read up more about net communities.

      If you feel that there have been too much British issues here, then why not
      post something about your country? About your countrymen in Poland? Anything.
      Why have you only voiced this opinion now? I don't have a problem with anyone
      posting stuff here that interests them as long as it is not offensive.

      And sorry, but your whole conspiracy theory and some ridiculous agenda you seem
      to have dreamed up, is just wrong. More about the EO forum in another post
      (although the fact that I moderate that forum has nothing to do with this one.
      And it will stay that way).

      Just beacuse you think I should answer to everything, does not mean I have to.
      My answer to Waldeks personal comments is no answer. Answering has the opposite
      effect. I don't need to arguements in virtual reality – especially not
      offensive and personal ones.

      I haven't judged you in any way before Portaluco. So please don't get personal
      with me on this issue as you know nothing about me.

      Ok, enough. I don't want to argue.
      All the best to you.
      • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 15:57
        I'm not your dearest thanks God so don't paternalize me.

        Finally you come to the light, took almost one week but you're very busy and
        probably don't have free-time like me, pitty... lucky me!

        You are the ridiculous and the pathetic one.

        Option d: I bann myself from here thanks to your arrogance!

        Regarding the agenda, you can always think I'm crazy, idiot or whatever you
        want.

        Pitty for the forum and don't forget to keep on serving the queen of Brits and
        doing copy-paste from the British newspaper in order to show your petty little
        ego around!
        • nasza_maggie Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:06
          erm ok.
          • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:12
            Guess what... Me too!
          • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:14
            It's Portulaco not Portaluco by the way.
            • nasza_maggie Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:17
              I apologise for mispelling your name from the bottom of my little heartsmile
              • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:20
                So sweeeeeeet... it's ok nasty_maggie
                • nasza_maggie Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:25
                  feel better? smile
                  • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:31
                    and you? smile
                    • nasza_maggie Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:41
                      I didn't feel bad in the first place.

                      Know any good portugese restaurants in Warsaw?
                      • portulaco Re: Dearest Portaluco 16.12.05, 17:45
                        I'm not banning myself... ooopss

                        I heard about one called Portugalia, they serve bacalhau and have nice
                        Portuguese wine.

                        I'm from Lodz so Idon't go to Warsaw that much

                        Have a nice weekend and sorry for my explosive manners (blushing)
                        • bartis_ervin Re: Dearest Portaluco 17.12.05, 11:18

                          Offff... Happy that you settled thissmile

                          Ervin

                          Thebartiski.blogspot.com
    • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:25
      Hi Dave,

      Just changed my mind.

      !st preference - D) with Dave.
      2nd preference - A)

      reason - I have spent the morning trying to explain (with Firemouse) in
      carefully worded posts to Waldek what I believe is his problem on this forum,
      and how it should be rectified. Every post of ours had been extremely assisting
      to him. Response - crap as always. Off with his legs.
      • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:27
        hands, would be more approptiate Russellsmile
        • firemouse Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:32
          So I was wrong about your relationship with Waldek. Errare humanum est.

          But don't you think that if we disable him physically this will give him right
          to demand a parking place in front of forum? wink

          FM
          • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:36
            Yes, but don't you think it will be a tad too expensive to go all the way to
            the USA to do that? He won't be visiting Poland too quicklysmile

            I'd rather spend my money on Daves Partysmile
            • russh Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:38
              The 1000th post party you mean? Or the 2000th post party.

              I reckon that there will be at least 10000 posts before Dave gets round to
              organising it.

              I'm going to start!
              • usenetposts Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 17.12.05, 02:45
                You're more than welcome.

                Sorry if I haven't been as forthcoming as I meant to be, but I'm always going
                off on business at short notice.
            • firemouse Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:42
              We can always keep watchposts at Okecie airport smile

              • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:47
                I will have you know that it is now 'Fryderyk Chopin' Airport.
                Waldek made them change itsmile
                • firemouse Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:54
                  Oh, really?

                  I never get used to these modern names.

                  FM
          • russh Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:36
            You're right.

            Not off with his legs; off with his head!!
            • firemouse Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:41
              So speaks the Sheriff of Nottingham smile)
              • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:48
                Tut! Tut! No British insinutaions here please!
                The french were also good a chopping heads off! You don't have a monopoly on
                that!smile))
                • firemouse Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:52
                  Yes, Mrs. Robespierre smile
                  • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:54
                    Why is it everyone calls me Mrs? Do I sound like a housewife?
                    • russh Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:55
                      Do you have to be a housewife if you're a missus?
                      • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 14:56
                        Guess notsmile But it does age yousmile))
                        • russh Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 15:00
                          What; being a missus, being a housewife, being called a missus or being called a
                          housewife?
                          • nasza_maggie Re: Hey, Maggie, nice to see you back 16.12.05, 15:02
                            bothsmile
                            • nasza_maggie russ - changed my profile appropriately:) 16.12.05, 15:43

                              • russh Re: russ - changed my profile appropriately:) 16.12.05, 15:45
                                I'm cracking up Dot.

                                Love it.
        • ianek70 Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:37
          nasza_maggie napisała:

          > hands, would be more approptiate Russellsmile

          Well since he talks out his arse he can probably write with his feet smile
          • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:37
            ianek70 napisał:

            > nasza_maggie napisała:
            >
            > > hands, would be more approptiate Russellsmile
            >
            > Well since he talks out his arse he can probably write with his feet smile

            ROTFL smile
          • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:38
            I'm still laughing writing this post. Great!
            • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:54
              Finally, some laughtersmile))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
              • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:56
                Absolutely. Seems that a cloud has lifted from over this forum.

                Good on yer Mrs Maggie
                • firemouse Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:58
                  And so we made the longest thread on this forum.

                  Hooray!
                • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 14:58
                  Amensmile And now I shall leave you an go off to listen to my 'Sound of Music'
                  record which I always do so at this time of the year. Brings a tear to my eyesmile
                  • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:01
                    Is that the one by Slade?
                    • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:03
                      Nooooooo it's the one with Julie Andrews smile
                      • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:05
                        I knoo, silly. Just joking!

                        If the hills were alive!
                        • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:07
                          NO no nooooooooooo!!!!

                          Its 'The Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiils are aliiiive with the sound of music' (na
                          na na naaaaaaaaa).
                          • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:16
                            Now I reckon that having the Sound of Music album is more aging than being
                            called Mrs.
                            • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:17
                              Thank God you haven't seen my whole library thensmile))
                              Honestly, I'm just sentimentalsmile
                              • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 15:29
                                Good on yer.

                                Reminds me of the time, a few years ago, when I went to a film with a new
                                girlfriend (and she was a real cracker) - Sunshine. It was real story about a
                                young mother, dying of bone cancer, and, among other things, making taped
                                diaries for her little child so that she (the child) could know the mother even
                                when dead. The songs were by John Denver, and included 'Sunshine' (you know it -
                                'Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy' etc).

                                Halfway through the film, during a particularly poignant part, the tears started
                                falling (mine, not hers), and I asked the new girlfriend if she had a hanky. She
                                laughed so much she started crying as well! I must have touched something, cos
                                we had a fantastic 2 years together!
                                • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 16.12.05, 17:21
                                  Her name was sunshine? Wowsmile

                                  The film I cried at last was 'The Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind' I
                                  really like that , even though I don't like Jim Carey much.

                                  But really the films of Kieslowski and Ken Loach really speak out loud to me.
                                  Ever seen Kes?
                                  I also cry when dogs are involvedsmile eh..........
                                  • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 17.12.05, 02:42
                                    nasza_maggie napisała:

                                    > Her name was sunshine? Wowsmile
                                    >
                                    > The film I cried at last was 'The Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind' I
                                    > really like that , even though I don't like Jim Carey much.

                                    That's funny, because I was blubbing like a baby at that as well.

                                    I found it really gave a lesson to treat love as a great treasure, even though
                                    you may not always feel happy with the person you love.
                                  • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 17.12.05, 06:24
                                    nasza_maggie napisała:

                                    > Her name was sunshine? Wowsmile

                                    No, the film was called sunshine, cos she was like a 'ray of'. Her name was Lynn
                                    something.

                                    >
                                    > The film I cried at last was 'The Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind' I
                                    > really like that , even though I don't like Jim Carey much.
                                    >
                                    > But really the films of Kieslowski and Ken Loach really speak out loud to me.
                                    > Ever seen Kes?

                                    Kes - yes, wonderful.

                                    > I also cry when dogs are involvedsmile eh..........

                                    I've cried easily in sentimental films ever since (Sunshine) - had a go once
                                    during Little Kids on The Prairie - , and must admit it makes me feel better!
                                    Great to be stupidly emotional when it doesn't matter sometimes.


                                    May have come from being born to a generation that had forgotten to cry. My
                                    parents were youngsters (late teens) during WW2, and like so many others saw &
                                    experienced the terrible realities of war. One of the consequences I think was
                                    that they were quite hard in an emotional sense. I'm making up for it.
    • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 12.02.06, 15:49
      nothing's changed, then?
      • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 12.02.06, 16:39
        nasza_maggie napisała:

        > nothing's changed, then?

        His obsession with you is deep, unchanging love.
        • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 12.02.06, 22:53
          It's all very well turning this into a joke, Dave.

          But what the sad thing is, is keeping someone here, who does nothing but throw
          insults around and letting him stay just so that the mileage on the forum
          grows....
          • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 12.02.06, 23:05
            nasza_maggie napisała:

            > It's all very well turning this into a joke, Dave.
            >
            > But what the sad thing is, is keeping someone here, who does nothing but
            throw
            > insults around and letting him stay just so that the mileage on the forum
            > grows....

            Maggie, we had an honest vote about it, am I gonna insult the people who voted
            to keep him below, by riding roughshod over a majority decision?

            Besides, you know my thoughts on censorship.

            He has not used blasphemy, he has not incited people to break the law, he has
            not been anti-semite nor engaged in holocaust denial. He has not been prurient
            or filthy, neither has he made remarks of a genuinely racist character,
            although he has denigrated countries he considers less worthy than his own.

            A person is actually entitled to have the opinions that he has in this world
            still, and if he does not express them on-line, where is he going to go to
            express them?

            Now I don't deny that the associated traffic is a beneficial side effect for
            me, but there's a lot more to it than that, and it is not the main reason
            Waldek stays.

            If it were all about traffic, then why did all these other people vote for him
            not to be banned? Why would they worry about traffic levels on the group? I
            thought that was mainly my little bit of geekiness, not the main driver around
            here.
            • bartis_ervin Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 13.02.06, 09:01

              Dave, Waldek doesn't have opinions. To denigrate others it is not an opinion.

              Had he said the same about Israel as about Romania, it is possible you'd ban him.

              I do not recall his exact words, but what he said about people of Hispanic
              origin living in US was racist.

              I don't care about the number of posts, what I care about is that people who
              had/have a positive contribution will miss out because of this bitter Waldek
              character. Since he's here, it is hard to have a normal conversation.

              Nevertheless, I voted against banning him.

              Ervin

              Thebartiski.blogspot.com
              • bluteau Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 13.02.06, 10:17
                I agree with Ervin.

                Besides, those who voted against his banning would most probably not miss him if
                he were to be removed.

                It's all nice to be just and all, but I think Waldek's presence is not
                contributing anything constructive to this forum. He may have started some
                interesting subjects in the beginning, but now he's just repeating himself and
                becoming more free with his insults. I fear he may just end up keeping people
                away from the forum, which will in the end have drastic effects on the forum's
                stats. Ignoring him is not an easy option either, since there is little else
                going on other than Waldek's antics.
                • russh Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 13.02.06, 11:39
                  Very interesting point.

                  How many people are just fed up with this forum being a 'Waldek' forum, and are
                  not contributing because of it, and therefore reducing the stats, not increasing
                  them.

                  The truth is that there are few 'non-Waldek' threads, which is a pity.

                  I am for banning him, although he may re-appear under a diffrent guise, which
                  would defeat the point.
                  • bluteau Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 13.02.06, 12:04
                    > I am for banning him, although he may re-appear under a diffrent guise, which
                    > would defeat the point.

                    At that point we'd have to not give in to the temptation of answering his posts.
                    Should be simple enough - I think his style would be easily recognisable despite
                    a new nick.
                    • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 13.02.06, 12:43
                      even if he does change his nick, which I doubt - it will be very easy to
                      recognise him - solely form the POV he represents.
                      Besides, I thought he was on trial period....

                      And I agree with blu - this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or
                      cencorship - but with decency and complying with the netiquette.

                      And I couldn't agree more with the 'Waldek forum' comment.
              • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.02.06, 00:55
                bartis_ervin napisał:

                >
                > Dave, Waldek doesn't have opinions. To denigrate others it is not an opinion.
                >

                ...in your opinion.

                > Had he said the same about Israel as about Romania, it is possible you'd ban
                > him.

                I don't know.

                > I do not recall his exact words, but what he said about people of Hispanic
                > origin living in US was racist.

                I was in Spain this week and they look just like you and me, so why is that
                racist?


                > I don't care about the number of posts, what I care about is that people who
                > had/have a positive contribution will miss out because of this bitter Waldek
                > character. Since he's here, it is hard to have a normal conversation.
                >
                > Nevertheless, I voted against banning him.

                You did. That means you must have agreed with his right to free speech.
                • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.02.06, 01:49
                  I reckon, you love Waldo more Dave, than he loves me.
                  I think that's the gist of it.
                  • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.02.06, 10:36
                    nasza_maggie napisała:

                    > I reckon, you love Waldo more Dave, than he loves me.
                    > I think that's the gist of it.

                    I try to love everybody as my Lord commanded, although obviously I fail
                    regularly. However, it is not my fault if you cannot get on among yourselves.
                    • nasza_maggie Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 14.02.06, 11:54
                      mmmmmmmmm

                      oh yes it is!
                      • usenetposts Re: The ballot box is open on Waldek's banning. 18.02.06, 14:10
                        nasza_maggie napisała:

                        > mmmmmmmmm
                        >
                        > oh yes it is!

                        Oh no, it isn't!!
    • nasza_maggie David 18.02.06, 13:28
      If all these personal attacks on me are tolerated in the name of freedom of
      speech, then someone needs to reopen the ballot and look at the netiquette.
      • russh Re: David 18.02.06, 13:51
        Agreed!

        Note that it is not only Waldek now.
        • nasza_maggie Re: David 18.02.06, 13:53
          Yes, he's brought his army.... and this is going way over board.... one by one
          now we're all attacked by these trolls. In the name of what?
          • usenetposts Re: David 18.02.06, 14:06
            nasza_maggie napisała:

            > Yes, he's brought his army.... and this is going way over board.... one by
            one
            > now we're all attacked by these trolls. In the name of what?

            In the name of developing a thick skin and not worrying about it.

            Do you know that learning to deal with conflict on line prepares you and
            toughens you to deal with real life confrontations?

            Maggie, this is HEALTHY. As long as he doesn't cross certain lines in the sand
            which I made clear several times.

            I have been attacked by him more than average as well, maybe not as much as
            you, but more than average, and I just smile. These things ceased to bother me
            a long time ago. I also noted, that while learning to deal with things like
            this on line, it worked in my head like a vaccine with a dead virus, and gave
            me a lot more immunity from being flustered in real life also.

            That having been said, anybody can move a motion for a democratic vote, and as
            long as it is open to all members and there is a long enough period to vote in,
            that's ok.

            You do not need me to kick off every referendum made on this forum.
            • nasza_maggie Re: David 18.02.06, 14:17
              usenetposts napisał:

              > nasza_maggie napisała:
              >
              > > Yes, he's brought his army.... and this is going way over board.... one b
              > y
              > one
              > > now we're all attacked by these trolls. In the name of what?
              >
              > In the name of developing a thick skin and not worrying about it.

              Sorry Dave, but the net is not a place to be taught lifes lessons. This forum
              like any other has a netiquette which users need to abide by. Waldek,
              notoriously does not.

              So what you are saying if he came and notoriusly slapped you in the face on the
              street, because he felt like it, you would tolerate it, because it makes you
              thick skinned.

              >
              > Do you know that learning to deal with conflict on line prepares you and
              > toughens you to deal with real life confrontations?

              Please, don't throw this 'life's lessons' morale at me. >

              > Maggie, this is HEALTHY. As long as he doesn't cross certain lines in the
              sand
              > which I made clear several times.


              No, abusing and attacking other users on the net personally, constantly is NOT
              healthy. It is abuse.

              You have and HE HAS broken the rules. On countless occasions. Your 'tolerance'
              in the name of FOS have only encouraged him to go further. So he has abused
              your good will in the name of attacking me, fo whatever reason, in the name of
              doing that, just for that - for it being fun attacking me because you do not
              respond.


              >
              > I have been attacked by him more than average as well, maybe not as much as
              > you, but more than average, and I just smile.

              Good for you. However we're not all the same. And his attacks and threads on me
              have been far more personal than on anyone. Time to respond.

              These things ceased to bother me
              > a long time ago. I also noted, that while learning to deal with things like
              > this on line, it worked in my head like a vaccine with a dead virus, and gave
              > me a lot more immunity from being flustered in real life also.

              Good on you, however we're not all like you.

              >
              > That having been said, anybody can move a motion for a democratic vote, and
              as
              > long as it is open to all members and there is a long enough period to vote
              in,
              >
              > that's ok.
              >
              > You do not need me to kick off every referendum made on this forum.

              No I don't need you to kick off every referendum each time - any of is can do
              that. None of us however seem to want to keep starting new threads on a long
              delibareted subject and problem of this forum.
              However, as the 'owner' and moderator of this forum, I need you to look after
              your users and react when they are being singled out and abused all the time -
              when you know perfectly well I have done nothing to deserve this 'sick'
              obsession.

              btw. this discussion on the 'thick skin' note is exactly playing into his
              hands. He wants us to argue. So he's reached his goal again.
              • nasza_maggie Re: David 18.02.06, 14:19
                You have and HE HAS broken the rules. On countless occasions. Your 'tolerance'
                in the name of FOS have only encouraged him to go further. So he has abused
                your good will in the name of attacking me, fo whatever reason, in the name of
                doing that, just for that - for it being fun attacking me because you do not
                respond.

                - by that I mean you have made clear and he has still broken the rules.
              • russh Re: David 18.02.06, 14:21
                Agreed.

                As said in my earlier post, if he is not to be banned, then at least there needs
                to be a standard of netiquette which needs to be adhered to.
                • nasza_maggie Re: David 18.02.06, 14:25
                  There is a netiquette on the agora.pl portal. This includes private forums.

                  forum.gazeta.pl/forum/1904849,62605,1617503.html
                  - Nie obrażaj i nie atakuj personalnie swoich rozmówców.
                  • russh Re: David 18.02.06, 14:29
                    Not much good to an idiot like me, who can't read Polish!
                    • nasza_maggie Re: David 18.02.06, 14:32
                      I'm sorrysmile

                      The netiquette, any netiquette not just the one on agora.pl states
                      'do not attack, offend or abuse personally other users'

                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
                      • russh Re: David 18.02.06, 14:42
                        Sensible, although very subjective. I assume that it where the moderator comes in.
                  • usenetposts Re: David 18.02.06, 15:00
                    nasza_maggie napisała:

                    > There is a netiquette on the agora.pl portal. This includes private forums.
                    >
                    > forum.gazeta.pl/forum/1904849,62605,1617503.html
                    > - Nie obrażaj i nie atakuj personalnie swoich rozmówców.
                    >

                    OK, Maggie.

                    But within the application of netiquette, there is always some subjectivity. I
                    have a less strict than average application of this. If we take it literally,
                    then accroding to the regulamin and the regulamin forum prywatnego, if I fail,
                    once, to chuck out a message written in capital letters or by someone
                    pretending to be someone else, like I would know, or not using smileys, I can
                    have my forum revoked without a reason or notice, and not be allowed to start a
                    new one.

                    Surely, when it is a matter of record on this forum that the moderation is as
                    liberal as it can be, and there are always members sticking up for those who
                    are being abused, and all matters which are illegal in law are absolutely
                    excluded, and there is a commitment on the part of the moderator to abide by
                    democratic decisions of the participants, then what good is there in waving the
                    netiquette FAQ at me over this?
              • mwanginjagi Re: David 18.02.06, 14:23
                I concur with you Maggie.. you are 100% right on this!!
              • usenetposts Re: David 18.02.06, 14:45
                nasza_maggie napisała:

                > usenetposts napisał:
                >
                > > nasza_maggie napisała:
                > >
                > > > Yes, he's brought his army.... and this is going way over board....
                > one b
                > > y
                > > one
                > > > now we're all attacked by these trolls. In the name of what?
                > >
                > > In the name of developing a thick skin and not worrying about it.
                >
                > Sorry Dave, but the net is not a place to be taught lifes lessons. This forum
                > like any other has a netiquette which users need to abide by. Waldek,
                > notoriously does not.

                You are writing like a newbie, now. Have you ever seen a forum in which
                netiquette was kept to? I mean one that actually had people posting to it, of
                course? I haven't. Not in English, anyway.

                >
                > So what you are saying if he came and notoriusly slapped you in the face on
                the
                >
                > street, because he felt like it, you would tolerate it, because it makes you
                > thick skinned.

                No, what I am saying is, that if he slaps me in the face in the net, he is less
                likely to do so on the street, and I am less likely to let him.

                >
                > >
                > > Do you know that learning to deal with conflict on line prepares you and
                > > toughens you to deal with real life confrontations?
                >
                > Please, don't throw this 'life's lessons' morale at me.

                You don't even begin to realise how qualified I am to tell you these things.

                >
                >
                > > Maggie, this is HEALTHY. As long as he doesn't cross certain lines in the
                >
                > sand
                > > which I made clear several times.
                >
                >
                > No, abusing and attacking other users on the net personally, constantly is
                NOT
                > healthy. It is abuse.
                >

                Nonsense. Just butch up, like everybody else.

                > You have and HE HAS broken the rules. On countless occasions.
                Your 'tolerance'
                > in the name of FOS have only encouraged him to go further. So he has abused
                > your good will in the name of attacking me, fo whatever reason, in the name
                of
                > doing that, just for that - for it being fun attacking me because you do not
                > respond.

                You may not think so, but freedom of speech is important. And the test of that
                is that people have freedom EVEN when they say thinks that we don't like, that
                we consider abusive.

                The west is losing it with this, and now we are all bowing in obeisance to
                Mecca just because one newspaper in Denmark actually decided to test whether
                FOS existed or not.


                >
                >
                > >
                > > I have been attacked by him more than average as well, maybe not as much
                > as
                > > you, but more than average, and I just smile.
                >
                > Good for you. However we're not all the same. And his attacks and threads on
                me
                >
                > have been far more personal than on anyone. Time to respond.

                You go ahead and respond. I am not stopping you having your own referendum on
                whether he should be banned. Start a new thread, keep it up open for at least
                one week, and let me know the count of votes at the end of the week.

                >
                > These things ceased to bother me
                > > a long time ago. I also noted, that while learning to deal with things li
                > ke
                > > this on line, it worked in my head like a vaccine with a dead virus, and
                > gave
                > > me a lot more immunity from being flustered in real life also.
                >
                > Good on you, however we're not all like you.

                Not all, no. But when I put it to the vote last time, it transpired that more
                people agreed with me than agreed with you. And what has changed since then?


                > >
                > > That having been said, anybody can move a motion for a democratic vote, a
                > nd
                > as
                > > long as it is open to all members and there is a long enough period to vo
                > te
                > in,
                > >
                > > that's ok.
                > >
                > > You do not need me to kick off every referendum made on this forum.
                >
                > No I don't need you to kick off every referendum each time - any of is can do
                > that. None of us however seem to want to keep starting new threads on a long
                > delibareted subject and problem of this forum.
                > However, as the 'owner' and moderator of this forum, I need you to look after
                > your users and react when they are being singled out and abused all the time -

                I did so. Last time you were picked on I opened it to public vote and the
                majority said we were not going to ban him. I would not normally repeat a vote
                so soon afterwards, but we have a lot of new members and at this level of
                growth it may be valid to ask people what they think.

                > when you know perfectly well I have done nothing to deserve this 'sick'
                > obsession.

                Everybody knows you don't deserve it.

                >
                > btw. this discussion on the 'thick skin' note is exactly playing into his
                > hands. He wants us to argue. So he's reached his goal again.

                I made my philosophy on moderation very clear at the outset, and I do so again
                and again. If anyone doesn't like the moderation policy being open and not over-
                intrusive, then I have to say that's too bad. It's not like I let people abuse
                you but not me. Everyone who is here can be picked on from time to time, and it
                is up to the individual to butch up and take it with a grin, or to attack back,
                or to get support from friends.

                Users are not supposed to incite to racial hatred, and there are those who have
                done that more than him, and still I didn't ban them, as it was important for
                them to read the natural aversion of normal people to their racism. If I didn't
                ban them, then how can I ban someone who has stayed within stricter limits?

                I'm not going to use my moderator override ban on Waldek. You will have to
                appeal to majority opinion. We live in a democracy. If the majority opinion in
                a fresh thread started by you on the matter and running for a whole week is to
                ban him, then I will bow to the majority decision, and he will be on the banned
                list for this forum, which currently consists of no names at all. If the
                majority decision is not to ban, however, then you must put up with that and
                grin and bear it. It's really as simple and as equal and fair as that.
                • nasza_maggie I did try... 18.02.06, 14:55
                  You know what Dave - this whole thing is not about butching up. It is about
                  abuse.

                  And as far as I am concerned democracy has rules too. And the democracy on the
                  net has a netiquette. All it is is common decency.

                  From you response all I can say, it that is really is him or me. Which I didn't
                  want this all to come to.

                  So, if you're so busy defending his right to attack and abuse me then good
                  luck. You're right I don't have to stay here. Which is a shame because I did
                  enjoy this forum, but if the price to pay for staying here is being attacked
                  all the time, then thank you.


                  All the best to you all.
                  • russh Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 15:04
                    I for one concur with Maggie.

                    FOS is fine, but there have to be limits, as in any society. If it comes to
                    Waldek or Maggie, then I choose Maggie!
                    • ms.jones Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 15:17
                      Me too! FOS is not a carte blanche for constant personal attacks.
                      • mwanginjagi Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 15:25
                        oops, this entry was supposed to be here -->
                        Question to the Moderator of this forum... Mr. Usenet, it seems you are
                        toothless in executing the will of the people in this forum. Could you state
                        your stand in respect to your powers to oust or keep someone participating?

                        And also, it would be the high time to put some netiquette in place because
                        it's starting to take a toll on everybody...

                        But first , your answer, Mr. Moderator and make it snappy.

                        Pozdrawiam
                        /Mwangi
                        • usenetposts Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 20:09
                          mwanginjagi napisał:

                          > oops, this entry was supposed to be here -->
                          > Question to the Moderator of this forum... Mr. Usenet, it seems you are
                          > toothless in executing the will of the people in this forum. Could you state
                          > your stand in respect to your powers to oust or keep someone participating?
                          >
                          > And also, it would be the high time to put some netiquette in place because
                          > it's starting to take a toll on everybody...
                          >
                          > But first , your answer, Mr. Moderator and make it snappy.

                          Well, I don't know who the hell you think you are, talking to me like that.
                      • bluteau Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 17:50
                        I also give my support to Maggie. This forum has become unpleasant to visit, and
                        I do blam most of it on Waldek.
                        If this keeps up Dave, you're gonna start losing a number of foreigners here,
                        those the forum was meant for in the first place.
                        • chris-joe Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 20:09
                          As I'm neither "a foreigner" nor "living in Poland", I consider myself a mere
                          guest on this forum taking advantage of your hospitality.

                          (Though I missed the right moment to introduce myself, for which I apologize, I
                          believe it has transpired from the handful of my posts that I am a Polish
                          Canadian living in Montreal)

                          As such I wouldn't dare to try and shape this forum to my liking. I do believe,
                          however, that I have a right to voice my opinion as long as you extend your
                          hospitality to include my participation in this forum.

                          I got to "meet" nasza_maggie, as well as Dave, on the "English Only" forum, and
                          it was Dave's link in fact that showed me the way to here.

                          Maggie, as the moderator of "English Only" has managed to run that forum up to
                          the netiquette standards while tolerating the usual net maniacs' presence to a
                          certain degree, but not much further beyond that. And rightly so, in my opinion.

                          This, needless to say, has made her a handful of typically manic enemies. Some
                          of them in their typically deranged ways follow her in the www realm and once at
                          it they keep on doing what they do best- spawn their manic and vitriolic
                          messages aimed at (apart from maggie) anyone who happens to cross their wake,
                          and at those who fit the profile of their imaginary and obsessive nemesis in
                          particular.

                          Waldek's clearly one of them.
                          His anti-British (in particular) and xenophobic (in general) mono-mania could
                          -theoretically- be entertaining to a degree and even creative for discussion's
                          sake (some DO find him amusing). Just as long as it actually allowed a
                          reasonably sane discussion. Which -as no doubt has become obvious to everyone-
                          it does NOT. Not to mention characteristically offensive form of his
                          'expressing' himself. And not to mention their exponentially personal
                          (anti-maggie) nature.

                          Then, as of late, the forum is being visited more and more often by waldek's
                          emanations who pop up here out of the woodwork with a single purpose of vomiting
                          their personal dislikings and disappear to wherever they come from.

                          All in all- I'm with maggie in this.

                          • usenetposts Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 20:18
                            chris-joe napisał:

                            > As I'm neither "a foreigner" nor "living in Poland", I consider myself a mere
                            > guest on this forum taking advantage of your hospitality.
                            >
                            > (Though I missed the right moment to introduce myself, for which I apologize,
                            I
                            > believe it has transpired from the handful of my posts that I am a Polish
                            > Canadian living in Montreal)
                            >
                            > As such I wouldn't dare to try and shape this forum to my liking. I do
                            believe,
                            > however, that I have a right to voice my opinion as long as you extend your
                            > hospitality to include my participation in this forum.
                            >
                            > I got to "meet" nasza_maggie, as well as Dave, on the "English Only" forum,
                            and
                            > it was Dave's link in fact that showed me the way to here.
                            >
                            > Maggie, as the moderator of "English Only" has managed to run that forum up to
                            > the netiquette standards while tolerating the usual net maniacs' presence to a
                            > certain degree, but not much further beyond that. And rightly so, in my opinio
                            > n.
                            >
                            > This, needless to say, has made her a handful of typically manic enemies. Some
                            > of them in their typically deranged ways follow her in the www realm and once
                            a
                            > t
                            > it they keep on doing what they do best- spawn their manic and vitriolic
                            > messages aimed at (apart from maggie) anyone who happens to cross their wake,
                            > and at those who fit the profile of their imaginary and obsessive nemesis in
                            > particular.
                            >
                            > Waldek's clearly one of them.
                            > His anti-British (in particular) and xenophobic (in general) mono-mania could
                            > -theoretically- be entertaining to a degree and even creative for discussion's
                            > sake (some DO find him amusing). Just as long as it actually allowed a
                            > reasonably sane discussion. Which -as no doubt has become obvious to everyone-
                            > it does NOT. Not to mention characteristically offensive form of his
                            > 'expressing' himself. And not to mention their exponentially personal
                            > (anti-maggie) nature.
                            >
                            > Then, as of late, the forum is being visited more and more often by waldek's
                            > emanations who pop up here out of the woodwork with a single purpose of
                            vomitin
                            > g
                            > their personal dislikings and disappear to wherever they come from.
                            >
                            > All in all- I'm with maggie in this.
                            >

                            OK. I am listening to what you say and hope also you read carefully the points
                            I have made in this thread, especially the one to Kylie from a few minutes ago.

                            I want a thread to be set up by the person proposing Waldek and any other named
                            persons for a six month ban, and I want named votes for and against. At the
                            close of one week I will take the action that MOST PEOPLE on the board want to
                            happen. That is what democracy means, Chris-Joe, if you take it literally,
                            which I do.

                            I will not take it as a sign of good will towards my method of running this
                            forum if people continue to ignore my request for a separate thread to vote on
                            that matter, and continue to allow the issue to dominate other threads.

                            If people wishing for these bans only listen to my advice, and you truly have
                            the support of the majority of people voting (oh, and vote from people who have
                            never put in an appearance here before today will not be counted, by the way,
                            which is to prevent meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting) then you will only have to
                            put up with Waldek and his supporters for one more week. If not, then I will
                            not do anything about it.
                    • kylie1 Re: I did try... 18.02.06, 19:24
                      Dave,

                      You know how I feel about this. This is getting too far out hand and it is NOT
                      RIGHT. Waldo does exactly what he did before and now you have Waldo minime's
                      crop up all over the place. Plain trash. I really feel for Maggie or whoever
                      gets the same treatment.
                      Sorry Maggie I can't do anything for you. I tried as well. The only way we can
                      do something is to leave this forum until things change.
                      What do you think?
                      • usenetposts Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 20:07
                        kylie1 napisała:

                        > Dave,
                        >
                        > You know how I feel about this. This is getting too far out hand and it is
                        NOT
                        > RIGHT. Waldo does exactly what he did before and now you have Waldo minime's
                        > crop up all over the place. Plain trash. I really feel for Maggie or whoever
                        > gets the same treatment.
                        > Sorry Maggie I can't do anything for you. I tried as well. The only way we
                        can
                        > do something is to leave this forum until things change.
                        > What do you think?

                        Kylie, forgive me for saying so, but you leave every five minutes. I have read
                        more posts by you including the implicit threat of leaving than just about any
                        other topic.

                        Now I am not going to be blackmailed out of my principles by the threat of a
                        walkout. Those of you who do not like the moderational style are free to go,
                        and welcome to stay.

                        Even if I have to lose all the posters to this forum, or even if you get my
                        forum pushed off the list by Agora for too permissive moderation and I am no
                        longer allowed to keep a forum on this site, there are certain things which are
                        simply sacrosanct and I am not going to lay them on the altar of keeping one
                        group of people happy.

                        One of those things is democracy. I said I would ban Waldek if Maggie opened a
                        new thread about the ban asking for a vote, and held it open for a week so that
                        people could vote about it democratically. I look here and see that this has
                        not happened - no such new thread has appeared from what I can see. I feel as
                        though I may have been speaking to a brick wall. If you want a ban, then get
                        the mandate from the majority of people voting over the course of a week and I
                        will slap a ban on him and any other names the majority will vote to ban, and
                        that ban will last for six months.

                        If you cannot be bothered to do the simple thing of starting a thread and
                        putting it to the vote, then don't expect me to act as if I were some kind of
                        dictator. This is not a dictatorship this is a democracy. The only times I am
                        going to step in and cut people off without a mandate from the members is for
                        blasphemy, moral turpitude, illegal acts, racist and anti-semitism, holocaust
                        denial and the like.

                        I don't know if you remember, but earlier on in this thread we voted about
                        banning Waldek and the majority view was that he should not be banned. You are
                        now asking me to override the will of the people by going against what they
                        voted for then. That is absolutely out of order. I am allowing a new vote
                        because there has been a large increase since that time and that vote may not
                        be representative of today's membership, and also you can include as many names
                        in there as you like.

                        And if you don't like my democratic way of doing things and want to sit under a
                        dictatorial netcopping moderator who thinks free speech comes with two packets
                        of Daz, then by all means start your own heavily moderated Foreigners group, I
                        really don't mind, and if I did, what difference would it make?

                        Because the way I work comes from convictions that I was open about from the
                        start, and they are not about to change. You are free to go, welcome to stay,
                        and kindly requested not to morally blackmail me any more with threats of
                        leaving, nor meatpuppeting others to do likewise.
                        • mwanginjagi Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 20:30
                          Moderator,

                          You surprise me @ your vulger language to participants. I just aired my views
                          that you are inneficient in bringing discipline into the forum and asked for
                          information on your powers to oust or retain participants... but instead you
                          rattled out who the hell I am...

                          Well I will ask you a similar question... What's the role of a moderator if
                          he/she is just a figure-head?

                          Pozdrawiam
                          /Mwangi
                          • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 20:40
                            mwanginjagi napisał:

                            > Moderator,
                            >
                            > You surprise me @ your vulger language to participants. I just aired my views
                            > that you are inneficient in bringing discipline into the forum and asked for
                            > information on your powers to oust or retain participants... but instead you
                            > rattled out who the hell I am...

                            Yes I did. Kindly tell me who the hell you are to tell me to make things
                            snappy? Do you for one minute imagine you would say that to my face?

                            > Well I will ask you a similar question... What's the role of a moderator if
                            > he/she is just a figure-head?

                            It is to choose a moderating style which will appeal to the target audience and
                            communicate what that style is, and then stick to it.

                            Which is precisely what I am doing.

                            If you don't like my democratic style, then you can start a thread voting ME
                            off, and if you are successful I will also be banned for six months. I don't
                            know how more democratic I can make that.

                            I'm tempted to say "trust an African not to recognise leadership when it isn't
                            dictatorship", but that wouldn't be fair, as it's not your fault the continent
                            looks like that. But, you know, learn the value of democracy. And you Europeans
                            who seem to know no better in this thread, what's your excuse?
                        • kylie1 Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 20:56
                          >And if you don't like my democratic way of doing things...


                          Insulting Maggie blatantly day in and day out is not democracy. The board has
                          failed to protect her and I don't think Waldo deserves another vote, period. He
                          was on shaky grounds the first time around and he hasn't learned a thing. He is
                          vulgar and obnoxious. No one should be exposed to this.

                          • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:10
                            kylie1 napisała:

                            > >And if you don't like my democratic way of doing things...
                            >
                            >
                            > Insulting Maggie blatantly day in and day out is not democracy. The board has
                            > failed to protect her and I don't think Waldo deserves another vote, period.
                            He
                            >
                            > was on shaky grounds the first time around and he hasn't learned a thing. He
                            is
                            >
                            > vulgar and obnoxious. No one should be exposed to this.
                            >

                            There was a vote, he won it, and therefore the only way to deal with it is to
                            have another vote.

                            The fact that he doesn't deserve one is NOT the point at issue
                            The fact that Maggie doesn't deserve what he dishes out is also NOT the point
                            at issue.

                            I heartily wish you would finally understand, that the necessity for a vote is
                            to do with what the group deserves, including the people who voted last time.
                            You cannot ask people to vote and then not follow their wishes, not without a
                            second vote.

                            You cannot run a country that way, and you cannot run a smaller group of people
                            that way either - or at least maybe somebody can, but I'm not going to.

                            So are you gonna start that thread or am I?
                            • kylie1 Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:16
                              Go ahead, Dave. We are leaving in 20 minutes or so.
                              Good luck Maggie!

                              smile
                              • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:25
                                What, leaving the group or leaving to go out?
                                • kylie1 Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:33
                                  going out.
                                  No matter how mad I get I still love you, man.

                                  smile

                                  • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:47
                                    kylie1 napisała:

                                    > going out.
                                    > No matter how mad I get I still love you, man.
                                    >
                                    > smile
                                    >

                                    wink
                                    Enjoy.
                                    • russh Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 21:56
                                      Dave, the alternative to banning, is to agree on, and exercise, some etiquette
                                      rules on the forum.

                                      You said on an earlier post that you would not accept racism on the forum - what
                                      has there been from Waldek and others in the past?

                                      Maybe it is not practical. in terms of the time requirement, but it would be a
                                      satisfactory compromise.

                                      It would be a shame to lose some of the longer-term people from this forum.
                                      • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 22:17
                                        russh napisał:

                                        > Dave, the alternative to banning, is to agree on, and exercise, some etiquette
                                        > rules on the forum.
                                        >
                                        > You said on an earlier post that you would not accept racism on the forum -
                                        wha
                                        > t
                                        > has there been from Waldek and others in the past?
                                        >
                                        > Maybe it is not practical. in terms of the time requirement, but it would be a
                                        > satisfactory compromise.

                                        If you have a look at the way I structured this second ballot, which is in the
                                        sticky at the top of the forum, you'll notice I catered for this. The
                                        option "b" is effectively, don't blanket ban, just squelch. I will squelch
                                        racist posts anyway, although I have not done so as I saw that there was an
                                        immediate reaction of revulsion against the racists who appeared here. Waldek
                                        has not really made any racially motivated attacks, although he has engaged inj
                                        quite awful levels of nationalist stereotyping. Ervin is not racially distinct
                                        from us and so it is not possible to be racist against him, even though
                                        unflattering and untrue things were said about his country. Either you or I
                                        could walk down the streets of Bucuresti or Budapest and look local.

                                        Had Waldek made the sort of anti-semitic and racist remarks that Gothfried did,
                                        I would have squelched those posts a long time ago without asking anybody. If
                                        Gothfried, who I do not think is Waldek, by the way, returns and makes further
                                        racist statements, then I will squelch them anyway, even without voting about
                                        it, but at first I wanted to reason with her.

                                        If you want option "b" then you can either vote "b" or vote for a higher option
                                        tactically, sine it will be the average value of the vote that will determine
                                        the course of action.

                                        >
                                        > It would be a shame to lose some of the longer-term people from this forum.

                                        True. It would also be a shame for me to lose my backbone. Hopefully this way
                                        we can have all matters satisfied.
                                        • russh Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 22:23
                                          I hadn't read your new ballot thread when I posted last. Well done!

                                          Why the points system though?
                                          • russh Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 22:30
                                            Look forward to seeing you next Saturday by the way. Keep it a non-smoking meet
                                            - I can always pop out for a few minutes if I get that bad!
                                            • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 22:45
                                              russh napisał:

                                              > Look forward to seeing you next Saturday by the way. Keep it a non-smoking
                                              meet
                                              > - I can always pop out for a few minutes if I get that bad!


                                              OK thanks for that, Russ. I'm going to try to secure a no-smoking table at
                                              Maska on Kopernika 4/6, if it's a public night. My wife managed to survive that
                                              one until midnight this Thursday, as there is good ventilation.

                                              Watch this space and I'll keep you posted on what I can get.

                                              They have a good dance floor and you can boogie on down if the mood takes you.
                                          • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 22:42
                                            russh napisał:

                                            > I hadn't read your new ballot thread when I posted last. Well done!
                                            >
                                            > Why the points system though?

                                            I couldn't think of any better way to have more than one possible outcome. If I
                                            had made it an all or nothing vote or whichever of the four options have the
                                            most votes, the likely result is that most people will be unhappy, and Waldek
                                            entirely off the hook again... This way I get something like the average
                                            opinion of the group to work with, and 4 levels of severity of action any of
                                            which could be the outcome.

                                            When you consider that tactical voting is allowed and that people can change
                                            their vote during the week, you'll see that this has a pretty good chance of
                                            being a workable solution at getting to the vox populi on this matter.
                                            • chris-joe Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 23:25
                                              Dave, I do respect and share your attachment to democratic values.
                                              Methinks, however, you're running not a state here but an exclusive social club.

                                              And what a club like this needs is not a referendum system, but a decisive and
                                              clear chairmanship. Unlike in a democratic parliament, here you should have a
                                              full right to handpick members (oops, no pun intended).
                                              Think Club 54 doorman rather if you want to have real fun smile

                                              Once you manage to build a semi-permanent, loyal and trustworhy core membership
                                              then go ahead and distribute the ballots.

                                              So far FLiP's been a hodge-podge of accidental tourists mostly and free-for-all.
                                              Maybe that's the way you like it in which case disregard the above.

                                              I'll stick around if you don't mind, and all the best to you and your baby.
                                              • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 23:44
                                                chris-joe napisał:

                                                > Dave, I do respect and share your attachment to democratic values.
                                                > Methinks, however, you're running not a state here but an exclusive social
                                                club

                                                It's not my intention to be exclusive. I have made things as open as I can. In
                                                due course things will naturally settle down into a community, but I cannot
                                                tell at this time who the lifers are and who is just passing through.

                                                Yeah, of course I would do more for the lifers, but how do I know who they are?
                                                I know a few of them, but that is not a closed list yet. Far from it.

                                                If I am given a mandate to ban and squelch in this referendum, then at least I
                                                will know I am doing it with the consent of the memberships' voice. Otherwise I
                                                would have a bad conscience about it. This is because, as my netname here
                                                points out, a usenet background, and you know what a free for all that is.

                                                I didn't get your pun by the way. I hope it wasn't something cruisey. I don't
                                                want to read cruisey text if I can help it.
                                              • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 23:45
                                                > I'll stick around if you don't mind, and all the best to you and your baby.

                                                Thanks. I'll pass on your regards to my wife, and of course I don't mind, as
                                                long as you behave yourself.

                                                wink
                                                • mwanginjagi Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 18.02.06, 23:59
                                                  >I'm tempted to say "trust an African not to recognise leadership when it isn't
                                                  >dictatorship", but that wouldn't be fair, as it's not your fault the continent
                                                  >looks like that.

                                                  Is this the way you reteriate on simple questions about your responsibilities?
                                                  Dude, you leave a lot to be desired!!! No words for you... could you kindly get
                                                  back to the subject matter and in case you would like to discuss on other
                                                  issues... then please do start other threads...

                                                  ooo and in case bashing is democracy to you, then you have no idea what this
                                                  200+ thread is all about...

                                                  Pozdrawiam
                                                  /Mwangi
                                                  • usenetposts Somebody doesn't like it when I'm democratic... 19.02.06, 00:08
                                                    ... let's see how that person likes the taste of dictatorship on their _own_
                                                    hide.
                                                • chris-joe Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 00:13
                                                  Here's a screaming stereotype: given my "minority status" I'm automatically
                                                  suspect of "cruising"...
                                                  Since I'm faaar away across the pond, why would I bother to go to "Foreigners
                                                  living in Poland" to cruise if cruising were really what I was after?
                                                  After all I live in the heart of the Montreal Village Gai and all I need to do
                                                  to cruise is step outside the door.
                                                  Besides, I'm happily and faithfully coupled with this really handsome Brazilian
                                                  man, so there you have it smile

                                                  And let's leave it at that and not take this digression any further. Deal?

                                                  As for "your baby"- by this I meant FLiP...
                                                  But since you brought your wife into this, I send her my best regards, naturally smile


                                                  "...of course I don't mind, as long as you behave yourself."

                                                  -Ouch! What have I done so far to merit a patronizing warning like this?smile

                                                  • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 00:15
                                                    chris-joe napisał:

                                                    > Here's a screaming stereotype: given my "minority status" I'm automatically
                                                    > suspect of "cruising"...
                                                    > Since I'm faaar away across the pond, why would I bother to go to "Foreigners
                                                    > living in Poland" to cruise if cruising were really what I was after?
                                                    > After all I live in the heart of the Montreal Village Gai and all I need to do
                                                    > to cruise is step outside the door.
                                                    > Besides, I'm happily and faithfully coupled with this really handsome
                                                    Brazilian
                                                    > man, so there you have it smile
                                                    >
                                                    > And let's leave it at that and not take this digression any further. Deal?
                                                    >
                                                    > As for "your baby"- by this I meant FLiP...
                                                    > But since you brought your wife into this, I send her my best regards,
                                                    naturall
                                                    > y smile
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > "...of course I don't mind, as long as you behave yourself."
                                                    >
                                                    > -Ouch! What have I done so far to merit a patronizing warning like this?smile
                                                    >

                                                    The first thing you did was to miss the smiley.

                                                    I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone with a sense of humour. It won't happen
                                                    again.
                                                  • chris-joe Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 00:20
                                                    smile))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

                                                    Here's a bagfull, in case I miss smilies ever again smile

                                                    ps.
                                                    smile)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                                                  • usenetposts Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 00:30
                                                    chris-joe napisał:

                                                    > smile))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                                                    >
                                                    > Here's a bagfull, in case I miss smilies ever again smile
                                                    >
                                                    > ps.
                                                    > smile)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

                                                    There's always the chance there's some sarcasm in that reply, but I'll take it
                                                    on face value (groan) anyway!
                                                  • chris-joe Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 00:56
                                                    "but I'll take it on face value (groan) anyway!"

                                                    -As you should smile
                                                    (sigh of relief while shedding tears profusely due to VapoRub rubbed onto
                                                    sinuses just below the eyes)
                                                  • russh Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 07:22
                                                    Hi Chris-Joe. How long have you been out of Poland?

                                                    I say this because I am so impressed with your English - it's better then most
                                                    mother tongues I know.
                                                  • chris-joe Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 10:50
                                                    Hey, russh,
                                                    left PL at the tender age of 23 in 1985, arrived in Canada almost 2 yrs later,
                                                    Feb 27, 1987 smile (yes, it's a smiley)
                                                    Submerged in the Anglo element till 4 yrs ago when I made a mistake of moving to
                                                    Montreal, QC, you see. (rhyme accidental but I'll keep it)
                                                    That's why my English has gotten a bit rusty.

                                                    Thanks for the compliment, though smile (smiley again)

                                                    cheers

                                                  • russh Re: Reading some people here the riot act... 19.02.06, 07:25
                                                    I've been wondering for ages why Maggie and a few others end their posts with ))))).

                                                    I've just realised that my computer does not display smilies correctly!
Pełna wersja