Bring back Maverick74

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Pabst, Apr 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pabst


    I've learned that the following about the Mav banning here on ET. I think Wags and Mav should try to get along. After all I know and like them both.

    1) The only reason Mav was banned from ET was because Waggie called Baron at 11pm on Friday night demanding that Mav be banned or he would file a lawsuit against ET and Baron.

    2) The "personal" question Mav asked Waggie that he refused to answer was, are you married? That's only because someone told Mav that Wags was never married and thus he could not have lost his Father-in-law at the WTC on 9/11. Perhaps a mis-undderstanding?

    3) It was Maverick that told Waggie that he wanted to fly to San Fran to meet Waggie face to face to solve this problem. Not Waggie telling Mav to come out to San Fran.

    4) The thread that was over the top was just a joke website that was meant to be funny. It was a news article that clearly is a joke and was revealing to the world that Waggie was gay, the article at the bottom says its a joke.

    Mav tried to keep all the trash talking on PM but Waggie refused to answer Mav's PM's and instead published Mav's PM's and took their trash talking directly here to ET.

    C'mon Wags my freind. Mav ain't dangerous!! He's fucking with you. Chill.

  2. Mav tried to keep all the trash talking on PM but Waggie refused to answer Mav's PM's

    At that point Mav should have stopped beating the dead horse, and moved on.

    Let it go.
  3. Wow, I didn't know Mav was banned. I didn't know it was possible to be banned (although I had heard about instances of it...I thought it was a myth).

    I did notice the dearth of posts from Mav....and I wondered if he was ok.

    I agree with Pabst. There is no reason Mav should have been banned. Certainly not if we look at other examples of abuse of the freedom of speech.

    Good point. Mav should have let it go. But still, we have seen far worse here.

    How on earth did the thread "killing and torturing innocent helpless animals" survive? Why was Tradeoff not banned?

    Not that I necessarily think he should have been. But if any standards of decency are to be used as a basis for banning, certainly there was no better example of an excess of bad taste and offensive intent. And ultimately, pornography....certainly not appropriate for a trading forum.

    :confused: RS
  4. rgelite


    Revealing in public (not just to Baron) what is clearly designed to be a private communication via PM is a moral breach.

    Waggie is now on my Ignore List.
  5. Obviously there was no mutual consent, it seems to have been one sided ( PMs ).

    Does that make it rape? :confused:
  6. rgelite


    Revealing a private message in a public forum when both parties have equal access to the public and private forums and understand the difference between the two is not rape.

    What's your point?
  7. stu


    ewww ...on the pages following your link, is that Mav doing thingy with waggie, RS ?? Ugh ... with his socks on!!... oops there goes my lunch... and breakfast...
  8. If Maverick has in fact been banned, a horrible precedent will have been established that will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on all members going forward. Mav's purported transgression seems rather mild compared to much of the give and take, usually in good fun, that goes on daily on this board. Plus, when balanced against the many substantive contributions Mav has made on ET, particularly on the options threads, I think the kid deserves a reprimand at worst. By taking this Draconian action, Baron will have begun a decent down a slippery slope that may forever change this site for the worse. I thus hope all involved take a step back and reconsider this decision in light of the broader interests of the ET community.
  9. I support Mav's return.
  10. Waggie, what a piece of shit you are.

    Calling Baron and threatening lawsuits. Lol. Does get any more juvenile?

    #10     Apr 18, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.