Miklos S. Dora III
Would he have been banned from Swaylocks?
dora would have banned himself by violating any rule to see if he could charm himself back in and had so many identities to have boggle the boggle meter.jumping from computer to computer making Identities faster than W.C. Fields opened bank accounts …ambrose…cesor ba
Okay…maybe we need to censor some profanity, but not content or tone. I say it’s time to let Roy out of the penalty box.
If Dora did post he definetly would have been banned, and to me that would have made me more interested in what he had to say. Once I get the info on Roy I’m going to decide whether or not to boycott swaylocks. Or maybe I’ll just Take what I can from it and never Give anything back.
Quote:
…maybe I’ll just Take what I can from it and never Give anything back.
That’s the spirit…!!!..
Howzit Paul, Personally I couldn't care less if people are or aren't banned since I have the freedom of choice to read or not read a persons postings. But after reading monks post about taking and not giving back I looked at his previous posts and it seems he has basically been doing just that all along. He asks questions but gives no answers, so if he decides to follow up on his post it won't affect the website. Aloha,Kokua
I hate Ban, until they came out with the 5 day deodorant pads.Herb
One of the great things about Swaylock’s is that there is an attempt to keep the discussions productive and civil. We need some kind of standard. If everyone is left to just rant, rave, and cuss, the atmosphere can degenerate fast and get pretty gloomy.
Regarding Miki Dora. I don’t get all the reverence he is afforded. From what I’ve read about him, and by him, and some of the pictures I’ve seen of him, (purposely trying to decapitate another surfer with his board), he’s the kind of guy I wouldn’t want to surf with, and I probably wouldn’t want to talk to. Being a rebel, in itself, is no cause for respect in my book. Without good character, good surfing isn’t worth much. Doug
I can admit that I have asked a lot more questions than I have given answers to but I have given answers to questions on topics I know about such as “Sprout” camera housings, etc… Also, people send me personal messages with questons that I give them answers to. I am nowhere close to an expert in anything surfcraft related and I never try to be. You are right that everybody has the choice to read or not read any post and that’s why people should not be banned at all. If a person is ruining a post there should be a way on Swaylocks to ignore their posts, or as I have suggested (I make some of those too) have a chatroom, or multiple chatrooms that the contributors to the post can get together and discuss the subject all at once. These chatrooms could be private (with a moderator if need be) and only people who were invited or allowed can come into the room and chat.
Quote:
He asks questions but gives no answers, so if he decides to follow up on his post it won't affect the website <div class="bb-quote">Quote:<blockquote class="bb-quote-body">
Is this a knock on my character, could Kokua be banned for this?
Why do we have to watch what we type on a forum?
I’ve read a lot of posts of kokua as well and he has never given me anything relevent to read up until now, and that’s only because it’s about me. (oh no, did I just knock his character, will I be banned now too…
Free Roy
Quote:
One of the great things about Swaylock's is that there is an attempt to keep the discussions productive and civil. We need some kind of standard. If everyone is left to just rant, rave, and cuss, the atmosphere can degenerate fast and get pretty gloomy.
Excuse me, are we a bunch of surfers talking about surfboards and surfing here or are we supposed to behave like accountants talking about their bird-watching hobby?
But this thread is useless. It’s quite clear from the resonses recently that the majority of the membership are against banning members, especially Roy. But the forum owner brought the ball and so he gets to make the rules, even if they aren’t the sort of rules that traditionally go along with the game. (i.e. surfing is supposed to be anything goes, not structured, not safe, not boring…)
parker, that’s a logical fallacy known as a weak analogy, whcih means its a bad argument
Quote:
Quote:snipped…
you have repeatedly made the claim that on the interent and forums censorship is not consistent with the internet
as you know it??
Swaylocks is not Usenet.
you know what Usenet is??? that should be the model you are referring to.
Its mostly uncensored newsgroups, some moderated.
It kind of ruins that argument.
Quote:
you have repeatedly made the claim that on the interent and forums censorship is not consistent with the internetas you know it??
Yeah, I believe that to be true. But in this case, the “game” I was refering to was not the internet, but …surfing and surf culture. We don’t need a lifeguard or rules. We’re also supposed to be tough enough to take one on the head and get right back out there and adaptive enough to deal with all sorts of people (conditions).
The lessons of surfing ought to carry over to the rest of life. I know it has worked for me.
Go read about Bob Simmons in Legendary Surfers. Then tell me he wouldnt get banned from Swaylocks! In spite of the mainstreams attitude toward them, nonconformists, rebels and radicals have been the source of surfing`s most original innovations.
Why are iconoclasts never welcome?
Sad to say, but Bob did get hit in the head and could really have used a Lifeguard.
Quote:
Sad to say, but Bob did get hit in the head and could really have used a Lifeguard.
I think this is where someone comes in and says “well, he died doing what he loved.”
Personally I think I’d prefer to not die doing what I love, so that I can do it again tomorrow! (in other words, i’m getting a helmet for this winter).
BTW, Malcolm’s Legendary Surfers project is great. I first met him when I was a student at UCSB in the 80s and it’s been cool to read his writings over the years.