?? :? :shock: I don’t understand, when you say thats shit, what are you referring to as shit.[/quote]
Bullhocky!
:lol: :lol: :lol: I cannot hold myself laughing!!
I actually havent seen a post from IRONMAN for a couple of days now, do you think he has finally gotten bored of annoying others and actually done something with his life :lol: , nah maybe not hes probably on another website annoying people.
:lol: :lol: that would be great for us mods, a little less to have to constantly keep track of…
More flattery. I sure have impressed you guys a lot. Thanks again.
you really are a cnut aren’t you?
Calm down student-scaley! Don’t call him again cnut! Please be resonable!!
Edited:From http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=26213#26213
IRONMAN is right. student-scaley, this is your first informal warning!
sorry, i guess i’ve been well and truly told.
he’s still a badmash huzoor
Could you resize your sig? It is huge! 
Edited: Also, I beg ( ) you to check your PM! It is more than a month since it is in my outbox!
Yeah, sorry about that fella been away for a bit over the summer, no internet access so haven’t been checking up.
I would like IRONMAN banned now. It’s a long post, so you can always skip to the bottom for my conclusions. I don’t know how well this fits with the site rules, but here are my reasons.
I have often heard users expressing a wish for this site to be taken seriously. Thus, when incorrect posts are made, they must be challenged. If you visited a website and saw, posted as unchallenged fact, something that you knew to be false, could you believe anything else you saw there unless you knew it to be true? This means that when users post something that I believe to be untrue, I will challenge it. Debate may ensue. This is good. Walther War Machine’s Big Book of Soldier Knowledge is a reasonable library of stupid things IRONMAN has said. However, some are due to him being baited, so I will highlight a few of important errors posted.
1 - There were no British troops in France during the Battle of France.
2 - The only country ever to send 1 million troops to war is the US.
3 - The Spitfire was an American designed plane, built in America, and used an American engine.
4 - The Gurkhas are conscript cannon fodder sent into battle ahead of regular British Army units to act as cannon fodder. They are armed only with the Kukri.
A few examples of bad attitude:
-
Continued libellous and racist statements which he refuses to retract even when asked to do so. This relates to the Gurkhas, about whom he has previously made repeated slanderous posts.
-
Refusal to acknowledge his original failings which caused him to be banned in the first place. I have never made a racist remark.
-
Confrontational attitude when asked to do something by a mod - Gen. Sandworm. Link as above.
Additionally, he is very, very confrontational. If you do not agree entirely with what he has posted, then you have declared everything in that post to be a total lie and you hate america and want to piss on the graves of their servicemen who made no difference to world history. He finds an anti-American conspiracy everywhere, even where it is clearly absent. Look at the thread on the response to Hurrican Katrina where I and Stoat both argued pretty pro-American points yet were both accused of rabid anti-Americanism immediately afterwards. Also, see the thread on ‘Should the US have attacked USSR after WW2’. Again, there was a consensus that it was unwise, with many users deciding to consider the question as ‘Western Allies vs USSR’ rather than ‘US vs USSR’. Yet still, IRONMAN found the vast anti-American conspiracy there.
He will accept no evidence that contradicts his point of view and has strong double standards about proof required. This makes debate impossible.
Wikipedia - This is a useful way of quickly getting a handle on a new subject and is normally right. Caution should be adopted, especially on specialist subjects. When quoted by IRONMAN, it is an unimpeachable sourse. When quoted against IRONMAN, it is a load of rambling by stupid people who spend all day on the internet and know nothing.
Opinion - IRONMAN can say "that’s bullshiot’. This destroys your argument, purely because he has contradicted you, even if no evidence has been offered. Conversely, to contradict IRONMAN, almost no evidence is good enough.
Other Sources - The best example here is the jet engine debate. IRONMAN argued a point on terminology with four different users, each of whom have a Master’s Degree in Engineering, two of those in Aeronautics, one in Mechanical with Aeronautics. This, combined with quotes from four different textbooks (each of which are authoritative works in their own right) was insufficient to make him even consider that the ‘NASA 7-year olds guide to jet engines’ wasn’t necessarily using correct technical terminology.
His arguing style can best be described as trolling:
He uses a condescending tone at all times. He refuses to use words or terminology in their commonly understood form and will not be corrected on this. He cannot be (proved) wrong - either your evidence is wacko or he ignores it. Observing any errors made by him is a furious assault on the USA and all the good things it has ever done.
In conclusion,
IRONMAN must be banned on two grounds. The first is that he posts unacceptably large amounts of incorrect material. This is either willful and deliberate, or through utter stupidity as he refuses to enter into debate about even the most glaring of errors. The second is that he prevents any kind of debate from developing by refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts his views or using the commonly understood meaning of words. He is therefore wither trolling or stupid. The normal means of dealing with troll is to ignore them. This is very hard to do with IRONMAN given the lies contained withing his posts. Given the time and effort it takes to deal with IRONMAN, the site is far better off without him.
I am happy for this to be posted, verbatim, in Site Feedback, if Gen. Sandworm etc. believe it should be in the public domain. Apologies for the long and rambling nature of this post.
I second Crab. This post IMO must be public. It is a good sign for other users that we are a respectable forum.
Gen. Sandworm asked some time ago not to ban IRONMAN but to watch him closely and to give him many informal warnings.
I’m afraid (like in the Erwin’s case) that I am starting to be tired. Tired of reading Ironman’s stupid novel. Not to mention that in IRONMAN’s case a normal moderation it is impossible!!
On Minimalistix case, at least he was sincere. He admited that he has no interests in WW2 discussions.
Edited to correct my affirmation on Minimalistix.
I don’t see how this would be practical! (Not to mention that he posts many many posts in a row… )
I don’t see how this would be practical! (Not to mention that he posts many many posts in a row… )[/quote]
Many many posts in a row… it would become a hedache after the first 5! :roll:
Remember the lengths of his posts? They’re like mini essays!!! :shock: :shock:
So, Tiger, what’s your opinion about it?
I don’t mind long posts. It’s when they are long, rambling posts about complete crap which end up contradicting themselves and accusing everyone of being part of a global anti-American conspiracy that I mind.
In case any of you missed this, here it is again. IRONMAN has posted since and in the same thread. I’d like the support of an admin to give him a limited time (e.g. 48 hours) to retract the Gurkha comments or get another formal warning on the grounds of racist posting.[/quote]
Just in case we decide that constant lying and trolling isn’t enough of a reason to ban IRONMAN permanently, I will give him a formal warning for the above in 24 hours unless he retracts the statement. I will post publicly to that effect, as well as PM him.
It’s a good idea, but impractical because he posts numerous posts consecutively and they’re rather long. And I don’t think he’d obey the rule truely.
No Tiger! I’d like to know your opinion about the possible banning of IRONMAN!