Sock..

You should read the topics more closely. I have stated the above many times. In fact, I state it every time people talk like they have the notion that we are Consumer Reports. And it does not matter what people think the forums are.. They are what they are, period. You or anyone else thinking they are anything different does not change that.

Your sole purpose for posting in this thread is not to protect anyone. Everyone knows I am a moderator. Everyone knows Rich is a dealer. So all you have "revealed" is YOUR SPIN on the topic, nothing else. So what exactly is the big secret you have revealed to us? You have been making snide comments about people on here ever since you registered.

I, for one am tired of it. I am tired of you taking innocent things and trying to make them into cloak and dagger. I am tired of your sour attitude. I am tired of you trying to make good people look bad. From what I see, there are many people who are just as tired as I am.

So I am going to do what I have been TRYING to avoid doing...

You're outta here...

Ken.

"So I am going to do what I have been TRYING to avoid doing...

You're outta here..."
_________________________
Ken

Thank you!!!

Doesn't make much sense to gloat. Banning someone is about the easiest way I know of to win an argument. About all that's been proven here is that stating the obvious, especially in the face of commerce and mundane ambition, is not going to win you the piano world personality sweepstakes.

Mike

Have you been the recipient of Socks B.S. for no good reason Mike? I have. More than once. Just out of the clear blue for no reason whatsoever. He's a trouble maker. Always has been from what I've seen. PW is a good place. The world is full of people that are given 2nd, 3rd, and 5th chances. Enough is enough. Good riddance.

Mike, I honestly do not think anyone is gloating over the banning of the sock; stating their approval, maybe, but not gloating.

You’ve got it all wrong too, about banning to win an argument. There was no argument initiated in this thread, but a nasty, hateful accusation and character attack against two well known and respected members here, moderator or dealer or not. This is not the first time the sock has initiated nasty and hateful behavior toward other members. That is what got him banned.

And, I do not know of any personality sweepstakes up for grabs on the Piano World forums… though credibility is a cherished prize here.

Rick

Rick and Ken,

I would like to respectfully request that The Sock not be banned over this. I never felt insulted or wronged and I believe that folks that are around PW on a regular basis see through this sort of thing easily enough. Folks that are not around long enough at least get to see the balance of reason from other members.

Of course this is not my decision, but I wanted to at least express my feelings on the subject.

Rich,

You are a gentleman.

My concern in all this was and has been the negative comments directed towards you from The Sock, and also his history of negative comments directed towards others.

Because of the respect I hold for you and your opinion (notwithstanding our "cozy affectionate business relationship" ) I will honor your request - with a stern warning to The Sock... You will get along with others. You will not use the forums to troll. You will not use your posting privileges as a personal soapbox to attack other people. You are not the protector of the integrity of the forum: see the post I made about this NOT being Consumer Reports. Your presence shall not be a disruption to the forum. If it becomes disruptive, or if you attack a single person, you will be permanently gone.

Really??? I don't know what to say. With all these rules, I don't know how I could possibly stay out of trouble. I better think it over. If you read through this thread you might find many very harsh things said about me while I have said nothing of that severity to others.

Who says the moderators on Piano World ain’t fair and just and decent and kind-hearted and all around good people!

I’m sure there are some that do, but it would be hard to convince me of it.

Rick

Hey, TheSockPuppet, it really ain’t that hard to follow the forum rules here on PW. Just in case you have never read them, here is an excerpt…

“You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law”.

*Edit* Oh yea, one more thing… I still think you owe Ken and Rich an apology, and you have Rich to thank for your un-banning/re- admittance to the PW forums.

Rick

You reap what you sow...

And by the way, the guidelines imposed upon you are not difficult to follow. Most people on here follow them just fine. Of course, if you are here just to wreak havoc and cause discontent, then I don't know what to tell you..

And that is what I have been doing? Not that warm a welcome.

Undoubtedly true, but that's never stopped you in the past.

Rick,

I've probably got a lot wrong, but let be explain a bit further. I don't want you to think I didn't consider your comments.

Unfortunately, popularity and credibility have a lot in common, at least on the surface, too much, perhaps, not to recognize that one often disguises itself as the other, especially when the truth happens to coincide with folks’ personal or financial goals, the terms becoming henchmen when at best they are little more than uncomfortable handmaidens, like pride and common sense. Just as easily, the truth often lacks credibility because it is unpopular not unreasonable.

As for the other thing, the only way to argue, by definition, that Ken’s original comments did not create a conflict of interest would be to first argue that as a forum moderator Ken need not be impartial or fair-minded to begin with.

Rhetoric like wreak havoc, hideous, nasty, hateful accusation and character attack, absurd, ridiculous, etc. used in the light of what Sockpuppet actually said, while Ken grappled over banning him was just a bit over the top in my view.

As far as gloating, there was plenty of that to go around for everybody. You can talk about class all you want but until Rich stepped up, I didn’t see it. Sorry, Rick and Ken, it all looked a bit heavy handed and pointless to me, overshadowing anything Sockpuppet had to say, but you did seem to be enjoying yourselves and, with the Sock's redemption, nobody really got hurt. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

Mike

If this was one isolated incident I would have wholeheartedly agree with you, Mike. However, Sock's posting history has mostly been about finding ulterior motives in things others do, whether good or bad. People rarely find themselves disciplined due to a single act. It is usually the result of an accumulation of actions. As is the case here.

Just as people have noted how this might appear to someone who does not know us, Sock could appear innocent and blameless without knowledge of HIS history.

While continued discussion might be interesting to some, it is also serving to do what Sock complained about.. It keeps the so-called plug on the top of the forum, thereby accomplishing a form of self-promotion... I really don't think there is anything new that can be said on this topic.. Just rehashing what has already been said..

And PS, if being a moderator excludes me from doing business with whoever I choose, then we need a new moderator.