Hmmm..."Over a decade..."

Hack the servers?

<MissScarlett: Was <George Wallace> banned for (allegedly) attacking <cg>?>

Attacking CG?

Which army of socks Steve are talking about? I have about 20!!! Socks of "z" on my ignore list.

I m asking you because I don't want to have any talk this new " management".

Do you think it likely he would have been banned without any?

<This site can’t be reached

The connection was reset.>

Socks per se are ok (to a point), but not to be used to circumvent the rules.

There are good reasons for CG's decisions that would stand in any court of law.

It is not regarding the actual posts,I want to stress, but the security of CG itself that is the sin.

Not helpful.

What is it between you and <stoner>?

<Stone>'s case is different in so many ways - clearly he hasn't been anywhere close in systematically attacking <CG> for years.

<Susan> do you have any proof that GW tried to hack the serve.?>

If you paid attention you'd know the answer to this question is yes.

<Everybody knows that <Zanzibar> and his" <z> "socks are much more liked to do that. Expecially because he has programing knowledge...also we were having this kind of problem at the same time <Zanzibar> was at full war against<you> and creating daily socks. >

None of above is true. In fact it's outrageously slanderous to the point of violating rule #3.

<KS> knows nothing other than his pal gone booted.

And for the record, let's note that <KS> never complained about the army of socks <bippy> utilized for his nefarious purposes in the past - that was given a free pass.

<None of above is true. >

There are good reasons for CG's decisions that would stand in any court of law. >

That's a pretty low bar to set. Private site, you can pretty much do as you want. But most people expect fairness. I will note the socks reference has come up repeatedly in this matter, to be addressed after the next point.

<It is not regarding the actual posts,I want to stress, but the security of CG itself that is the sin.>

That's better. But I admit to being a bit bewildered what the references to socks would have to do with anything, including the security of the site.

<I hope this explains it, keeping the cards close to the vest.>

Not really, as your admin plainly suggested that <GW> was guilty of hacking the site, also noted by <Missy> whose comments have been particularly high level throughout this. It's disingenuous now to pretend you won't discuss the matter. In particular, it's plain that there is a personal animus between the admin and the banished kibitzer. Again, I, like most people, am looking for fairness in your dealings. As <Missy> noted, if someone had hacked your site, it's easy to accept banishment. Always, if someone has done something wrong, they should be punished appropriately. But again, I, like most people, am looking for fairness in your dealings.

What is fair? I suggest this as a classic discussion of "just cause".

https://www.massnurses.org/labor-ac....

There is nothing else that needs to be said on this subject , i think . Nothing more would come out of this at best and at worst ,conversation would degenerate to back and forth bickering by various people.

Time to move on , i think.