Maybe I missed the explanation, but myself and a few other posters asked what happened to Chris in Philly when it was mentioned he was banned last week. There was even a thread, which I can no longer find, dedicated to this inquiry at one point. But, again, I never saw an explanation and I would very much like to know as he is a long time poster I enjoy reading.
Negative coverage is still coverage which makes people in charge do seemingly heavy handed (sorry Jordan) and silly things. It creates a controversy which stirs up a hornets nest which gets people.....talking! Bottom line, this was good for business. It does not have to be sensible.
Negative coverage is still coverage which makes people in charge do seemingly heavy handed (sorry Jordan) and silly things. It creates a controversy which stirs up a hornets nest which gets people.....talking! Bottom line, this was good for business. It does not have to be sensible.
if that's the case, which no doubt it's the truth, then Eric should allow political posts..thats the mother of all hotbed, click generating, controversial topics ... Boom!
I have no idea whether the ban-hammer has been wielded in a completely fair and balanced way. That seems like an awfully high standard; Eric and the other mods aren't wearing black robes.
Negative coverage is still coverage which makes people in charge do seemingly heavy handed (sorry Jordan) and silly things. It creates a controversy which stirs up a hornets nest which gets people.....talking! Bottom line, this was good for business. It does not have to be sensible.
the mod team isnt banning people for a couple hundred page views. how absurdly outlandish
It's hard to discuss what is going on in Saudi Arabia (which is HUGE) without bringing in domestic politics
Eric - I guess what I am expressing is regret that those threads no longer have legs. Some used to go off the rails and get deleted, but many stayed on the front page for days and had a lot of good commentary. That thread headed for page 2 in an hour or two, and while resurrected once or twice, never got the comments that similar threads in the past got.
Negative coverage is still coverage which makes people in charge do seemingly heavy handed (sorry Jordan) and silly things. It creates a controversy which stirs up a hornets nest which gets people.....talking! Bottom line, this was good for business. It does not have to be sensible.
So is that why you're here?