Now i'm not trying to get banned, but have been gone for a few days so i need to get cought up! the way i'm reading this is some unknown fiero guy had an issue with a "well known" fiero guy and brought it semi-public. He posted an opinion and like anyone of us would of done, got backed into the corner and for a lack of a better term went down fighting. He simply had a disageement with one of the fiero worlds best know icon! I'm niether for or against bookster and archie in this situation and i agree bookster and archie could have settled there issue through privete e-mails and bookster would never of been banned, My real question here is Did enough of us jump on a bandwagon to get this guy banned, were you aggreeing with archie because he's archie or was is a good move banning bookster? PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME OR GIVE ME A NEG. i'm just curious about the conflict that ended with a member being banned. -gary-

FWIW I had a negative rating for bookster well before his last episode, the guy was a troll right from the get-go.

i took no part in this, only reading it.
But just from my observation, Boogster made some questionable comments, he was called on them, couldn't back them up, and lost credibility that he hadn't even earned, inevitably getting him banned.....end of the Boogster Saga.

He came across as a piece of crap; and, I rated him accordingly. Good riddance.

Bookster got banned because he was a BS-spewing troll, not because he had an issue with Archie.

quote Originally posted by freshfiero: 1. some unknown fiero guy had an issue with a "well known" fiero guy and brought it semi-public. 2. He posted an opinion 3. He simply had a disageement with one of the fiero worlds best know icon! 4. My real question here is Did enough of us jump on a bandwagon to get this guy banned 5. PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME OR GIVE ME A NEG. 6. i'm just curious about the conflict that ended with a member being banned. -gary-

1. Not about being a known or unknown Fiero guy. He pointed the finger at archie, and couldnt back it up.
2. He had a GRUDGE, not a opinion!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Not a disagreement, a slanderous post on another person. Again without PROOF!!!!!
4. No band wagon, just the right thing to do. Someone starts throwing sh!t without any PROOF, would you SUPPORT them or the other guy?????
5. No flame or negs here. Your post is a opinion, not coming in and pointing the finger and TELLING everyone how WRONG we are to jump on the bandwagon.
6. Re-read the whole thread..........its all in there.

No such thing as a wrong question, just a wrong ATTITUDE on Booksters part. (theres a few of em running around on here)

My .02
but Im also a unknown Fiero guy.

+ for your question

------------------
Bottles are for babies

[This message has been edited by DelawareFiero (edited 10-02-2004).]

A word of advice. If you're going to call someone a liar and accuse them of stealing from you, be prepared to show proof. In this case, bookster said Archie had ripped him off. Well, it's not Archie's responsibility to prove he didn't - it was bookster's responsibility to prove he did. But all he was interested in was throwing out flames and offering no real proof.

There have been many threads where people have made false claims against someone else, or even false claims about themselves (fake timeslips, etc.) In most cases it doesn't take too long for the community do figure out if someone is full of crap or not.

------------------

"FWIW I had a negative rating for bookster well before his last episode, the guy was a troll right from the get-go."

I gave him a negative a long time ago also. He was looking for attention, couldn't care less about Fieros.

quote Originally posted by jelly2m8: FWIW I had a negative rating for bookster well before his last episode, the guy was a troll right from the get-go.

I had also given him a negative before this, and I hadn't realized it, until I went to rate him, and determined I already had. Whether it was Archie he was after, or it was a common Joe, such as myself, I would have still rated him negatively... He wasn't posting a fair warning of bad service or goods, he was simply out to tarnish someone's rep... Earning himself an instant negative from me, and obviously others.

Nic

I didn't read all of it but from what I saw he was trying to get himself banned. I never saw anything from him in his threads but unsubstanciated acusations.

Well, some people say that it was wrong that he was banned just because it was Archie and not someone else. There's a reason that he was banned, and that's because most people here have a great deal of respect for Archie.

------------------

My Web page

quote Originally posted by FastIndyFiero: Well, some people say that it was wrong that he was banned just because it was Archie and not someone else. There's a reason that he was banned, and that's because most people here have a great deal of respect for Archie.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. The respect people have for Archie had nothing to do with his banishment; IF he had had a ligit gripe against Archie, he could have expressed exactly the same thoughts, without resorting to the defamation and character assassination he did. The fact that he chose what would be, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, "fighting words, " and the fact that Pennocks has an informal code of conduct to prevent this very thing from snowballing into something bigger, justifies his banning.

------------------

"He who does not oppose evil, commands that it be done!" ----Leonardo da Vinci

Good riddance (and not because I'm an 'Archie Fan', but because I hate trolls).

quote Originally posted by freshfiero: .....My real question here is Did enough of us jump on a bandwagon to get this guy banned, were you aggreeing with archie because he's archie or was is a good move banning bookster? PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME OR GIVE ME A NEG. i'm just curious about the conflict that ended with a member being banned. -gary-

Bookster came on here with an accusation that was answered. Archie went through his records and replied that he has never received an order or any money from anyone that Bookster claimed he was, and Bookster wouldn't provide proof, even when asked for it. He continued to call Archie a liar and a thief, even though he didn't have a leg to stand on.

This has nothing to do with Archie. There is another thread out there, and at the moment I don't recall which one it is, where a couple of our members questioned the same thing......money sent, nothing received.....where Archie was the vendor, and Archie answered with explainations about both transactions. In both of those cases, Archie was not at fault at all and the problems were resolved. Neither of these members were rated off of Pennocks because they acted maturely and accepted that the reasons for the problems had nothing at all to do with Archie.

So, you have a member that was banned because he's an a**hole.....nothing more. Archie is very well respected by many on here, but he still has to answer to his customers. That's how business is run. Unfortunately, what needs to happen is that when a problem arises, an unhappy customer comes here and posts it in public when it should have been directly between a customer and vendor. We only hear one side until a reply appears, and that may take a couple of days. That's not fair to the vendor, which in this case was Archie. He had to show all of us that he was doing proper business, and he shouldn't have to waste time defending himself in public to private matters.

Just me .04 cents

To answer the question in the subject line... Yes.

As so many others have said, it had nothing to do with it being Archie. Regardless of what the 'Red Bar Brigade' may want people to think, negatives are because you have a different opinion. They come from abusing people who don't share your opinion. Or from, as in this case, just being abusive overall. Yes, the accusation made repeatedly even though it has been disproved over and over didn't help him any, but in the end it was his abusive personality that got him banned.

On a slightly different subject, I hope we don't have to have a thread explaining the reasons every time someone is banned. Cliff gives all kinds of leeway on this forum for people with different opinions. He doesn't believe in censorship, but he knows that people will cross the lines if allowed. He lets us govern ourselves. This forum really is a Democracy. Each member has one vote. The people who would abuse other members have a very visible scale that shows them when they are in trouble. They choose to either fix it or, in most cases, they get worse and just blame it on the good ole boys ganging up on them. Several people have been banned and then came back under other names and end up right back where they started because while the name may have changed, the abusive attitude didn't... The only problem I see with Cliff's system is that it is too lenient sometimes.. But it is Cliff's forum and I respect his wishes.

------------------

Fiero-Performance.com
2nd Annual California Coast Run

quote Originally posted by FastIndyFiero: Well, some people say that it was wrong that he was banned just because it was Archie and not someone else. There's a reason that he was banned, and that's because most people here have a great deal of respect for Archie.

I have no reason to support Archie myself. I don't know him firsthand. I will say that from what I've read on this forum that Archie is class act. I wouldn't hesitate to do business with him. I read the thread where Bookster accused Archie of ripping him off. He didn't offer any proof though. It was his responsibility to do that if he was going to open his mouth. He did absolutely nothing to support his argument. That's why he got banned. Heck, Archie even offered proof on his end that the transaction never happened....he didn't even need to do that. If you throw accusations around with no proof it's simple, you're probably full of crap like I bet he was.

Maybe some of it has to do with the fact that Archie is a respected member, but the fact is he threw out unsupported accusations.

Dave

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 10-03-2004).]

Well I feel every one has there opinion. Iguess I will get flamed here.
Every one has there say in court.
Banning some one because they have a gripe is bad for all of us.
If by chance some one has a problem with another,
or some one has the power to ban another, that is bad.
Deal with it one on one or get others input.
Don't pass judgment banning someone for there input.
Bookster passed judgment on Archie.l
And vis versa. Let them do there pi$$isng match.
Don't jump in and kill for it.

Hmm, new member registers right after bookster gets banned and does nothing but pull up old posts where bookster was flaming Archie.

Not very subtle.

And using the same basic sentence structure......hmmm.

And he writes in the same style as his old user name.

Jim
87 GT T-TOP V8
95 Talon TSi AWD 4g64

I'll say it again... YES...

And he'll most likely get banned very quickly again under his new name.

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc, formerly known as bookster, soon to be known as gone: And what is this Troll sh!t?

[This message has been edited by Stinkin_V8 (edited 10-04-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: Well I feel every one has there opinion. Iguess I will get flamed here. Every one has there say in court.

Opinions are fine and expected. You accused without proof. You lose.

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: Banning some one because they have a gripe is bad for all of us.

No one gets banned because of a gripe. They get banned because they are liars, abusers, and just plain idiots. Others have posted complaints about Archie and were not banned. They brought up questions, were honest with their issues, and the issues were resolved. No banning. But you? Give us proof!

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: If by chance some one has a problem with another, or some one has the power to ban another, that is bad.

One person cannot ban another, except for Cliff, and he was never involved. You were sent away by a lot of people.......

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: Deal with it one on one or get others input. Don't pass judgment banning someone for there input. Bookster passed judgment on Archie.l And vis versa. Let them do there pi$$isng match. Don't jump in and kill for it.

It wasn't passing judgement. You accused him of stealing, and you offered no proof. Nothing. Zip. That's not passing judgement, that's a fair trial. You lose. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. You were banned because you lied about a transaction that never happened.

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: And what is this Troll sh!t? How do you call some one a troll. I seen Archie's stuff it is cool. I seen he has his hands full. I see the complaints too.

Troll? Wow.....that's an easy one. You went out looking for trouble, and you found it. That's called trolling.

By the way, the only complaints are from idiots like you without proof.

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: But I don't see is bookster's right to be kicked off.

Of course not. You are an idiot.

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: Lets see he's been on awile and Archie is an icon here is he above the law?

No one is above the law here. (except Cliff, but he never tries to break it )

quote Originally posted by fieroz34tdc: sorry to ***** just my opinion. Archie is what you all call untouchable.

Archie is not untouchable, as is no one else here. But, it seems that when he gets questioned about anything regarding his business, he seems to have his ducks all in a row and does just fine. He takes care of the customer, pays his bills, and goes way out of his way to help out people in the Fiero world. That makes him special, and many of us respect him for that help and his contribution to the Fiero community.

Way to go, there, Greg.....you're still an idiot.

quote Originally posted by Songman: And he'll most likely get banned very quickly again under his new name.

I'm helping him with that.

quote Originally posted by Stinkin_V8:

ROTFLMAO .

I think we shoulda taken him out back and slapped him around a bit.

------------------
88 4cyl auto Fiero, AC, sunroof, tilt steering, rear swaybar
"And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit!" - The Tick

it is good that he is gone, we do not need a a hole in this forum

------------------

quote Originally posted by Stinkin_V8:

Buying A Fiero......................................................$500
Fixing it up...........................................................$1500
Buying a computer so we can play on Pennocks.......$1500
Cable internet access...........................................$45
This picture of Greg...............................................

........................Priceless

I was thinking bookster was an alterego of ray_b, but then I thought.. he hasn't anything about neo con pycho bushII's yet.. so no

------------------
1988 Aero 88 coupe.. 2.8l v6.. more mods to come.
Photo Gallery - Fiero Links - WebShop

Stinkin V-8, for a bad photoshop, that borders on comedic genius. I need to quit drinking soda when I read Pennock's...it keeps gettin' sprayed all over the screen when I come across that kind of stuff unexpectedly, lol.
By the way, wasn't the original photo of Greg shot at the Overlook Hotel? Isn't that in Colorado?
"Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!!!

------------------

"He who does not oppose evil, commands that it be done!" ----Leonardo da Vinci

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 10-04-2004).]

LOL, thanks guys.. It's a total 10-second photoshop hack, I was laughing way too hard to do any decent work.

So Fieroz34tdc= Bookster? If so, he deserves to be banned. I guess he didn't get the message the first time around.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't leave this undone...

quote Originally posted by avengador1: So Fieroz34tdc= Bookster? If so, he deserves to be banned. I guess he didn't get the message the first time around.

It does seem sort of strange that it takes a long time for someone to bet banned and then the next day he is back and posting in the thread about being banned. If the person is allowed to come back the next day it would be better if no one was banned. It is a lot harder to keep track of the new name and who it is than if they were just allowed to harass under their origional name.

Well it looks like he almost got himself banned again, it won't be long with his bar flashing the way it is.

wow some people try for months to get a rateing bar... this guy can do it in 1/2 an hour to 3 hours tops... wow...

------------------

Actually, He signed up with the new name before he got banned. I wonder how many other names he has registered already?
It looks like this one is gone soon.

quote Originally posted by Oreif: Actually, He signed up with the new name before he got banned. I wonder how many other names he has registered already? It looks like this one is gone soon.

How many other names do you have, you might be him as well... nahhh You're a good guy, bookster was not. Random bit of info, O man rocks