wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> srn347 and sm347
        
(Message started by: temporary on Jan 22nd, 2008, 9:38pm)
Title: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 22nd, 2008, 9:38pm
I have an important announcement. Srn347 is not Sm347 from a different computer. Sm347 framed srn347 and got him banned then continually framed him. Surprisingly, sm347 was not banned.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by mikedagr8 on Jan 22nd, 2008, 10:02pm

on 01/22/08 at 21:38:04, temporary wrote:
I have an important announcement. Srn347 is not Sm347 from a different computer. Sm347 framed srn347 and got him banned then continually framed him. Surprisingly, sm347 was not banned.

Sm347 made only a few posts. Srn347 was doomed. Even if Srn347 was being framed, he would have still been booted. I'm doubtful due to the way Sm347 wrote, including when he writes his age.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 22nd, 2008, 10:24pm
Whether srn347 should have been booted is questionable, but permanent ban was going too far. Sm347 should be banned though, that is without doubt.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by mikedagr8 on Jan 22nd, 2008, 11:24pm

on 01/22/08 at 22:24:42, temporary wrote:
Whether srn347 should have been booted is questionable, but permanent ban was going too far. Sm347 should be banned though, that is without doubt.

He posted only a few times. He has not come back since. Maybe he will mature in time and will be suitable to rejoin the forums. Who knows.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by towr on Jan 23rd, 2008, 1:34am
...

Call me paranoid if you must, but: hello srn347.
And I see your interests in infinity and the imaginary haven't waned. But, please behave better this time around.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by mikedagr8 on Jan 23rd, 2008, 2:49am

on 01/23/08 at 01:34:47, towr wrote:
...

Call me paranoid if you must, but: hello srn347.
And I see your interests in infinity and the imaginary haven't waned. But, please behave better this time around.

You're not paranoid. Just cautious.

5 hours a member and already 12 posts. Reminds me of someone  ::). Not that I can talk about that though. :P
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Ghost Sniper on Jan 23rd, 2008, 10:15am

on 01/22/08 at 21:38:04, temporary wrote:
Surprisingly, sm347 was not banned.


How would you know? Hmm...
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jan 23rd, 2008, 10:55am

on 01/22/08 at 21:38:04, temporary wrote:
Sm347 framed srn347 and got him banned then continually framed him.

Boy, she must be real smart!


on 01/22/08 at 21:38:04, temporary wrote:
I have an important announcement. Srn347 is not Sm347 from a different computer.

Sm347 will be glad to hear that.

At least this time you have chosen an appropriate handle.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 23rd, 2008, 5:47pm
Even if srn347 posted more often, sm347 made much spamier posts. At least srn347 tried to solve the riddles and gave some debate over it, sm347 just bragged and insulted.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by ima1trkpny on Jan 23rd, 2008, 7:05pm

on 01/23/08 at 17:47:27, temporary wrote:
Even if srn347 posted more often, sm347 made much spamier posts. At least srn347 tried to solve the riddles and gave some debate over it, sm347 just bragged and insulted.

Right.... were you reading the same posts I was? Srn347 made over 600 of the most rediculous and completely irrelevant posts on the forum. And when it was pointed out he did nothing but attack the other riddlers. Sm347 whoever it was, made only a few posts with nothing particularly offensive and has not come back since. I'm happy letting sleeping dogs lie, why are you trying to stir up trouble?
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 23rd, 2008, 8:21pm
I am not, nor was srn347. He posted in no attempt to attack others, but he did solve riddles with what although were unusual unexpected answers, could have been correct. Sm347, posted nothing but spam, no doubt about that.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by ima1trkpny on Jan 23rd, 2008, 8:38pm
Oh really... then if you weren't srn347, then who are you? And how do you claim to know so much about what went on?
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by mikedagr8 on Jan 23rd, 2008, 11:46pm

on 01/23/08 at 20:21:51, temporary wrote:
I am not, nor was srn347. He posted in no attempt to attack others, but he did solve riddles with what although were unusual unexpected answers, could have been correct. Sm347, posted nothing but spam, no doubt about that.

I didn't think patronising others came under solving riddles. It's different in Iceman's case. :P Hehe

Srn347, only ever had 2 correct responses. EVER. 1 of those I am ambiguous about the other he was actaully attempting to solve a problem.


on 01/23/08 at 18:06:32, temporary wrote:
[hide]If you have multiple markers, you can complete it without lifting the marker.[/hide]

This looks fairly similar to something Srn347 would post. Nothing wrong with that though.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Michael_Dagg on Jan 24th, 2008, 12:32am
> This looks fairly similar to something Srn347 would
> post. Nothing wrong with that though.

Likely, but I think we'd all be better off if you could instead
impress us with some good mathematics so that we'd
have somthing to talk about for a few days/weeks.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by towr on Jan 24th, 2008, 12:39am

on 01/23/08 at 20:21:51, temporary wrote:
I am not, nor was srn347.
Well, you do a good impression of him, with the interests you share, the types of post you make and types of questions you ask. And of course there's the out of the blue defense of someone long gone for no apparent reason.
But it doesn't really matter one way or the other, as long as you're not as disruptive as he was then.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 24th, 2008, 8:01am
Were it not for temporary, I very much doubt anyone here would even think about srn347, let alone spend time cursing his name for sm347's posts.

On the other hand, it seems rational to suppose that anyone behaving in a manner sufficiently similar to that in which srn347 behaved will find themselves experiencing a similar fate - particularly now that people have been reminded of the precedent.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 24th, 2008, 7:45pm
The reason I know so much about what went on is because I have observed this forum from afar for a while now, and I finally decided to register. The reason I brought the matter of srn347's posts to discussion is because I found his ban to be an injustice, and I destroy injustice. The fact that as some of you say, "my answers are similar to his" must be because great minds think alike(not to brag).
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jan 24th, 2008, 7:49pm

on 01/24/08 at 19:45:13, temporary wrote:
..because great minds think alike(not to brag).


Right. Silly minds usually think alike too.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jan 27th, 2008, 6:08pm

on 01/23/08 at 19:05:26, ima1trkpny wrote:
Right.... were you reading the same posts I was?


No.  He was writing them.  Maybe it's just coincidence but it's too much for me.  Check the last two posts in this topic (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_hard;action=display;num=1028075149;start=25#25).

Never mind (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_medium;action=display;num=1197397819).  It is not a coincidence.  Someone get rid of this jackass.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 27th, 2008, 7:38pm
Doesn't this forum have a filter, or perhaps you evaded it with the prefix jack in front of that word? Anyway, coincidence is in the eye of the beholder(and so are many other adjectives).
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:55am

on 01/27/08 at 19:38:58, temporary wrote:
Anyway, coincidence is in the eye of the beholder(and so are many other adjectives).

Your brilliance (is that an adjective?) astonishes me.  ::)
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Hippo on Jan 28th, 2008, 9:09am

on 01/27/08 at 18:08:32, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:
No.  He was writing them.  Maybe it's just coincidence but it's too much for me.  Check the last two posts in this topic (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_hard;action=display;num=1028075149;start=25#25).

Never mind (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_medium;action=display;num=1197397819).  It is not a coincidence.  Someone get rid of this jackass.


Actually the temporary's post (just) in the first link seemed to me to be relevant.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jan 28th, 2008, 11:56am
Relevance did not influence my decision.  The fact that he uses exactly the same phrasing and responds to all of the same topics as srn (coupled with his lack of any real understanding of the question) -- that is what influenced me.


on 01/27/08 at 15:15:06, temporary wrote:
Perhaps there is a way to use these paradoxes to my advantage...
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by temporary on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:05pm
Srn347's post is right above mine in that thread. Compare the two.
Title: Re: srn347 and sm347
Post by mikedagr8 on Jan 28th, 2008, 5:11pm

on 01/28/08 at 17:05:27, temporary wrote:
Srn347's post is right above mine in that thread. Compare the two.

I have compared as you have suggested. The only difference seems to be you use more punctuation and present yourself a little better. The ideas are very similar (please do not take this as a compliment).


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board