Nathan's Corner

Quote: Nathan

I'm thinking by December 20th, 2018. :)

Sorry, they dog won't hunt.

People with a shred of honor settle their bets damned near immediately.

What's your excuse again?

Quote: MrV

Sorry, they dog won't hunt.

People with a shred of honor settle their bets damned near immediately.

What's your excuse again?

People with honor settle by the deadline agreed upon.

Quote: Nathan

I like Dolphins. As in The Miami Dolphins, one of the best Football Teams in USA! :D

oof you mispelt Seattle Seahawks but ok

Quote: djatc

oof you mispelt Seattle Seahawks but ok

LMAO! :D

Quote: Nathankentry

Lovely how you never answer a question. Some are now catching onto you that you are in fact a troll. Funny you don’t answer in any forum . Do you have absolutely zero life? You and Kentry are the same one logs in from t mobile cell phone only!!!! And one from a computer only!!!!! Both in same general area. You are a true freak

I am not Kentry and I would appreciate it if you would stay off my thread, WON. :/

Quote: MrV

Sorry, they dog won't hunt.

People with a shred of honor settle their bets damned near immediately.

What's your excuse again?

Sorry but this is utter and complete nonsense.

There is a world of difference between a bet, where two sides put up a stake, versus a pledge of a gift conditional on some external event.

Nathan stated that she would make a gift if certain things didn't happen (lottery numbers which only she was tracking and reporting on.) No one in this forum did a single damn thing to deserve the gift and no one has a basis to claim that they have been unfairly injured if Nathan does not make the gift, or if she merely sets a schedule for giving the gift that is convenient for her.

There are clear legal definitions in contract law that are useful and apply here because they reflect the common sense of the matter. A bet is an oral (or written) contract and people who enter into a bet are obligated to pay and can be compelled to pay. But a pledge to make a gift in the future based solely on the condition that something in the future related to lottery numbers happens is NOT a contract. Nathan has no obligation to pay it because no one was required to provide any quid pro quo driven by the expectation of receiving the gift. Future gifts may be pledged but such a pledge is not binding, and the disappointed person who does not receive the gift has no grounds for compelling the gift.

If I had foolishly posted that I would pay the WOV Spring Fling one million dollars if Donald Trump gets elected as President, and after the election I decided not to pay, then I could expect people to think less of me (if that's possible, lol.) But, in no way could anyone claim that I was required to make a payment of $1 million dollars or compel me to do so. And, certainly, Mr. V could not claim that I would have to pay $1 million according to some phoney-baloney schedule that has apparently been pulled out of someone's bottomless rectum.

And any claim by any moderator that Nathan has "lied to the forum" about her gift and would need to be banned unless she does pay it, is nothing but hate-filled nonsense - in every way as foul as anal leakage. Nathan made a foolish statement, but lots of people lie to this forum about all sorts of things. We can think less of them but to deny her access to a public place of entertainment such as the WOV forum would be as illegal as trespassing someone from a casino simply because they had said they would donate money to a charitable cause and then did not do so. It fails every test of law and every test of common sense.

And these posts about compelling Nathan to pay by some arbitrary schedule are the epitome of juvenile drivel, bereft of even a modicum of rationality, decency or integrity. If she does eventually pay anything at all, you should praise her for making a gift payment that she did not need to make. She must certainly be one of the lowest-income individuals in WOV forums and surely one must have the blackest of hearts to insist that she make gift payments that she cannot afford, that she is not obligated to make and that no one deserves to receive.

I'm looking forward to the.next Spring Fling. Knowing one.of the many beers I will be consuming was sponsored by Nathan will make it taste just a little.bit better.
Out of respect, I will post no more in this thread while Nathan is in time out.

Quote: gordonm888

Sorry but this is utter and complete nonsense.

There is a world of difference between a bet, where two sides put up a stake, versus a pledge of a gift conditional on some external event.
...
There are clear legal definitions in contract law that are useful and apply here because they reflect the common sense of the matter.
...

Nathan has no obligation to pay it because no one was required to provide any quid pro quo driven by the expectation of receiving the gift. Future gifts may be pledged but such a pledge is not binding, and the disappointed person who does not receive the gift has no grounds for compelling the gift.

Thanks Gordon. I understand that Nathan is under no legal obligation to settle her debt of honor. I just have a couple of issues with your stance.

Quote:

We can think less of them but to deny her access to a public place of entertainment such as the WOV forum would be as illegal as trespassing someone from a casino

Public place? I think not: WOV is accessible to the public with posting rights absolutely at the discretion of the forum's owner.

Quote:

Nathan has no obligation to pay it because no one was required to provide any quid pro quo driven by the expectation of receiving the gift.

Quite so.
Also, Wizard has no obligation to provide membership facilities because Nathan was not required to provide any quid pro quo driven by the expectation of receiving such membership facilities. I.e. Membership has not been purchased and facilities are not contracted,
Nathan has been indulged pretty well.

Quote: gordonm888

Sorry but this is utter and complete nonsense.

There is a world of difference between a bet, where two sides put up a stake, versus a pledge of a gift conditional on some external event.

Nathan stated that she would make a gift if certain things didn't happen (lottery numbers which only she was tracking and reporting on.) No one in this forum did a single damn thing to deserve the gift and no one has a basis to claim that they have been unfairly injured if Nathan does not make the gift, or if she merely sets a schedule for giving the gift that is convenient for her.

There are clear legal definitions in contract law that are useful and apply here because they reflect the common sense of the matter. A bet is an oral (or written) contract and people who enter into a bet are obligated to pay and can be compelled to pay. But a pledge to make a gift in the future based solely on the condition that something in the future related to lottery numbers happens is NOT a contract. Nathan has no obligation to pay it because no one was required to provide any quid pro quo driven by the expectation of receiving the gift. Future gifts may be pledged but such a pledge is not binding, and the disappointed person who does not receive the gift has no grounds for compelling the gift.

If I had foolishly posted that I would pay the WOV Spring Fling one million dollars if Donald Trump gets elected as President, and after the election I decided not to pay, then I could expect people to think less of me (if that's possible, lol.) But, in no way could anyone claim that I was required to make a payment of $1 million dollars or compel me to do so. And, certainly, Mr. V could not claim that I would have to pay $1 million according to some phoney-baloney schedule that has apparently been pulled out of someone's bottomless rectum.

(ed: bolding mine) And any claim by any moderator that Nathan has "lied to the forum" about her gift and would need to be banned unless she does pay it, is nothing but hate-filled nonsense - in every way as foul as anal leakage. Nathan made a foolish statement, but lots of people lie to this forum about all sorts of things. We can think less of them but to deny her access to a public place of entertainment such as the WOV forum would be as illegal as trespassing someone from a casino simply because they had said they would donate money to a charitable cause and then did not do so. It fails every test of law and every test of common sense.

And these posts about compelling Nathan to pay by some arbitrary schedule are the epitome of juvenile drivel, bereft of even a modicum of rationality, decency or integrity. If she does eventually pay anything at all, you should praise her for making a gift payment that she did not need to make. She must certainly be one of the lowest-income individuals in WOV forums and surely one must have the blackest of hearts to insist that she make gift payments that she cannot afford, that she is not obligated to make and that no one deserves to receive.

Speaking of unnecessary...

What in the world? You keep going into these weird rants defending the indefensible and attacking the moderators? Who among us mods said nathan would be banned if she didn't pay her self-imposed debt? None of us has threatened her for that! Trolling, yes. Flooding, yes. Giving bad advice on gambling, yes. Lying to the forum, yes. Breaking her promise to not start new threads, yes. But not for that. Pretty ironic you make some big speech about laws when defending a multiple rule-breaker.

I don't appreciate being compared to anal leakage even a little bit. (bolded in the quote ) I don't refer to you or anyone else on here like that.

I also don't know why you're enabling "foolish" (your word) bets and "pledges" (your word, she was the one who called it a bet, one-way though it might have been) from a person who obviously can't afford it, either. Defending her doing it and then her "right" to not pay when she loses is just encouraging more foolishness from her.

We don't need this kind of faux bet on a forum whose purpose is integrity in gaming and making the best bets. I never expected her to pay, and anyone who did after 2 years of her nonsense is kidding themselves. It was just another device for attention, and, oh look, it worked!

Here we are, people arguing about an irrational, phantom pledge for months now, pitting people who otherwise can get along against each other, either calling out the nonsense or defending it. Again. So could you just chill with all this attacking every time we get set up to go at each other? Please?

It seems as though Nathan is able to easily shrug off or ignore almost all the criticisms and bashing of her on this forum , however she always has a very sensitive and angry reaction to any accusations that she is Kentry.

That particular assertion always draws a passioned response and denial

Babs:

Okay, I think I do agree with everything you said in both responses. I agree that all of the language you call out was unnecessarilly offensive and harsh, to the point of being objectionable. Apologies don't make it right, but I do apologize, I am sorry. I will try not to make this mistake again.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I also don't know why you're enabling "foolish" (your word) bets and "pledges" (your word, she was the one who called it a bet, one-way though it might have been) from a person who obviously can't afford it, either. Defending her doing it and then her "right" to not pay when she loses is just encouraging more foolishness from her.

LOL, the fact that Nathan called it a bet does not mean it was a bet, lol. The fact that I support her right to exist does not mean I think she is a thought-leader who frames our issues for us.

And I do think the so-called bet or "pledge" that Nathan made was foolish. But there have been so many taunting emails by others on the subject of her obligation to pay (and schedule to pay) that I imagine she has had plenty of opportunity to realize that.

Nathan made and lost a similar "bet" on another board and was banned for welshing on it.

I only mention this to show that the mod thought it was a "bet" which should be honored and paid promptly, and not some form of not-bet as you allege.

Quote: Nathan

I'm thinking by December 20th, 2018. :)

Is Walgreens not paying you and you're owed months back money, your money is in the bank in another town, did you drop your wallet in the restroom? You're good for it Nathan I'm sure, you're not a pathological liar I'm kidding.

Quote: MrV

Nathan made and lost a similar "bet" on another board and was banned for welshing on it.

I only mention this to show that the mod thought it was a "bet" which should be honored and paid promptly, and not some form of not-bet as you allege.

I'll do those mothers if I have to, Viagra will help if I'm giving out dying wishes.

Why did Nathan get suspended? Please don't tell me it was because she started a new thread pleading not to be harassed/stalked. I didn't know she was restricted from ever making new threads period.

If she is being harassed/stalked I can understand her desperation.

I thought we stopped tying to silence victims.

Have you started channeling 1BB?

Quote: AxelWolf

Why did Nathan get suspended? Please don't tell me it was because she started a new thread pleading not to be harassed/stalked. I didn't know she was restricted from ever making new threads period.

If she is being harassed/stalked I can understand her desperation.

I thought we stopped tying to silence victims.

Hi Axel, I can understand her irritation, desperation, frustration etc. However, after consulting Wizard, I imposed the suspension. There was some debate between moderators about final judgement. Let's just say that the suspension might have been less or more.

Nathan is not 'restricted from ever making new threads period' but it's been made clear to her where her 'random thoughts' belong, rather than peppering the forum with many 'random thought' threads.

Yes, Nathan is a victim. She was invited to bring any issues to the moderators by PM for appropriate action. She was also warned by the Wizard not to make this forum a platform for her dispute. She just couldn't resist defying him.

I appended my explanation to that thread.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/31763-this-has-gone-way-too-far/#post680092

We have WON constantly rejoining here with the express purpose of attacking Nathan and we constantly boot him for that. Frankly we do not want this forum to be a platform for a squabble between individuals especially when one is permanently banned.

Quote: OnceDear

However, after consulting Wizard, I imposed the suspension.

Quote: AxelWolf

That's all you took from what OnceDear said in response? Wow.

I don't appreciate being called a bastard, any more than I appreciated being compared to anal leakage.

I also was consulted/notified by OnceDear, and I think he acted appropriately, even with extra care, given the entire situation, not just this one slice of the serial drama that is Nathan.

Since you're so concerned with her business, I'm surprised you weren't aware she had made a deal with the Wizard to freewheel this thread, rather than continue to spam most threads with irrelevancies and start garbage threads everywhere. It's only been disclosed or referenced about 50 times, including by Nathan several times.

Or that she has specifically been warned not to continue her complaints against WoN here. That warning has been given numerous times before yesterday, including by me, OnceDear, and Wizard.

If you're going to complain about something like this, maybe you could have all the information at hand before you go off on us. And put things into perspective. Thanks.

Quote: AxelWolf

"You bastards! They killed Kentry!" ... fyp

I've seen both the Kendry and Kentry names being mentioned, but are they the same person or two different profiles/people being brought up?

uh, who cares ?

Quote: scolist

I've seen both the Kendry and Kentry names being mentioned, but are they the same person or two different profiles/people being brought up?

I think Kendry is just a typo of Kentry

Quote: OnceDear

I think Kendry is just a typo of Kentry

Thank you OD!

Quote: beachbumbabs

I don't appreciate being called a bastard, any more than I appreciated being compared to anal leakage.

I have never compared you to anal leakage. I have compared the "hatred for Nathan" that gushes out of you to anal leakage - because hatred and anal leakage are the most foul things that flow out of people that I can think of.

But I have also agreed that "anal leakage" is a term that does not contribute to constructive exchanges. I only bring it up because you did.

But, Babs, won't you agree that hatred is a foul, ugly thing? Irrespective of the reason for your hatred of Nathan - maybe your hatred is righteous and is justified based on things that Nathan has done to hurt you. But righteous hatred is still an ugly thing, and the ugliness reflects on you.

And please don't claim that you don't hate Nathan. Or if you do claim this, please inform us of any charitable thoughts you have towards her. Is there anything nice you can say about her? If you met her in person would you extend a hand of friendship? Or do you wish that you will never again see any post from her? Be honest.

IMHO, its just a very ugly situation.

My question would be why does Babs or anyone owe you the reasons for their thoughts?

Obviously many have their reasons for believing “Nathan” has made a mockery of this forum. And I don’t think it is true hatred. And I would believe many feel bad for her if she actually lives as she posts.

But truth is an appreciated asset by most on here and is usually non negotiable. While trying to stay within the rules of this forum, I don’t believe the member in question has always been in regards to who they have also posted as in the past.

But to accuse Babs of hating another person is pure BS on your part. Nothing like following up an apology with another accusation.

Quote: Boz

My question would be why does Babs or anyone owe you the reasons for their thoughts?

Because she objects to being criticized for her actions and thoughts. Its that simple. If she does not want people to form a bad opinion, then offering some explanations might be helpful. And I never claimed that Babs "owes" me anything. That just an unfair tactic on your part - stating a position I've never taken and and then putting me down for it.

Quote: Boz

But to accuse Babs of hating another person is pure BS on your part.

I don't agree.

Quote: Boz

Nothing like following up an apology with another accusation.

I apologized for wording I used. But I continue to disagree with Babs. Babs is the one who reignited this by reacting to Axel's post with such fury and acrimony, referring to a*** l******. I have tried to reply in a civil tone and to clarify. If you don't like my posts you are welcome to not read them.

Quote: gordonm888

I have never compared you to anal leakage. I have compared the "hatred for Nathan" that gushes out of you to anal leakage - because hatred and anal leakage are the most foul things that flow out of people that I can think of.

But I have also agreed that "anal leakage" is a term that does not contribute to constructive exchanges. I only bring it up because you did.

But, Babs, won't you agree that hatred is a foul, ugly thing? Irrespective of the reason for your hatred of Nathan - maybe your hatred is righteous and is justified based on things that Nathan has done to hurt you. But righteous hatred is still an ugly thing, and the ugliness reflects on you.

And please don't claim that you don't hate Nathan. Or if you do claim this, please inform us of any charitable thoughts you have towards her. Is there anything nice you can say about her? If you met her in person would you extend a hand of friendship? Or do you wish that you will never again see any post from her? Be honest.

IMHO, its just a very ugly situation.

And you don't see how you're making it infinitely worse by planting the idea that I hate her into people's heads. Right. Thanks for the help.

Hear me, Gordon. I don't hate people I don't know. I'm trying to do a job here.

As a moderator, she's an enormous problem. Perhaps the forum should pay me for the approximately 300 hours of my life I've lost dealing with issues involving her, including about a dozen suspensions of other people, numerous administrative discussions on what to do with the trouble she causes, reams of posts and PMs of whining and complaints from her and many others.

But the larger problem is how divisive she is to the group. Look at all the arguments between people who defend her and the people who find her a troll. The only reason there aren't even more of those is that a great many people have blocked her and blocked this thread. But I can't, and still do my job.

So, make me out to be the evil queen or whatever. I can't control the thoughts in your head. But you can certainly stop claiming to know mine.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Hear me, Gordon. I don't hate people I don't know. I'm trying to do a job here.

As a moderator, she's an enormous problem. Perhaps the forum should pay me for the approximately 300 hours of my life I've lost dealing with issues involving her, including about a dozen suspensions of other people, numerous administrative discussions on what to do with the trouble she causes, reams of posts and PMs of whining and complaints from her and many others.

As a former Administrator around here, I can say that I mirror this sentiment, assuming the part about the Forum paying is a joke, which I think it’s meant to be. I don’t know that it’s necessarily as many as 300 hours, but certainly dozens upon dozens, almost definitely over 100 hours, with each minute seeming even more completely unnecessary than the last.

You have one group of people who seem to think Nathan should not be banned for anything or reprimanded in any way whatsoever, but then you have another group PMing you complaints over every single borderline thing.

Furthermore, never has there been any member for whom I had to give so much consideration on how the perception of any Administrative action in favor of or against that member would be publicly received. The thing is, when I was an Admin, I wouldn’t say that I didn’t care about the reaction to an Admin action in general because it would just be a post defending my decision or admitting I was wrong. So, I cared, but I knew it wouldn’t result in me being completely inundated with messages of various kinds. With Nathan, I’d have to deal with several PM’s as well as text messages from multiple people, almost guaranteed.

Anyway, I didn’t like having to worry about getting inundated with PM’s and texts over Administrative decisions regarding a member, especially considering that I occasionally tried to do other things in my life aside from Administrating this Forum.

If everything had been confined to the Discussion About the Suspension List thread, it wouldn’t have been so bad. When I’m driving, but expecting an important text message about something unrelated and pull off or stop somewhere to check my phone and it turns out to be something regarding Nathan, it’s fair to say that I wasn’t thrilled with that.

Anyway, I would have to say that I prefer no longer being an Admin on this Forum more than I would prefer to have remained one. I didn’t really expect that to be the case, but alas it is. It’s honestly pretty close and you can take your pick of these three things:

-Feeling more free to say whatever I want.
-Not having to deal with Nathan Administratively.
-Not feeling obligated to read almost every thread.

Take any one of those away and I would have preferred to remain an Admin, had I felt that was the right decision, which I didn’t anyway. The first and third of those items are automatically going to be the case if I am not an Admin, so the only variable is whether or not I’d have to deal with issues regarding Nathan anymore.

Anyway, that’s all from the standpoint of previously being an Administrator and what it was like Administrating things having to do with Nathan.

As a regular member of the Forum, I don’t really have a positive or a negative opinion on Nathan provided she is confined mostly to this thread. If I don’t feel like hearing from Nathan, then I just won’t read this thread. Here I am checking it from time to time, I guess, but that’s only because the fact that Nathan was banned caused me to be curious about this thread. Otherwise, I have to be really bored and have next to nothing to do to even consider opening this thread.

Put as simply as possible:

1. Nathan causes no harm, at least in the confines of her own thread. She shouldn’t be posting nonsense in other threads and derailing them (that doesn’t mean she can’t post legit stuff in other threads). She causes no harm as far as:
A. Never seen her insult someone.
B. Nothing nefarious like doxxing someone.
C. She’s never tried to sell anything.

2. I don’t know the agreement or whatever with Wizard, but it seems like Wizard is okay with Nathan in this thread. He’s participated quite a bit here, too.

3. If someone doesn’t like her posts, they can block her thread or her posts entirely. Usually I don’t like this argument, because the blocked person can still post and derail threads and whatnot. But Nathan is in this thread like 99% of the time. If she misbehaves in other threads then report her for that, if you (general you) wish.

4. Who the f*** really cares? Block or don’t read this thread, report her in other threads or if she breaks the rules in this thread, and move on. Sure, she might be <fill in the blank of your opinion here>, but unless that’s actually something that’s bad, then get over it. She causes no harm.


@babs — don’t spend 300+ hours on this stuff. If there’s a legitimate complaint, follow through with it however you’re supposed to. If it’s not legitimate, then don’t. If it’s always the same person, then tell them to only report something if it’s legitimate or else you’re just going to ignore their complaints.


#TeamNathan

The mods make a decision, just deal with it. They are responsible for keeping the forum running smoothly, and they do that well.

If they felt Nathan broke a forum rule, then why go to such great lengths to fight that decision? I think some people just enjoy being a pain in the ***

blocking people is great but dumb. I have people blocked and when they write their ramblings it screws up the last unread post system in threads

Quote: RS

Put as simply as possible:

1. Nathan causes no harm, at least in the confines of her own thread. She shouldn’t be posting nonsense in other threads and derailing them (that doesn’t mean she can’t post legit stuff in other threads). She causes no harm as far as:
A. Never seen her insult someone.
B. Nothing nefarious like doxxing someone.
C. She’s never tried to sell anything.

I agree with that both in the context of a regular member and as a former administrator.

Personally, I didn't have a problem with the new threads Nathan started, if there hadn't been so many of them. For reasons beyond my comprehension, even though the OP's themselves were a bit shaky, Nathan's threads often kicked off long conversations. My biggest issue with Nathan was frequently derailing threads started by other people with posts that may not have been, but certainly read as willfully ignorant.

Quote:

2. I don’t know the agreement or whatever with Wizard, but it seems like Wizard is okay with Nathan in this thread. He’s participated quite a bit here, too.

I don't know, either. This thread was started after I was already not an administrator anymore. I think it was a pretty fantastic idea, though.

Quote:

3. If someone doesn’t like her posts, they can block her thread or her posts entirely. Usually I don’t like this argument, because the blocked person can still post and derail threads and whatnot. But Nathan is in this thread like 99% of the time. If she misbehaves in other threads then report her for that, if you (general you) wish.

4. Who the f*** really cares? Block or don’t read this thread, report her in other threads or if she breaks the rules in this thread, and move on. Sure, she might be <fill in the blank of your opinion here>, but unless that’s actually something that’s bad, then get over it. She causes no harm.

This was pretty much always my fallback argument when it comes to the people who clamored for Nathan to get Nuked for one thing or another.

Honestly, if there's anything I should have done different regarding Nathan, it would be that I should have handed out more bans for people attacking/trolling her. That would have likely got the message across to either ignore Nathan or play nice. Because of my perceived value of (most of) Nathan's posts, I wasn't inclined to be overly aggressive in this regard, but probably should have been.

Quote:

@babs — don’t spend 300+ hours on this stuff. If there’s a legitimate complaint, follow through with it however you’re supposed to. If it’s not legitimate, then don’t. If it’s always the same person, then tell them to only report something if it’s legitimate or else you’re just going to ignore their complaints.

#TeamNathan

You can ask people to do whatever you want to ask them to do, but whether or not they do that is a completely different thing. Whether or not a complaint is, "Legitimate," is also subjective and it's not like you're going to threaten to ban people for making a complaint that you don't believe is serious enough.

Devisive mockery is bad enough but an annoyingly time-consuming devisive mockery is worse.

Three cheers for BBB, the most dedicated Green Inker we have.

Quote: FleaStiff

Devisive mockery is bad enough but an annoyingly time-consuming devisive mockery is worse.

Three cheers for BBB, the most dedicated Green Inker we have.

It’s a Thankless job and Babs does it with no upside.

To Mission, RS and other defenders of Nathan, to me it’s about the question if she is a sock of a banned member, nothing more.

Wise people either don’t care or those who do, can’t prove it. That she and WoN are forever linked is some kind of irony.

Quote: Boz

It’s a Thankless job and Babs does it with no upside.

To Mission, RS and other defenders of Nathan, to me it’s about the question if she is a sock of a banned member, nothing more.

Wise people either don’t care or those who do, can’t prove it. That she and WoN are forever linked is some kind of irony.

That's where it's at. Lots of people want her to be a sock and, during any time that I was an Administrator, there was never any proof of that being true. I could suspect stuff if I wanted to as an Administrator, but suspecting stuff and proof are two different things and my standard for banning a sock was always, "Absolute proof." The only things that would qualify as absolute proof are an IP address match or an outright admission, and I never had either.

Quite honestly, there wasn't ever anything that really came all that close to indicating that Nathan was a sock of anyone else, at least not in my opinion.

The unfortunate result of that is having to listen to multiple complaints from multiple people, as Babs alluded to, about everything that Nathan has ever done or any post that could be seen as a violation of the rules if you REALLY wanted to stretch it.

Again, in my personal opinion and from an Administrative standpoint, I considered almost all things Nathan a complete and total waste of my time. This post is a waste of my time, I just wanted to jump in and defend Babs' position in her post that she made to Gordon...which was also probably a waste of my time.

As far as WoN creating other accounts to harass Nathan on here, via PM, or whatever, nothing any Administrator could do about it. The only tool they have at their disposal is whether or not IP's match, and even then, everyone knows that IP's can be masked. There are also pretty obvious handles that WoN has made to harass Nathan, but it's not like there is at least one Admin on the board 24/7 to ban those handles before anything happens.

Hell, some people seem to be on here so much that they know at what times of the day what Admins tend to be the most active.

My personal favorite thing to have happen was being accused of being biased AGAINST Nathan. If that were true, I would have just Nuked Nathan and dealt with the blowback that would have lasted, at most, a week. It sure would have saved me a lot of time and hassle. I'm not even going to lie and say I didn't think about it.

I am officially back! :D

Quote: Nathan

I am officially back! :D

you were gone?

I thought I noticed a disturbance in the force this morning lol.

Quote: Nathan

I am officially back! :D

Figures you would be suspended during the GOAT lottery jackpot.

Powerball is at $750M, that ain't chump change.

Nathan, what numbers look good to you?

Quote: MaxPen

Figures you would be suspended during the GOAT lottery jackpot.

She was taken off suspension very early on the 22nd. She didn't sign in again until this morning. So she could have been here for the MegaMillions Tuesday night if she'd wanted to be.

Quote: Nathan

I am officially back! :D

Welcome back. We missed you.

Finally, all is well!

To some, I'm pretty sure "finally" and "all" and "well" may seem to be some overly strong words. But hokay. My semi-secret shamelessly inappropriate wish is that Nathan is still gonna be "bad" and really get into gangsta Nathan during "I'm Back (ver. II)."

Quote: gordonm888

Welcome back. We missed you.

:)

Patrick Star from SpongeBob supposed to be really stupid but at times he seems to be very smart and insightful.

Here are key words of wisdom from him.

"If you want your Grandma to treat you like an adult, you can't act like a baby around her."

"You do realize that Squidward doesn't actually like you, don't you?"

"I was seeing if you were paying attention to how dumb this really is!"

"If we're underwater, how can there be a fire?"

"Hero worship is unhealthy."

"You had your chance. Stop living in the past and move on."

:)

Quote: Nathan

<snip>"If we're underwater, how can there be a fire?"<snip>

Nathan,

Maybe somebody dropped a chunk of pure sodium metal into the water: see

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9bAhCHedVB4

Dog Hand

Quote: MrV

Powerball is at $750M, that ain't chump change.

Nathan, what numbers look good to you?

I am not a huge fan of Powerball, but I guess I'll say 8, 16, 20,35, 36 with a PB of 28. ;)

Why were my posts and the following posts about the G23 thing about using phones to put funds into slots deleted?