69 replies to this topic

[Shaman]

[Package car Rob]

Freight Truck Mark, on January 03 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

Clearly you need to familiarize yourself with the forum rules before you go posting things that could bring harm to another Teamster Brother. I have provided some excerpts below for you to review so you don't make the same mistake for a 4th time (that is, unless it's not a mistake and you're being willfully malicious). I have reported your post and the link will come down as soon as an admin has had a chance to review.

Someone said above, "Violence against a fellow Teamster, especially at a membership meeting, is one of the most serious violations of our Union." How serious of a violation of our Union is it when a disgrunted member can come on a Teamster forum and lodge baseless allegations against members of an Executive Board about orchestrating an attack on another Teamster without providing any shred of evidence? How serious of a violation of our Union is it when a disgruntled member posts the police record of a fellow Teamster brother for the sole purpose of harming his reputation? What someone did almost 20 years ago does not prove that the person is guilty of anything that happened in the present.

It has come to my attention that some users are engaging in the practice of posting other people's personal information on TNET. This practice is strictly forbidden on TNET, and posts which publicly expose anyone's private information will be removed, and may result in the poster's privileges being suspended or revoked. Personal information shall be considered to include, but not be limited to real names of TNET members - whether such names are actually real or not is irrelevant, the attempt to "out" someone is hereby proscribed; personal addresses and/or telephone numbers (including IBT/local union-provided cellular telephones); social security numbers; workplaces; names/personal details of family members of those the poster is attempting to harrass/"out"; financial data; legal history; and/or any other information deemed by the TNET staff to be personal in nature.

We do not condone, permit, or otherwise support any actions which might potentially bring harm to *ANYONE*. Period. As providing someone's private information might contribute to the possibility that that person could be harmed, TNET will begin taking a very hard line against any violations of this rule

I do not see what you claim is a violation of anything by the mullet. I see that members have the right to post links to web content as long as there are no copyright infringements and I see no outing attempt of a TNET member in providing that link. You think you are fighting for member privacy but one could safely argue that Local 384 members are sharing a meeting room with a repeat criminal and that there should be a public posting to that effect.

Shaman, on January 15 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

He he. How did you get the crappers picture on there?

Freight Truck Mark, on January 16 2012 - 04:08 AM, said:

I did not know that you had to authorize any posts on this thread.

[dumfck]

who is mark crapper and should we even care

[Freight Truck Mark]

Package Fluffer Rob, on January 16 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I do not see what you claim is a violation of anything by the mullet.

That's because Tnet administrators removed the offending material, and it just happened to be the same material you posted that got taken down weeks before. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that two a-holes posted the exact same documents, wasn't it.

Package Fluffer Rob, on January 16 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I see that members have the right to post links to web content as long as there are no copyright infringements and I see no outing attempt of a TNET member in providing that link.

If you don't understand the rules set forth by the people who run this forum (and clearly you don't), maybe you should either A) take your argument up with them or B) stop posting here so you don't appear so foolish and ignorant. Go ahead and post police records again, I'll be here to report it to the admins and hopefully next time they will be motivated to remove you completely seeing as how it will be obvious that you're willfully ignoring the rules. Maybe they'll even look into what accounts have logged in from the same IP addresses.

Package Fluffer Rob, on January 16 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

You think you are fighting for member privacy but one could safely argue that Local 384 members are sharing a meeting room with a repeat criminal and that there should be a public posting to that effect.

Just because you get a hard-on for somebody and go looking for things to use against that person doesn't mean that what you find in his past from 10 years ago should be up for public consumption on this forum. This is a privately-owned forum, and therefore your ability to post here is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. The owners dictate what you can and can't post, and they have deemed that legal history is personal in nature, can potentially harm the Teamster in a number of ways, and is therefore unacceptable. You continue to violate their rules and you risk your privileges being revoked, it's that simple. Your beliefs on what you THINK should be up for public consumption are irrelevant here.

By the way, if you're so happy that Mark Capper got his ass-whooped, why would you try to smear the person who did it? I'd think you'd want to shake the man's hand.

Package Fluffer Rob, on January 16 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

He he. How did you get the crappers picture on there?

I couldn't help but notice you neglected to respond to the question of why nobody got arrested. Not interested in discussing the facts, huh?

Package Fluffer Rob, on January 16 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I did not know that you had to authorize any posts on this thread.

When you or any of your throwaway accounts are ready to engage me on what really went down at the now-infamous union meeting, I'll be waiting.

[Package car Rob]

Woooo hoooo a little birdie tells me that the crapper has a big surprise headed his way. His days at TLU 384 are numbered. And it is more than about time. Adios amigo.

[ibc734]

Dedicated251, on December 18 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Violence against a fellow Teamster, especially at a membership meeting, is one of the most serious violations of our Union. Civil discourse and debate should always be preferred over violence.

LOL! Good post pal. But as you can see, you've got cavemen who think otherwise.

[Shaman]

[Freight Truck Mark]

Package car Rob, on February 12 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Woooo hoooo a little birdie tells me that the crapper has a big surprise headed his way. His days at TLU 384 are numbered. And it is more than about time. Adios amigo.

Is it the same little birdie who told you that the executive board had someone beat up Crapper at the union meeting? Because if it's the same bird, you should find another source for reliable information, Package Fluffer.

[Package car Rob]

I'll tell you what my sources are when I want you to know and not before.
You want sources? You want engagement? Take a look at this and while you are crying to the moderators about these links why don't you tell them about how you alter my posts when you quote me.
Bonerdouche has a convict cruising his union hall beating on people who ask questions he doesn't like.
He was convicted of assault.
http://ujsportal.pac...CR-0005204-1978
Convicted of recklessly endangering another person.
http://ujsportal.pac...CR-0005846-1993
Convicted of assault.
http://ujsportal.pac...CR-0001737-1993

[Shaman]

[Freight Truck Mark]

Package car Rob, on February 21 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I'll tell you what my sources are when I want you to know and not before.

We already know your sources. You think little birdies in trees are talking to you. If the little birdies ever advise you to drive head-first into a tree at 80mph with your seat belt off, do us all a favor and do what the little birdies tell you to do.

Shaman - Cartoon of birds in trees, please.

Package car Rob, on February 21 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

You want sources? You want engagement? Take a look at this and while you are crying to the moderators about these links why don't you tell them about how you alter my posts when you quote me.

Aww...it sounds like somebody just made poo-poo in their diaper. Did I hit a nerve? Alter your posts, how do I alter your posts? You're the only person here who can make you sound stupid, if you wanna post like a retard then take responsibility for being a retard.

Shaman, cartoon of a grown-up wearing diapers, stat.

Package car Rob, on February 21 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Bonerdouche has a convict cruising his union hall beating on people who ask questions he doesn't like.

Once again you have willfully violated the forum posting rules by posting the criminal background of a person whom you can't even prove was involved in any altercation. This is, what, the third time now? You've failed to offer any evidence to suggest that this man committed any crime against any other union brother, yet here you are maliciously defaming him. Show me a police report that states in no uncertain terms that this man committed a crime. Oh...you don't have a police report that says that? Well that's because your whole story is a fairy tale.

Hopefully the moderators have grown tired of policing your baby ass and hopefully it's bye-bye now for the Package Fluffer Rob account.

[Shaman]

[Freight Truck Mark]

We do not condone, permit, or otherwise support any actions which might potentially bring harm to *ANYONE*.

-- Teamster.net Forum Rules
http://www.teamster....tion=boardrules

So why is the potentially harmful material still present?

[Shaman]

[Freight Truck Mark]

We do not condone, permit, or otherwise support any actions which might potentially bring harm to *ANYONE*.

-- Teamster.net Forum Rules
http://www.teamster....tion=boardrules

So why is the potentially harmful material still present?

[Shaman]

Freight Truck Mark, on February 24 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

We do not condone, permit, or otherwise support any actions which might potentially bring harm to *ANYONE*.

-- Teamster.net Forum Rules
http://www.teamster....tion=boardrules

So why is the potentially harmful material still present?

I posted a link to an extensive definition and history of plagiarism yet you won't admit that you misused the term. There is nothing wrong with posting information that is not private. Some court records are available to the public. We don't harm our brothers and sisters by posting public records any more than we harm someone by sharing links. Perhaps people are ignoring you because there is no point in responding. Not to worry. You can continue to post. Some will agree and some won't. It's good that you communicate whether we agree or not. Namaste

[Freight Truck Mark]

Shaman, on February 24 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I posted a link to an extensive definition and history of plagiarism yet you won't admit that you misused the term. There is nothing wrong with posting information that is not private.

You absolutely plagiarized an article. You posted material to this website that you copied verbatim from another website. You can try to bog the debate down in semantics all you want, but in the end you accepted credit for thoughts that did not originally materialize in your own brain. If a school student copies anything verbatim from a website, submits the material as their own original work and the teacher uses a search tool to discover that the work was copied, it is considered plagiarism. What you did is essentially the same thing, except that instead of submitting something for required work for a school project, you submitted an article to this forum to accept the accolades from your fellow libtards who read it and agreed with you.

Shaman, on February 24 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Some court records are available to the public. We don't harm our brothers and sisters by posting public records any more than we harm someone by sharing links. Perhaps people are ignoring you because there is no point in responding.

If there's no potential harm in posting someone's police records for no reason other than to expose a fellow Teamster's past transgressions because they simply don't like that person, Tnet would never have removed the same exact links to the same person's police records the last three times they were posted by the same *******. And they certainly would not have removed the links on three prior occasions if they didn't feel it violated their forum rules. Maybe if you weren't so busy posting cartoons you would've noticed that the criminal records had already been posted three times and removed three times.

Shaman, on February 24 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

It's good that you communicate whether we agree or not.

What do you know about communication? When confronted with inconvenient truths that expose your textbook liberal agenda for the complete fraud that it is, you post cartoons.

Shaman, on February 24 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Namaste

That sounds like hippie-speak from the People's Republic of California. Do you drive a Prius too? If so, thank you for saving gas. More for my V8 muscle car.

[Shaman]

You would benefit from taking an anger management class.


A Free Introductory Workshop from Dr. Joe @ http://angermanagement.net/




Namaste on Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste

[Shaman]

Freight Truck Mark, on February 25 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

You absolutely plagiarized an article. You posted material to this website that you copied verbatim from another website. You can try to bog the debate down in semantics all you want, but in the end you accepted credit for thoughts that did not originally materialize in your own brain. If a school student copies anything verbatim from a website, submits the material as their own original work and the teacher uses a search tool to discover that the work was copied, it is considered plagiarism. What you did is essentially the same thing, except that instead of submitting something for required work for a school project, you submitted an article to this forum to accept the accolades from your fellow libtards who read it and agreed with you.

Please read my earlier response regarding the definition of plagiarize.

Freight Truck Mark, on February 25 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

If there's no potential harm in posting someone's police records for no reason other than to expose a fellow Teamster's past transgressions because they simply don't like that person, Tnet would never have removed the same exact links to the same person's police records the last three times they were posted by the same *******. And they certainly would not have removed the links on three prior occasions if they didn't feel it violated their forum rules. Maybe if you weren't so busy posting cartoons you would've noticed that the criminal records had already been posted three times and removed three times.

It is a common practice to post verifiable material regarding past transgressions when engaged in politics. This is not illegal although at times it is determined that it is against forum rules.

Freight Truck Mark, on February 25 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

What do you know about communication? When confronted with inconvenient truths that expose your textbook liberal agenda for the complete fraud that it is, you post cartoons.

Cartoons are a valid form of communication. Satire on Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Freight Truck Mark, on February 25 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

That sounds like hippie-speak from the People's Republic of California. Do you drive a Prius too? If so, thank you for saving gas. More for my V8 muscle car.

Namaste (English: /ˈnɑːməsteɪ/ nah-məs-tay; Devanagari: नमस्ते; formal: Namaskar/Namaskaram) is a common spoken valediction or salutation originating from the Indian subcontinent. It is a customary greeting when individuals meet, and a valediction upon their parting. A non-contact form of salutation is traditionally preferred in India and Namaste is the most common form of such a salutation. In Nepal, younger persons usually initiate the exchange with their elders. Initiating the exchange is seen as a sign of respect in other hierarchical settings. From Namaste on Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namaste

I drove a muscle car when I was in my late teens. It was a 383 four barrel Dodge Charger. I currently drive a small truck. You needn't thank me for saving gas. I drive a small truck to save money. I don't identify with the vehicle that I drive.

Namaste

2779

[dumfck]

doctor joe has me hooked into the lifetime membership thank you shaman i think it will make my life better if it does not i will throw a temper tantrum ;-o