Has the "don't reply to Peaches" ban been lifted?

[Stormrider81]

</p>

 

[dawgstudent]

Yes.

 

[MSUCostanza]

Did he whine about it?

 

[cowbell9]

nm

 

[Stormrider81]

</p>

 

[DowntownDawg]

The people want to know.

 

[Stormrider81]

</p>

 

[Jackdragbean]

DS, I thought you were married. How in the hell will a lifetime supply of free condoms come in handy? Planning on water-ballooning the neighbors?

Edited to say, yes, I replied to the wrong damn post. Sue me.

 

[dawgstudent]

Did he whine about it?

No and because him responding in a thread just kills a thread. So either ban him or let people respond. </p>

 

[rugbdawg]

is because we have been banned elsewhere? I mean, where are all the ******** who have an alternative opinion of MSU sports supposed to post if the ******** who run the board decide to develop some type of censorship of "extreme ******** and their opinions"? DS, in 20 or 30 years when your balls are old and floppy and your mind is completely set in its ways, what will prevent you from banning the controversial opinions of the board? If you remember, Gene used to be pretty reasonable a while back too. What if Croom becomes the most successful football coach ever at State, and like Sherrill, he starts to fall apart. The young ones or forward thinking ones are calling for his head but you defend him to the death because of what he has done. This is a scary precedent that could be abused in the future. Should you ban Coach or those who respond to him? It's questionable. Just make sure you aren't censoring Coach because of his opinion. If you want to ban people because they are just hostile,******, worthless, and complete devoid of any reason, go ahead.

 

[dawgstudent]

I just said I didn't like the logic of not replying to a poster. Either ban him or let people respond - don't restrict people from replying.

If you have more to ask, just pm me.