Holden Caulfield

Holden Caulfield
Banned

8th December 2007
27th January 2010 00:24

More 18 Friends

Recent Visitors

The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:

This page has had 53,052 visits

Tab Content: Holden Caulfield's Activity; About Me; Friends

Tab Content: All; Holden Caulfield; Friends; Photos

Older Activity

No Recent Activity

1699

Rosa Lichtenstein - 12th January 2009 14:34 View Conversation

The ANL was set up in my first year at university, but I did not join until I was a postgrad, just before it was disbanded.

I won't start a thread on it unless I see a good reason to do so.

The problem with your messages is that I find it difficult to interpret some of your ellipses, and your slang.
Rosa Lichtenstein - 12th January 2009 14:03 View Conversation

Yes, I know what ANL stands for, it was the other things yiu said I could not follow.
Rosa Lichtenstein - 12th January 2009 02:44 View Conversation

" just thought it was a bit more, and i dont mean to sound like im taking the piss, your era and ideology"

Forgive me, but I haven't a clue what you are on about.
Rosa Lichtenstein - 11th January 2009 23:18 View Conversation

"would you like to start a thread on the ANL"

Not particularly -- why do you want to start one anyway?
Holden Caulfield - 11th January 2009 21:07

7000, impressive
BobKKKindle$ - 10th January 2009 19:28 View Conversation

been on a Palestine demo? What is the CWI's position on Palestine anyway? I was seriously tempted to be mean to a lonely AWL dude today spreading Zionist lies.
RedAnarchist - 10th January 2009 18:38 View Conversation

OK
Bilan - 10th January 2009 12:06 View Conversation

Ja I can help a bit
Black Dagger - 9th January 2009 23:05 View Conversation

*******firstly i would like to make it clear to you that i didnt start the thread, it appears you imply i did, i merely made a point********

I'm totally aware and capable of determing who started the thread - i have eyes - so that is a weird thing to say. I was never implying you started the thread (that would be absurd) i was stating that the topic poster (bobkindles) had opened the door for personal attacks on TAT, an opportunity you seized. I closed the thread partly to prevent further inter-personal bs.

TAT is not going to get a warning point for posting in that thread. This is the first time i am aware of he has done so, warning points (besides some for prejudiced language) are not usually given out for single or first offences but for patterns of behaviour - this is all in the warning point FAQ. Besides, given the length of his post i think its reasonable to assume he had the window for a new post open before i had posted in the thread.
Sentinel - 9th January 2009 22:08 View Conversation

I have already explained to you exactly how it was in my PM to you. Now back off and accept it -- I won't be replying to any more messages from you regarding this, and will delete any spam from my profile. Like I have told you a million times, all that is needed from you is to stop this whining and pestering of us admins, and we'd get along just fine.

All you have to do is cease doing it and wait until your warning points are removed following the normal procedure in the guidelines -- they are not going to be removed before. I thought you had wisened up, but right now you're going down the same road again -- the one that will earn you your fifth infraction and the accompanying suspension. Shame.

Have a nice evening.