INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: P7PSP on March 21, 2013, 05:31:54 PM
-
He (Marx) changed his username to Michael_Hutchence earlier and posted that Alfonso had posted pedo comments. When he was called for being a liar he locked the topic and changed his posts. Fortunately Alfonso saved the fabricated screen shot in a quote. Marx should be banned for fabricating evidence to get another member banned IMO.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html)
-
As much as I dislike Aspie Rogue
I dislike marx even more
Just personal opinion
-
What the crap, marx?
-
As much as I dislike Aspie Rogue
I dislike marx even more
Just personal opinion
Well his framing Aspie Rouge to get him banned certainly proves to my satisfaction that Marx is a complete POS.
-
lol, WEREZ MA BITCHES?!!
-
your behaviour is entirely illogical. you hate ar too, so technically, you should be worshipping me.
OH, PRAISE HIM, OH PRAISE LORD MARX, HE CALLED OUT THE OVERLORD GARETH NELSON... AHHH, AHH.
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
someone ban this son of a bitch
-
your behaviour is entirely illogical. you hate ar too, so technically, you should be worshipping me.
OH, PRAISE HIM, OH PRAISE LORD MARX, HE CALLED OUT THE OVERLORD GARETH NELSON... AHHH, AHH.
I don't worship anyone ever. You are an inept troll.
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ)
someone ban this son of a bitch
you wouldn't want any harm to come to odeon, would you?
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ)
someone ban this son of a bitch
you wouldn't want any harm to come to odeon, would you?
odeon can take care of himself
Tho it seems like you are making physical threats against him.
Are you?
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ)
someone ban this son of a bitch
you wouldn't want any harm to come to odeon, would you?
odeon can take care of himself
Tho it seems like you are making physical threats against him.
Are you?
not really, retard. grow a fucking sense of humour, will you?!
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Biology_for_Beginners.html?id=D4p2QgAACAAJ)
someone ban this son of a bitch
you wouldn't want any harm to come to odeon, would you?
odeon can take care of himself
Tho it seems like you are making physical threats against him.
Are you?
not really, retard. grow a fucking sense of humour, will you?!
I dont have a sense of humor, while a troll is making threats
-
PRAISE THE OVERLORD!!!
-
No, I really don't.
nice try fuckface
-
No, I really don't.
nice try fuckface
i did not post that, peasant, now praise The Lord.
-
Bye Marx
-
Thank you Parts for jettisoning that POS. :plus:
-
Thank you Parts for jettisoning that POS. :plus:
:indeed: :plus:
-
Is posting obviously fake info a bannable offence nowadays??
-
I do imagine that there were other reasons
not the least being; he pissed off the overlord
-
Sooo....
I'm NOT the overlord?? ??
-
nah, just a peasant, like the rest of us
-
lol, WEREZ MA BITCHES?!!
Right here, princess! (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1491)
Your butthurt was epic today, marx. :indeed:
-
there is no way to see even the slightest bit of humor in anything you post anymore, marx
hope yer asshole draws up around your neck and chokes you to death
There never was any humor in his posts to begin with. What a sorry, fat loser. marx even posted a video of his butthurt self on youtube:
Fat Man - Fuck My Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62QrqdLxUOM#)
-
Is Cartman the next incarnation of AspieRouge?
Maybe it is Marx is the one that needs to follow my earlier suggestion from the shoutbox.
-
Is Cartman the next incarnation of AspieRouge?
Yes.
Maybe it is Marx is the one that needs to follow my earlier suggestion from the shoutbox.
Yes it is but the worthless POS is no longer here.
-
Is Cartman the next incarnation of AspieRouge?
Yes.
Maybe it is Marx is the one that needs to follow my earlier suggestion from the shoutbox.
Yes it is but the worthless POS is no longer here.
Well that is over, he was getting to be a bloody nuisance.
He just needs to know that this is only one of the things that happens when strangers talk to little girls.
-
marx was merely acting like a dumbfuck, I don't see the need to ban him.
-
marx was merely acting like a dumbfuck, I don't see the need to ban him.
Have him join Spasticity2. :viking:
-
marx was merely acting like a dumbfuck, I don't see the need to ban him.
Paedo content is a bannable offence. He knew what he was doing.
-
So, it seems the dick bought me into and said I would vouch for his accusations.
-
Told you he was a troll.
-
Told you he was a troll.
Most of us would not dispute that.
The only question that remains is if he was BC.
-
Told you he was a troll.
Most of us would not dispute that.
The only question that remains is if he was BC.
No, I don't think so. I have another candidate in mind but it's not something I will post on the board.
-
My charts and poking at him sent him over the edge. I'm a hero. Again. :green:
-
This site needs a spazztard like Randy for entertainment. :M
I had hopes that marx could live up to that.
Perhaps someone with a WP account can go there, find the biggest spazztard and invite them here.
-
I have to agree. Randy was one of my favorite people ever.
-
This site needs a spazztard like Randy for entertainment. :M
I had hopes that marx could live up to that.
Perhaps someone with a WP account can go there, find the biggest spazztard and invite them here.
You do OK Scrap, don't worry about it
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
-
This site needs a spazztard like Randy for entertainment. :M
I had hopes that marx could live up to that.
Perhaps someone with a WP account can go there, find the biggest spazztard and invite them here.
You do OK Scrap, don't worry about it
Aaaaaawww! that's the first nice thing you've said about me all day. :eyelash: :-*
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
:agreed:
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
:agreed:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I was wondering when you two would hook up.
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
:agreed:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I was wondering when you two would hook up.
I think it's sweet. :)
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
:agreed:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I was wondering when you two would hook up.
I think it's sweet. :)
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
Good to see him b& actually. How long until he proxys up and rejoins though? Be vigilant folks.
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
Good to see him b& actually. How long until he proxys up and rejoins though? Be vigilant folks.
Not long. If I'm right about who he is, expect to see a newbie soon.
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
Good to see him b& actually. How long until he proxys up and rejoins though? Be vigilant folks.
Not long. If I'm right about who he is, expect to see a newbie soon.
A repeat offender then I take it.
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
Good to see him b& actually. How long until he proxys up and rejoins though? Be vigilant folks.
Not long. If I'm right about who he is, expect to see a newbie soon.
A repeat offender then I take it.
Sort of. He is known here and he is not BC.
-
Hey Les,
Protip: Stop taking this site so srsly!
:agreed:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I was wondering when you two would hook up.
I think it's sweet. :)
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
I pretty much trolled marx's flabby ass n bitchtits off I^2. Yay me! :green:
As for you richard, if ya want me banned, you're gonna have to fill this out first:
(http://www.wallchan.com/images/sandbox/73300-butthurt-report-form.png)
-
Alfonso hasn't done anything to warrant a ban. Marx, on the other hand, did a lot more.
Good to see him b& actually. How long until he proxys up and rejoins though? Be vigilant folks.
Not long. If I'm right about who he is, expect to see a newbie soon.
Well there may be one coming soon who I know from school so try not to be too mean initially. Shes pretty cool, new to autistic people.
-
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
Why do you think cartman should be banned?
-
Accusing him of bestiality is no better, as far as taboo topics around here.
-
Alfonso is an idiot and then some.
Ban worthy? I don't think so
-
And what of marx?
-
And what of marx?
I liked Marx. He was quirky. I do not care for alfonso. If Marx did post pedo shit....well too bad for him, he deserves the ban.
It is not a popularity contest here. Alfonso doesn't have to be likeable (I don't think he could if he tried)
-
Alfonso is an idiot and then some.
Ban worthy? I don't think so
True, I didn't really want him banned. Just using hyperbole.
-
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
Why do you think cartman should be banned?
Because I rejected his offers for buttsecks.
-
Accusing him of bestiality is no better, as far as taboo topics around here.
Except both Al and I were obviously winding him up.
-
And what of marx?
Posting the crap he did with the intent of getting someone else banned yeah fuck him. :thumbdn:
-
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
Why do you think cartman should be banned?
Because I rejected his offers for buttsecks.
You, reject an offer for anal? Impossible. Also stop giving yourself credit for the downfall of Marx. The guy dug his own grave without the help of a predictable little failtroll like you.
-
Accusing him of bestiality is no better, as far as taboo topics around here.
Except both Al and I were obviously winding him up.
It was something funny written of him by another absent member about 4 years ago. The accusation was not from me. I was happy just using this "knowledge" to have fun with Alfonso.
-
And what of marx?
I liked Marx. He was quirky. I do not care for alfonso. If Marx did post pedo shit....well too bad for him, he deserves the ban.
It is not a popularity contest here. Alfonso doesn't have to be likeable (I don't think he could if he tried)
It is a popularity contest. Crying pedo is the same offense as dog fucker in terms of disallowed topics.
-
Accusing him of bestiality is no better, as far as taboo topics around here.
Except both Al and I were obviously winding him up.
Obvious to who? Maybe marx was just winding him up. Doesn't change the rules.
-
Why aren't the admins responding to this? Very interested in their thoughts on the matter.
-
Why aren't the admins responding to this? Very interested in their thoughts on the matter.
Well Jack, IF I have broken the rules then I will leave the site and ask to have my account deleted. IF I have, I understood that Marx made pedophilia accusations which is against TOS. I don't know that I have.
-
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member, and maybe you should. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
-
Odeon should clarify the line of the tos regarding discussion of paedophilia and bestiality.
-
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
Jack rather than trying to speak my mind which you KNOW that you don't know. That is right, isn't it Jack? You don't know my mind?
Perhaps ask. I don't know what Marx posted and have not indicated that I did. I saw others said he was posting pedophilia things which I know can get this place shut down on the basis of its relationship to CP and you know this because you too have read the TOS (Sorry you may not know this at all - yes I was doing what you just did)
I don't know whether he ought to have been banned either but IF he was posted Pedophilia content then yes he ought to have been.
Rather than try to insult me by pretending I am lying or being deceitful, find where I have broken the rules. I have looked. But YOU made the claim that I know I am breaking the rule and expecting better treatment.
You show me the rules I am breaking that you infer I know I have broken and that you know about and I will not need to be given leniency or favouritism, I will have my account deleted.
Then you can talk your head off about what I know and what favoritism I play for because I will not be here to contest it.
Until then......back your claim.
-
Odeon should clarify the line of the tos regarding discussion of paedophilia and bestiality.
Actually Jack it rather sounds like it is you who "knows" I have broken the rules (and know that i know?). is that right? Is that not what you wrote? if you know, then you must have good reason to know and not have to bother Odeon to show it. You know and so you have the answers. Show me and I will ask to have my account deleted. You should have that to hand in order to make the claim, right?
-
It is super cute isn't it. Mind you I think both Marx and Alfonso should be banned.
Why do you think cartman should be banned?
Because I rejected his offers for buttsecks.
You, reject an offer for anal? Impossible. Also stop giving yourself credit for the downfall of Marx. The guy dug his own grave without the help of a predictable little failtroll like you.
You mad, richard?
I clearly did troll the fuck out of that failfag until he got so butthurt that he tried to frame me in order to get me banned. And it backfired. Apparently you're still in love with him so why don't you go suck his dick. :hahaha:
Les is correct, Jack: It's not a popularity contest. I am here to amuse myself and if such results in people getting mad+butthurt then that's fine with me.
-
Not claiming to read your mind, only assuming you know the rules regarding discussion of bestiality. Don't really expect you to admit you might have stepped over the line a little. Can't really show you the rules when already expressing uncertainty on the exact implications of said rules. An admin woulde need to do that. Didn't mean to imply you expect special treatment, only making my own assumption you will receive it. This assumption is based on past experience. Like the time scrap posted a nude of an underage old girlfriend. He was warned by the membership to self-moderate, not auto-slammed with a ban hammer. I assumed this was him being allowed a bit of understanding and allowing him to correct his error. Even marx was allowed the grace of self-moderation concerning his posts about Bets. This may have been appropriate, maybe not. Don't really know or have any stake in such decisions; not an admin and wouldn't want such burden. As for backing my claim, what exactly would you like me to back? That you know the rules? Only you can affirm that.
-
Les is correct, Jack: It's not a popularity contest. I am here to amuse myself and if such results in people getting mad+butthurt then that's fine with me.
Maybe so.
-
Who the fuck was actually posting about bestiality other than Richard calling people dog fuckers?
-
Actually didn't realize Sir Les was involved until it was brought up.
-
Not claiming to read your mind, only assuming you know the rules regarding discussion of bestiality. Don't really expect you to admit you might have stepped over the line a little. Can't really show you the rules when already expressing uncertainty on the exact implications of said rules. An admin woulde need to do that. Didn't mean to imply you expect special treatment, only making my own assumption you will receive it. This assumption is based on past experience. Like the time scrap posted a nude of an underage old girlfriend. He was warned by the membership to self-moderate, not auto-slammed with a ban hammer. I assumed this was him being allowed a bit of understanding and allowing him to correct his error. Even marx was allowed the grace of self-moderation concerning his posts about Bets. This may have been appropriate, maybe not. Don't really know or have any stake in such decisions; not an admin and wouldn't want such burden. As for backing my claim, what exactly would you like me to back? That you know the rules? Only you can affirm that.
I don't really care what you "expect", you said "You know". No I don't, know I have or did and you are just inferring against (for some reason that I can't guess) that I am deceitful or dishonest. I have not a clue why you are choosing to honour me with this disrespect or where ANYTHING i have said on here would give you the indication I either play for favouritism or that i am deceitful or dishonest.
Anywhere Jack. Help me out.
Again, you made the call so find me that incriminating law breaking and I will fall on my sword for you. Until then, stop with the insinuations that I am dishonest OR prove me to be. Hell I am not picky.
For your interest, I am going to research this myself just so you will not try and accuse me of not being pro-active about this.
-
Found this so far, Jack
All services provided by HostGator may only be used for lawful purposes. The laws of the State of Florida, the State of Texas, and the United States of America apply
3.) Zero Tolerance Spam Policy
We take a zero tolerance stance against sending of unsolicited e-mail, bulk emailing, and spam. "Safe lists", purchased lists, and selling of lists will be treated as spam. Any user who sends out spam will have their account terminated with or without notice.Potential harm to minors is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to child pornography or content perceived to be child pornography (Lolita):
Any site found to host child pornography or linking to child pornography will be suspended immediately without notice.
Now I am going to try to look up the laws of Florida and Texas to see what or if any reasonable interpretations of any such laws may see me as having "crossed the line". I will be back with findings. As the person who threw this accusation out there...what have you got so far?
-
Odeon should clarify the line of the tos regarding discussion of paedophilia and bestiality.
Actually Jack it rather sounds like it is you who "knows" I have broken the rules (and know that i know?). is that right? Is that not what you wrote? if you know, then you must have good reason to know and not have to bother Odeon to show it. You know and so you have the answers. Show me and I will ask to have my account deleted. You should have that to hand in order to make the claim, right?
Actually it's more a matter of opinion. I think you know the rules and know if you're breaking them or not. So, yes. that's right. Don't delete your account, Sir. It messes up the database. Maybe being misunderstood here; not seeking to have anyone banned, especially not you; quite like you.
-
Odeon should clarify the line of the tos regarding discussion of paedophilia and bestiality.
Actually Jack it rather sounds like it is you who "knows" I have broken the rules (and know that i know?). is that right? Is that not what you wrote? if you know, then you must have good reason to know and not have to bother Odeon to show it. You know and so you have the answers. Show me and I will ask to have my account deleted. You should have that to hand in order to make the claim, right?
Actually it's more a matter of opinion. I think you know the rules and know if you're breaking them or not. So, yes. that's right. Don't delete your account, Sir. It messes up the database. Maybe being misunderstood here; not seeking to have anyone banned, especially not you; quite like you.
Nope, if I am breaking the rules i will go. No it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of whether someone is dishonest as you have specifically indicated I am (Again, no idea where you got this from) and that I have broken rules and will seek favouritism in the event that i will (no idea where you got this from.
I am going to look up Florida State Law 828.126, F.S to see what I can glean from that.
-
Found this so far, Jack
All services provided by HostGator may only be used for lawful purposes. The laws of the State of Florida, the State of Texas, and the United States of America apply
3.) Zero Tolerance Spam Policy
We take a zero tolerance stance against sending of unsolicited e-mail, bulk emailing, and spam. "Safe lists", purchased lists, and selling of lists will be treated as spam. Any user who sends out spam will have their account terminated with or without notice.Potential harm to minors is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to child pornography or content perceived to be child pornography (Lolita):
Any site found to host child pornography or linking to child pornography will be suspended immediately without notice.
Now I am going to try to look up the laws of Florida and Texas to see what or if any reasonable interpretations of any such laws may see me as having "crossed the line". I will be back with findings. As the person who threw this accusation out there...what have you got so far?
Actually the tos agreement for this site appeared quite strict the one time reading it; could read it again if this discussion is to based on what the tos actually says. Am going more on what odeon has said concerning the rules of his site, and how things have been handled in the past.
This thread is locked so can't quote him.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17570.msg764947/topicseen.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17570.msg764947/topicseen.html)
Discuss. What is Intensity, today? How about tomorrow? And never mind the past; this is about what it is, now, and what it should be. People have left and others have joined. We won't be going back cos we shouldn't. It's not healthy.
Me, I still think that it's about enabling the spazzes cos we won't moderate them unless required to do so by the TOS (bestiality, that sort of thing). It's the place where we can say what's on our minds and be chastised for it. It's the place where we can speak our minds or choose to post mindless banter. It's the place for high Internet drama, and it's the place for sadness and quiet reflection (well, it could be). It's not for the sensitive type, but these days I wonder if it's because of a lack of interest rather than actual fear.
It's also just another message board and as such, not the end of the world.
-
Odeon should clarify the line of the tos regarding discussion of paedophilia and bestiality.
Actually Jack it rather sounds like it is you who "knows" I have broken the rules (and know that i know?). is that right? Is that not what you wrote? if you know, then you must have good reason to know and not have to bother Odeon to show it. You know and so you have the answers. Show me and I will ask to have my account deleted. You should have that to hand in order to make the claim, right?
Actually it's more a matter of opinion. I think you know the rules and know if you're breaking them or not. So, yes. that's right. Don't delete your account, Sir. It messes up the database. Maybe being misunderstood here; not seeking to have anyone banned, especially not you; quite like you.
Nope, if I am breaking the rules i will go. No it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of whether someone is dishonest as you have specifically indicated I am (Again, no idea where you got this from) and that I have broken rules and will seek favouritism in the event that i will (no idea where you got this from.
I am going to look up Florida State Law 828.126, F.S to see what I can glean from that.
Sure it's a matter of opinion when expressing my opinion. I think you know what topics are considered unacceptable here by the admins. This is my opinion. Where did I say you will seek favoritism; have already explained you didn't. What has florida law to do with it? Will it be used to define the lines of the tos regarding banning marx?
-
Sure it's a matter of opinion when expressing my opinion. I think you know what topics are considered unacceptable here by the admins. This is my opinion. Where did I say you will seek favoritism; have already explained you didn't. What has florida law to do with it? Will it be used to define the lines of the tos regarding banning marx?
Found this so far, Jack
All services provided by HostGator may only be used for lawful purposes. The laws of the State of Florida, the State of Texas, and the United States of America apply
3.) Zero Tolerance Spam Policy
We take a zero tolerance stance against sending of unsolicited e-mail, bulk emailing, and spam. "Safe lists", purchased lists, and selling of lists will be treated as spam. Any user who sends out spam will have their account terminated with or without notice.Potential harm to minors is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to child pornography or content perceived to be child pornography (Lolita):
Any site found to host child pornography or linking to child pornography will be suspended immediately without notice.
Now I am going to try to look up the laws of Florida and Texas to see what or if any reasonable interpretations of any such laws may see me as having "crossed the line". I will be back with findings. As the person who threw this accusation out there...what have you got so far?
828.126 Sexual activities involving animals.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Sexual conduct” means any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person.
(b) “Sexual contact” means any contact, however slight, between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration of the sex organ or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal of the person.
(2) A person may not:
(a) Knowingly engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(b) Knowingly cause, aid, or abet another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(c) Knowingly permit any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control; or
(d) Knowingly organize, promote, conduct, advertise, aid, abet, participate in as an observer, or perform any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose.
(3) A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) This section does not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2011-42.
Texas repealed Bestiality Laws in 1974
Sure it's a matter of opinion when expressing my opinion. I think you know what topics are considered unacceptable here by the admins. This is my opinion. Where did I say you will seek favoritism; have already explained you didn't. What has florida law to do with it? Will it be used to define the lines of the tos regarding banning marx?
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member, and maybe you should. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
IF I "know" I have "stepped across the line" and "broken the rules" and am "given patience" AND accept this favouritism. I am playing for favouritism.
This IS what you are saying as far as i can see. I say exactly the opposite.
-
Crap, sir. Not talking about the law, haven't mentioned the law, or implied you've broken any law. Talking about the rules of this site and how they're enforced. Save the legal semantics for the admins.
-
Crap, sir. Not talking about the law, haven't mentioned the law, or implied you've broken any law. Talking about the rules of this site and how they're enforced. Save the legal semantics for the admins.
Nope. Sorry but I am concern not with semantics but with the TOS. If I have broken TOS and broken site rules i am leaving the site. You "know" I have and are not making a case for it. I am scrambling through the TOS and see it mentions that a breach of TOS is anything that breaches law in Texas or florida. That IS part of the TOS. Right?
So I have looked up Law in Florida and Texas around bestiality as you are insinuating and to see if my referenced quote to what another member wrote on bestiality about Cartman is a breach of that.
So crap nothing.
You were insinuating I had broken the rules and in knowledge i was ...weren't you? IF you are then you don't have an issue with me confirming it one way or another do you? Help me out here. It seems like i am putting more work in trying to nut this out that you and you are the one accussing me.
doesn't seem right does it?
-
Nope. Sorry but I am concern not with semantics but with the TOS. If I have broken TOS and broken site rules i am leaving the site. You "know" I have and are not making a case for it. I am scrambling through the TOS and see it mentions that a breach of TOS is anything that breaches law in Texas or florida. That IS part of the TOS. Right?
So I have looked up Law in Florida and Texas around bestiality as you are insinuating and to see if my referenced quote to what another member wrote on bestiality about Cartman is a breach of that.
Didn't mention the tos, but rather the rules and my own understanding of them. Isn't that right?
So crap nothing.
You were insinuating I had broken the rules and in knowledge i was ...weren't you? IF you are then you don't have an issue with me confirming it one way or another do you? Help me out here. It seems like i am putting more work in trying to nut this out that you and you are the one accussing me.
doesn't seem right does it?
Yes, that's right.
-
Nope. Sorry but I am concern not with semantics but with the TOS. If I have broken TOS and broken site rules i am leaving the site. You "know" I have and are not making a case for it. I am scrambling through the TOS and see it mentions that a breach of TOS is anything that breaches law in Texas or florida. That IS part of the TOS. Right?
So I have looked up Law in Florida and Texas around bestiality as you are insinuating and to see if my referenced quote to what another member wrote on bestiality about Cartman is a breach of that.
Didn't mention the tos, but rather the rules and my own understanding of them. Isn't that right?
So crap nothing.
You were insinuating I had broken the rules and in knowledge i was ...weren't you? IF you are then you don't have an issue with me confirming it one way or another do you? Help me out here. It seems like i am putting more work in trying to nut this out that you and you are the one accussing me.
doesn't seem right does it?
Yes, that's right.
OK let's see Intensity's position on this then.
Discuss. What is Intensity, today? How about tomorrow? And never mind the past; this is about what it is, now, and what it should be. People have left and others have joined. We won't be going back cos we shouldn't. It's not healthy.
Me, I still think that it's about enabling the spazzes cos we won't moderate them unless required to do so by the TOS (bestiality, that sort of thing). It's the place where we can say what's on our minds and be chastised for it. It's the place where we can speak our minds or choose to post mindless banter. It's the place for high Internet drama, and it's the place for sadness and quiet reflection (well, it could be). It's not for the sensitive type, but these days I wonder if it's because of a lack of interest rather than actual fear.
It's also just another message board and as such, not the end of the world.
Odeon said this as you posted.
So why does he take a particular view against bestiality?
Is bestiality against TOS? Since when? What about all the stuff Calandale used to post?
:tinfoil:
It's against the TOS because it's illegal in Texas (or Florida, can't remember which), where Hostgator is located.
The TOS that as i pointed out to yo when you were going all "crap. save it for the Admins for me", informs the way this board is moderated. BECAUSE it is illegal in Texas or Florida.
So what specifically concerning bestiality is illegal there
Found this so far, Jack
All services provided by HostGator may only be used for lawful purposes. The laws of the State of Florida, the State of Texas, and the United States of America apply
3.) Zero Tolerance Spam Policy
We take a zero tolerance stance against sending of unsolicited e-mail, bulk emailing, and spam. "Safe lists", purchased lists, and selling of lists will be treated as spam. Any user who sends out spam will have their account terminated with or without notice.Potential harm to minors is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to child pornography or content perceived to be child pornography (Lolita):
Any site found to host child pornography or linking to child pornography will be suspended immediately without notice.
Now I am going to try to look up the laws of Florida and Texas to see what or if any reasonable interpretations of any such laws may see me as having "crossed the line". I will be back with findings. As the person who threw this accusation out there...what have you got so far?
828.126 Sexual activities involving animals.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Sexual conduct” means any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person.
(b) “Sexual contact” means any contact, however slight, between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration of the sex organ or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal of the person.
(2) A person may not:
(a) Knowingly engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(b) Knowingly cause, aid, or abet another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(c) Knowingly permit any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control; or
(d) Knowingly organize, promote, conduct, advertise, aid, abet, participate in as an observer, or perform any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose.
(3) A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) This section does not apply to accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2011-42.
Texas repealed Bestiality Laws in 1974
Now, Jack. You have said that I knowingly broke the rules. You said that I would get treated favourably for breaking the rules. You have said i was talking in semantics by looking at the laws of texas and florida which actually inform the TOS.
Now given the above. Can you please explain how I am breaking the rules and know it?
-
Quit being a fag, jack.
-
Have already stated, it's my understanding the rules of this site are that these are topics not acceptable for discussion, have already expressed the understanding that implications/accusations of people engaging in these activities are equally egregious offenses, have already expressed my own opinion that you are aware of unacceptable topics of discussion on this site. Only you can confirm what you know and don't know. Only an admin can confirm if my understanding of the rules of what can/cannot be discussed/implied/accused. Could be completely wrong about the rules of this site, and have stated my own lack of clarity on the subject. Not really sure what else you want.
-
Quit being a fag, jack.
But am feeling faggy today.
-
Quit being a fag, jack.
But am feeling faggy today.
I can tell. I would remind you of that old phrase, "pissing in an ocean of piss".
-
:)
-
:)
Oh u.
-
Have already stated, it's my understanding the rules of this site are that these are topics not acceptable for discussion, have already expressed the understanding that implications/accusations of people engaging in these activities are equally egregious offenses, have already expressed my own opinion that you are aware of unacceptable topics of discussion on this site. Only you can confirm what you know and don't know. Only an admin can confirm if my understanding of the rules of what can/cannot be discussed/implied/accused. Could be completely wrong about the rules of this site, and have stated my own lack of clarity on the subject. Not really sure what else you want.
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member...........Don't really expect you to admit you might have stepped over the line a little...............Crap, sir. Not talking about the law, haven't mentioned the law, or implied you've broken any law. Talking about the rules of this site and how they're enforced. Save the legal semantics for the admins.
"Sure you know you have?" Ok Tell me why this is the case when it shows rather starkly here as shown above I actually have not...in the slightest...by any reckoning?
Don't expect you to admit you may have stepped over the line" - why not? Because i normally try to decieve? Because i am instinctively dishonest? Because i am looking for favouritism? Go on...
"Crap....Save the legal semantics" - Ok is that what my position was? trying to distract with legal semantics? OR was it something to do with the fact that Odeon bases his rules on what is or is not going to break the TOS? I mean it is one or the other right and on the basis that i was able to pull out Odeon's quote saying why he bases the Role and its scope is defined in Florida law...I say it is the latter. So why call it crap and me having to save legal semantics?
I like you too Jack but i don't know why you choose to come at me like this. I do not know why you insinuate that I am happy to lie or be dishonest about things and YES you do have a couple of things up there which are not just opinions. they are accusations against me and my values and character. Why on earth you decided to go there i really don't know but I am calling on you to back it up.
-
"Sure you know you have?" Ok Tell me why this is the case when it shows rather starkly here as shown above I actually have not...in the slightest...by any reckoning?
Have already stated this as an opinion; if you dispute it, then fine, you are unaware of the rules, where the lines of the rules lie, and the exact implications of those rules, as I am in relation to the lines and implications.
Don't expect you to admit you may have stepped over the line" - why not? Because i normally try to decieve? Because i am instinctively dishonest? Because i am looking for favouritism? Go on...
Just don't expect you to come out and say it was out of line to start a bestiality rumor about cartman. No, not for those reasons; it's as simple as that. Don't really expect it. Maybe am wrong.
"Crap....Save the legal semantics" - Ok is that what my position was? trying to distract with legal semantics? OR was it something to do with the fact that Odeon bases his rules on what is or is not going to break the TOS? I mean it is one or the other right and on the basis that i was able to pull out Odeon's quote saying why he bases the Role and its scope is defined in Florida law...I say it is the latter. So why call it crap and me having to save legal semantics?
Because of never mentioning the law or breaking the law, or breaking the tos.
I like you too Jack but i don't know why you choose to come at me like this. I do not know why you insinuate that I am happy to lie or be dishonest about things and YES you do have a couple of things up there which are not just opinions. they are accusations against me and my values and character. Why on earth you decided to go there i really don't know but I am calling on you to back it up.
This was really more about marx, his ban, and Elpresidente saying cartman should be banned while he engaged in taboo discussion of his own. Have already expressed not knowing you were involved. It was a bit of a surprise, frankly.
-
"Sure you know you have?" Ok Tell me why this is the case when it shows rather starkly here as shown above I actually have not...in the slightest...by any reckoning?
Have already stated this as an opinion; if you dispute it, then fine, you are unaware of the rules, where the lines of the rules lie, and the exact implications of those rules, as I am in relation to the lines and implications.
Don't expect you to admit you may have stepped over the line" - why not? Because i normally try to decieve? Because i am instinctively dishonest? Because i am looking for favouritism? Go on...
Just don't expect you to come out and say it was out of line to start a bestiality rumor about cartman. No, not for those reasons; it's as simple as that. Don't really expect it. Maybe am wrong.
"Crap....Save the legal semantics" - Ok is that what my position was? trying to distract with legal semantics? OR was it something to do with the fact that Odeon bases his rules on what is or is not going to break the TOS? I mean it is one or the other right and on the basis that i was able to pull out Odeon's quote saying why he bases the Role and its scope is defined in Florida law...I say it is the latter. So why call it crap and me having to save legal semantics?
Because of never mentioning the law or breaking the law, or breaking the tos.
I like you too Jack but i don't know why you choose to come at me like this. I do not know why you insinuate that I am happy to lie or be dishonest about things and YES you do have a couple of things up there which are not just opinions. they are accusations against me and my values and character. Why on earth you decided to go there i really don't know but I am calling on you to back it up.
This was really more about marx, his ban, and Elpresidente saying cartman should be banned while he engaged in taboo discussion of his own. Have already expressed not knowing you were involved. It was a bit of a surprise, frankly.
I think I have shown that the rules are that anything that is against the TOS is against the rules. Bestiality IS against the rules. I have shown the Florida legislation showing the definition of what they consider bestiality. Anything that infracts this definition is against the rules. (and ought to be)
None of my posts have and neither has El Presidentes.
So....why would I assume I was breaking the rules?
I don't think Alfonso ought to be banned. Not yet at least. If he does something banworthy, I am all up for it and would say the same for anyone.
You did mention breakingrules = "stepping over the line". The TOS is informed by Laws of Texas and Florida I didn't break any of these laws. Not close. You also said that I knew I did
I have no problem in admitting what I said to Cartman
WTF! The failfag who "owns" that video prevents external embedding???
He too will learn to respect mah authoritah :police:
That post was his little "Oh my, Im such a victim" post, and then *BAM* his attacker wanders over here. He practically had an orgasm when he knew I was here, his sex life being replaced by trying to flame people on internet boards, and dog fucking.
Trying to train dogs to respect your authority?
Remember kids,
intensitysquared=SRS BZNS!
I am not serious, I am having fun....unless you are saying the dog fucking allegation WAS serious??
:doggy:
:( Poor dog
Eeeeewww! :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
When he gets fucked he favours great Danes to fill his butt plug stretched anus and when giving he prefers chihuahuas as their tiny orifices fit his tiny dick.
Alfonso's theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JfIduytVs#ws)
Not the first time I have used DAAS
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18251.msg804929.html#msg804929\ (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18251.msg804929.html#msg804929\)
So I used someone else's quote from years befire about him. I admiited to using it as a tease and posted DAAS youtube for him.
Unless that video actually had animal to human sex or human to animal sex or such like....I think I may have dodged a bullet....Not really. there was never anything in it.
-
Missed that post too. This is the one that was noticed, once realizing why you felt the need to respond.
Eeeeewww! :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
Certainly you are correct, and no laws or tos were broken.
-
Missed that post too. This is the one that was noticed, once realizing why you felt the need to respond.
Eeeeewww! :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
Certainly you are correct, and no laws or tos were broken.
No and therefore no Rules either. But you DID say that i had broken them and knew that I did and inferred that i would and accept the favouritism for not being harshly dealt with for purposely breaking rules. You also said that I would be unwilling to admit/confess to any wrong doing.
These are more than just mere opinion. Mere opinion wouldn't state such things about me as absolutes. You did and they were not ordinary things they were things against every action i have done on the board and every value I have. So it was not a speculation born of what I have done but rather what i haven't and so i ask why you were to make such judgments and why you stated them so absolute.
-
Missed that post too. This is the one that was noticed, once realizing why you felt the need to respond.
Eeeeewww! :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
Certainly you are correct, and no laws or tos were broken.
No and therefore no Rules either. But you DID say that i had broken them and knew that I did and inferred that i would and accept the favouritism for not being harshly dealt with for purposely breaking rules. You also said that I would be unwilling to admit/confess to any wrong doing.
You can stop putting words in my mouth. Said you have stepped over the line of my understanding of the rules and the lines these rules should be clarified, stated the personal belief that you know what topics are unacceptable for discussion, and said I didn't expect you to admit it.
These are more than just mere opinion. Mere opinion wouldn't state such things about me as absolutes. You did and they were not ordinary things they were things against every action i have done on the board and every value I have. So it was not a speculation born of what I have done but rather what i haven't and so i ask why you were to make such judgments and why you stated them so absolute.
In the matter of fact base statements, yes, this is my posting style, to express opinion as matter of fact. This is true and won't change. This is my opinion in this matter. You know what topics are unacceptable, you will be treated differently by the admins than marx, and implying/accusing members of engaging in paedophilia or bestiality crosses the line of what's considered acceptable topics on this site.
-
Missed that post too. This is the one that was noticed, once realizing why you felt the need to respond.
Eeeeewww! :zombiefuck: :thumbdn:
I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
No I am not making it up or creating rumour. (well yes I am creating rumour but not making it up)
Certainly you are correct, and no laws or tos were broken.
No and therefore no Rules either. But you DID say that i had broken them and knew that I did and inferred that i would and accept the favouritism for not being harshly dealt with for purposely breaking rules. You also said that I would be unwilling to admit/confess to any wrong doing.
You can stop putting words in my mouth. Said you have stepped over the line of my understanding of the rules and the lines these rules should be clarified, stated the personal belief that you know what topics are unacceptable for discussion, and said I didn't expect you to admit it.
I have not yet started putting words in your mouth.
If you are wanting to accuse me of that as well as knowingly breaking rules and and hiding/not admitting/deceiving (or however you view it) and accepting special treatment from rules I had knowingly broken......then maybe putting words in your mouth may be a acceptable way to debate with you. At the moment I don't believe I have.
These are more than just mere opinion. Mere opinion wouldn't state such things about me as absolutes. You did and they were not ordinary things they were things against every action i have done on the board and every value I have. So it was not a speculation born of what I have done but rather what i haven't and so i ask why you were to make such judgments and why you stated them so absolute.
In the matter of fact base statements, yes, this is my posting style, to express opinion as matter of fact. This is true and won't change. This is my opinion in this matter. You know what topics are unacceptable, you will be treated differently by the admins than marx, and implying/accusing members of engaging in paedophilia or bestiality crosses the line of what's considered acceptable topics on this site.
I know what I believe are acceptable topics.
Here is one. What was the subject matter and how well was it received by members here (not YOU specifically but others)
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18251.msg804929.html#msg804929\ (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,18251.msg804929.html#msg804929\)
The second video look familiar? What was the subject matter in that second one?
I know, I know. These were simply comedy and meant to be in bad taste and was not really serious about bestiality or murder. Yes it was well received by the members here but that was........NO. No it wasn't.
Calling someone a "Dogfucker" is not nice. Calling someone a "cocksucker" is not nice or calling someone an "essayist" is not nice. These things are neither unacceptable for discussion on here nor rule breaking.
That video is not unacceptable for discussion nor was it breaking rules.
So what does that leave me with? :doggy: <====== I don't think anyone has had a hard time with him.
No wait a minute, there was that post I quoted from years ago. Yes I remembered I had come across an old existing post on this site by a previous member as to Cartman having sex with dogs. I did not write it and I simply quoted it and later said I was not serious about its content. I was actually more serious about the content of him confessing to threatening 15 year old girls and that is how i came across the posts.
But did the post break any rules? Nope.
But that is not the new measure is it? It is topics unacceptable for discussion....not breaking rules...we have moved the goal post. I guess too but stating what is and is not acceptable for discussion, you mean to you, and you define in what way?
I mean if me stating I had found something already posted on here that was (true or not) embarrassing (which I don't really think he cares about) and suggests he has sex with dogs, that is in your mind unacceptable BUT you MAY be fine with the boys from Doug Anthony All Stars singing about having sex with "dogs in the park, after dark, when the moon is a pie in the sky".
OR you may not but others may not mind. OR it may be that others are fine with both the video and that post BECAUSE it breaks no rules. OR they may think it funny or irrelevant or boring or stupid but not necessarily unacceptable.
What do you think? I think if I was posting dog sex things in volume (kinda like "Cartman or you would notice" kinda volume) that may warrant at the very least calling me out on my excessiveness. OR If I was really graphic in my descriptions? OR if I was serious? Or if I actually posting Animal/human porn - defined bestiality? Then yes I may very see you had a point in this unacceptable for discussion.
This is not a tea room and I don't know what your measuring tool is or whether you are happy to lump bestiality as all in - suggestion or graphic image same ballpark? Going on and on, or a couple of quips?
None of this really is a big deal. I think you were wrong, perhaps for the right intention, pointing out Alfonso ought not be banned (which I agree with). I don't care that you have changed the goalposts either.
What I don't like is after all I have been and have not been here, The thought that you would think that I would wimp out of owning my actions, or defending myself, and that I would leach off goodwill of people here to protect me from possible fallout, or lie about what I thought. I defend everything I do, and back myself, and accept when I consider I do wrong. I am not slow to apologise If I think I am in the wrong, and I hide behind no one. Never.
The thought that your opinion of me being a person that would is disappointing. Kind of "No Al, you never do those things BUT with this situation, I automatically suspected you naturally would. Just my opinion" That is how it read to me.
The Alfonso having sex with dogs? Someone else said it. I thought it was funny and reposted it. That was a few days ago. Were it not for regurgitating it now I probably would not have even gone there again. not out of a want to avoid trouble but because it was a quick laugh and the thread moved on.
-
Have said all there is to say about it. These are my thoughts and they wont change. Fall on your own sword, or not; claim it was fine and all the reasons why; it doesn't really matter. </endfaggyjack>
-
Didn't see this until now. Since I made some of the quoted comments, I felt I should clarify them.
Re bestiality: this was a while ago but I'm pretty sure I meant in the context of posting pictures. Calling someone a dogfucker is, as mentioned, not nice but I fail to see how it would violate anything. It might be defamatory but that sort of thing is very hard to prove. MLA might know but he is no longer here.
As for the rules of this site, we do need to follow the Hostgator TOS, which means that we need to follow the applicable laws in the states of Texas and Florida, but this is an internet message board and the laws that we can break against are about publishing content. In other words, we won't be able to engage in bestiality but we might post pictures of it, and that would violate the TOS.
Paedophilia and copyrighted material would be my greatest concerns, however. Both could get us shut down.
As for other rules, I've pointed out more than once that if your objective is to harm the site, you won't be here for long.
Marx was stupid enough to post pictures, illegal content, which was the direct reason for his ban. That he tried to make it look as if Anton had posted them, which was just as stupid. He also made veiled threats, which didn't help his case.
Combine those and there's no reason to limit the consequences to harsh words. He was an idiot.
-
Didn't see this until now. Since I made some of the quoted comments, I felt I should clarify them.
Re bestiality: this was a while ago but I'm pretty sure I meant in the context of posting pictures. Calling someone a dogfucker is, as mentioned, not nice but I fail to see how it would violate anything. It might be defamatory but that sort of thing is very hard to prove. MLA might know but he is no longer here.
As for the rules of this site, we do need to follow the Hostgator TOS, which means that we need to follow the applicable laws in the states of Texas and Florida, but this is an internet message board and the laws that we can break against are about publishing content. In other words, we won't be able to engage in bestiality but we might post pictures of it, and that would violate the TOS.
Paedophilia and copyrighted material would be my greatest concerns, however. Both could get us shut down.
As for other rules, I've pointed out more than once that if your objective is to harm the site, you won't be here for long.
Marx was stupid enough to post pictures, illegal content, which was the direct reason for his ban. That he tried to make it look as if Anton had posted them, which was just as stupid. He also made veiled threats, which didn't help his case.
Combine those and there's no reason to limit the consequences to harsh words. He was an idiot.
informative :plus:
-
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member, and maybe you should. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
I am the first member here to call for Marx being banned.
Marx fabricated evidence in an attempted frame up of Alfonso with the intent of getting Alfonso banned. (http://Marx fabricated evidence in an attempted frame up of Alfonso with the intent of getting Alfonso banned.) The fact that the scumbag planted evidence with that intent is a great reason to ban the POS IMO.
As far as references to bestiality go :doggy: does not get anyone banned and neither did calling Duke Nukem a pig fucker.
-
Have actually had the thought he's much like an older version of duke, cartman. He should come back.
-
Joan Jett is cool.
Joan Jett - I Hate Myself For Loving You [ Original HQ ] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPkTGm4RtVM#ws)
-
Didn't see this until now. Since I made some of the quoted comments, I felt I should clarify them.
Re bestiality: this was a while ago but I'm pretty sure I meant in the context of posting pictures. Calling someone a dogfucker is, as mentioned, not nice but I fail to see how it would violate anything. It might be defamatory but that sort of thing is very hard to prove. MLA might know but he is no longer here.
As for the rules of this site, we do need to follow the Hostgator TOS, which means that we need to follow the applicable laws in the states of Texas and Florida, but this is an internet message board and the laws that we can break against are about publishing content. In other words, we won't be able to engage in bestiality but we might post pictures of it, and that would violate the TOS.
Paedophilia and copyrighted material would be my greatest concerns, however. Both could get us shut down.
As for other rules, I've pointed out more than once that if your objective is to harm the site, you won't be here for long.
Marx was stupid enough to post pictures, illegal content, which was the direct reason for his ban. That he tried to make it look as if Anton had posted them, which was just as stupid. He also made veiled threats, which didn't help his case.
Combine those and there's no reason to limit the consequences to harsh words. He was an idiot.
That was the reason why when I saw Jack's saying I had broken the rules around this (and as facts), I did not do a "catch me if you can" approach to it. I thought "No, I'm pretty sure that I haven't BUT Jack is stating it as fact not opinion. Maybe I HAVE done or said something that "crosses the line" of the rules.
On a site like this that means either endangering the sites's existence, endangering the members of the site or the accessibility/usability of the site. Breaking rules and in respect to this issue meant breaking laws and endangering the site's existence (from my reading) because it was not endangering the membership (like say if I was hacking the site for personal details on members), and it was not making the site completely useable (like spamming shit out of the forum).
What is left is endangering the site risking it get shut down by the hosts as a result of potential law breaking. THIS is what I had thought the rules I was being told I knew i had broken...and was going to have others allow me to stay on the basis of good standing. (So fucking out of character for me to do this, that I still can't get my head around it)
But what had I done or said to break TOS? My instinct was to say 'Nothing" but Jack seemed pretty sure and more so that I would be given leniency. I was not happy having this kind of character assassination go unaccounted. BUT Maybe Jack was right. Maybe Jack knew something else and was going to back the claims with something substantial? No, Jack was just throwing it out there unfounded and wanted to not back a thing. no reason for saying anything but potentially accusing Me and perhaps others of potentially risking the site.....and not caring enough to own their actions.
I let Jack know IF this was the case I would ask for my account deletion, to which I got something that to me sounded like "No don't do that because though I have accused you of being deceptive and breaking the rules knowingly, and said you will accept favouritism" just accept the favouritism or cover up, because I like you". No I don't actually like misuse of power nor authority. Never have. I like rules and I like them to stay and be consistent and inflexible. I am Aspie. I don't like people short cutting or circumventing through sucking up or greasing palms or being more popular. Never have. So therefore if this was happening and I was going to be a party to such, I would fall on my sword.
I investigated things. I was a lot less confident when started looking at the TOS and the Laws governing them than when I started. Jack may not have known when she made her pronouncements but what if there was "actually" something in it? I was a little concern. It was a bit Twilight Zone-ish. Like seeing if I could find a big stick to be beaten with. Finally I had all facts and able to line all ducks up.
There was nothing in what Jack said. Absolutely nothing. My concerns were completely misplaced. By no reading would anything I have done in this respect served to place the site at risk or broken rules. Of course Jack changes the goal posts and falls back to it being all jut her opinion and what she understood the rules to mean (not that she explained this in any way what her understanding of the rules were) and that I was doing what I knew was unacceptable forum discussion. I busted that open too and that seems to be really more her view than the forum as a whole.
Just disappointed in her really.
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member, and maybe you should. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
I am the first member here to call for Marx being banned.
Marx fabricated evidence in an attempted frame up of Alfonso with the intent of getting Alfonso banned. (http://Marx fabricated evidence in an attempted frame up of Alfonso with the intent of getting Alfonso banned.) The fact that the scumbag planted evidence with that intent is a great reason to ban the POS IMO.
As far as references to bestiality go :doggy: does not get anyone banned and neither did calling Duke Nukem a pig fucker.
Actually I had forgotten about Duke. Yes does actually solidify further against the claim of what is unacceptable discussion for the forum. I never saw the specific "evidence" but more than happy I did not. The same went for Bruce. That WILL get the site shut down in EXACTLY the same way :doggy: WON'T.
I agree with you entirely.
Have said all there is to say about it. These are my thoughts and they wont change. Fall on your own sword, or not; claim it was fine and all the reasons why; it doesn't really matter. </endfaggyjack>
Yup you pretty much have. You were wrong on each account. No biggie.
Again I really do not care for the Bestiality accusations and such, there was an amount of claim backing and rule interpretation and reasonable assessment that can be done to show it one way or another. Either way that was going to show you were completely right in which case I would have apologised to the membership for putting them in jeopardy or that it was was half of one and half of the other and depending how lineball it was, I would have stayed or left, or there was nothing in it.
None of that really matters to me. That you have this really shitty view of what kind of person I am , and what I would seek to wriggle out of and why, does actually matter. I am interested on what basis you ever thought this way of me.
-
None of that really matters to me. That you have this really shitty view of what kind of person I am , and what I would seek to wriggle out of and why, does actually matter. I am interested on what basis you ever thought this way of me.
Actually don't have a shitty view of the person you are at all, and don't consider your actions to be an enormous deal. The main reason being that your actions weren't directed at me. Don't really care how you treat other people, in my view of the person you are to me. People can bring up every crummy thing said in the history of this site, and it won't distract from the current issue being discussed. I have an opinion about cartman's treatment in being attacked as a pedo and dog fucker, and know it's not my place to determine if it's a bannable offense. My opinion is not wrong, as neither is yours. You've said what you think, I've said what I think, and we've both made it clear that other's reactions to our thoughts don't have any affect on our thoughts. So, are we okay?
-
It should go without saying that if marx reregisters and we spot him, he is out again.
-
It should go without saying that if marx reregisters and we spot him, he is out again.
So the de facto blacklist has another name on it besides buttcoffee?
-
It should go without saying that if marx reregisters and we spot him, he is out again.
So the de facto blacklist has another name on it besides buttcoffee?
Everyone who we have banned is on that list.
-
It should go without saying that if marx reregisters and we spot him, he is out again.
So the de facto blacklist has another name on it besides buttcoffee?
Everyone who we have banned is on that list.
All bans before this were before my time and the only other two I know of are Pea and BC, and I know with most forums, administrators are not at liberty to say who is on the banlist.
-
There's no official list. We haven't banned all that many people.
-
None of that really matters to me. That you have this really shitty view of what kind of person I am , and what I would seek to wriggle out of and why, does actually matter. I am interested on what basis you ever thought this way of me.
Actually don't have a shitty view of the person you are at all, and don't consider your actions to be an enormous deal. The main reason being that your actions weren't directed at me. Don't really care how you treat other people, in my view of the person you are to me. People can bring up every crummy thing said in the history of this site, and it won't distract from the current issue being discussed. I have an opinion about cartman's treatment in being attacked as a pedo and dog fucker, and know it's not my place to determine if it's a bannable offense. My opinion is not wrong, as neither is yours. You've said what you think, I've said what I think, and we've both made it clear that other's reactions to our thoughts don't have any affect on our thoughts. So, are we okay?
Its fine though, Jack, to say opinion is opinion, but when the opinions are quantifiable accusations, then they are more than just a subjective preference. This seems to be what you are saying. Its all just subjective so why allow it objective scrutiny?
If you were hypothetically accusing someone of a crime and they were deemed to have been in jail, half a country away, at the time, then you do not get to say "Well it is just my opinion they did it and that is not going to change - so believe what you want".
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. I think Butterflies tried this in one of her callouts on me and it looked real disingenuous.
Now you could say "I was really trying to just say I don't think Cartman deserved the animosity" OR "I just wanted to say that I think that the difference between pedophilia and bestiality is negligible" OR "I don't think Marx should be banned"
You didn't. This is not about crummy things said on the board or subjective experience.
You stated that I was willfully and willingly crossing the line and breaking the rules and that I would get favourable treatment for doing so. You also inferred that I was trying to get around the rules by using legal semantics. All of this has been shown otherwise. There were no rules broken therefore no knowledge of crossing the line into rule breaking territory or needing to use semantics to wiggle out of responsibility.
YES, that was wrong. Objectively wrong. That was against your claim. You did not back your claim, you just made accusations and then called them inflexible opinion.
I have asked you why you would take these types of positions about me (as to what I would be prepared to own up to or be honest about or wimp out of and so on) and I contest that not only are these things not me but have asked why you imagine that they seemed to you like things I would do. I have judged that kind of attitude (the attitude off a person who would not be prepared to own up to or be honest about or wimp out of and so on) as shitty.
You say "I don't think you have a shitty attitude." Great BUT you deemed I would do these shitty things....WHY?
I am not the person who would and have not got any form for doing this, so why?
You may say it is subjective and just your opinion. Great. So subjectively why do you think I would?
You may say "People say crummy things on the Board. Fine. But I never have said anything that I can see that would give grounding to suggest I would have these shitty, wimpy, weak vales....so why?
You see where I am coming from? Are we good? I still do not know why you said what you said.
-
Sorry, for even getting into this with you, Sir. I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime. Yes, odeon has made it clear this is not a bannable offense; this reaction toward your actions was expected and included as such in my previously stated opinion. I still think you crossed the line, and if you're going to insist that means I think you're shitty, wimpy, weak, or an all-around bad person in general, then there's nothing I can do other than say it's simply not true of what I think. I don't thin you're a bad person. It does work this way, me believing what I want. I believe accusing members of bestiality is out of line, but if you think it's acceptable then just keep doing it. Won't think any less of you as a person, until you do it to me. As for your last question, yes, we are good. Still don't know why you said what you said either.
-
Sorry, for even getting into this with you, Sir. I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime. Yes, odeon has made it clear this is not a bannable offense; this reaction toward your actions was expected and included as such in my previously stated opinion. I still think you crossed the line, and if you're going to insist that means I think you're shitty, wimpy, weak, or an all-around bad person in general, then there's nothing I can do other than say it's simply not true of what I think. I don't thin you're a bad person. It does work this way, me believing what I want. I believe accusing members of bestiality is out of line, but if you think it's acceptable then just keep doing it. Won't think any less of you as a person, until you do it to me. As for your last question, yes, we are good. Still don't know why you said what you said either.
OK then find me that accusation at least
Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.
Hell if you will not back any claim thus far then at the very LEAST show me where i said Alfonso fucks dogs. If this is the crux of your whole argument that I said he fucks dogs....find where i said he did.
-
Have already quoted that, Sir, and it's not the crux of the argument. Am sure this will prompt a lengthy response all about how 'I read he fucks dogs' and 'yes I'm creating a rumor but not making it up' doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs. You'll no doubt get the last word in this, because you will continue to insist my pov is wrong and I'll continue to insist your actions were wrong. Tell me some more how you're in the right. I'll still think it was wrong but I'm tired of being a fag and reapeating it, so wont say it anymore.
-
I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.
OK then find me that accusation at least
Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.
Hell if you will not back any claim thus far then at the very LEAST show me where i said Alfonso fucks dogs.[/quote]
I read he fucks dogs' and 'yes I'm creating a rumor but not making it up' doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.
You see the problem here Jack? You see why I am more than a little adamant that you have not backed a thing you have accused me of? You see why when you accuse and then don't back it, it is not me just being difficult or having a different opinion?
Above you see clearly
"that's exactly what you did".........except "doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs". Where is the opinion and where is the fact? Are you stating these accusations as fact or opinion?
So what is the crux of the argument
Me knowing I did break the rules?
Me getting favoured treatment by Admin over infringements of the rules?
Me knowingly stepping over the line and not owning up to it?
Me using unacceptable for discussion subjects for the board?
Me accusing Cartman of fucking dogs?
^^^^ This is you Jack. These are accusations you have made at me. You know this right?
So....being that it was not about this (and for some reason you though to throw these issues around for some reasons - as yet unknown) what IS the crux of the argument. Please make it (without throwing more superfluous accusations at me...if these accusations above were not the crux of the argument)
-
Yes, I think that's exactly what you did. I think your words are saying he fucks dogs. Just like you've understood my words to be saying you've broken the law, you've broken the tos, or you're a bad person for saying he fucks dogs. Yes, I do see the problem here.
-
Sorry, missed the part you added. The crux of the arguement is I think you crossed the line and were out of order with the dog fucking, and you don't. This is what I understand this arguement to be about.
-
Sorry, missed the part you added. The crux of the arguement is I think you crossed the line and were out of order with the dog fucking, and you don't. This is what I understand this arguement to be about.
No Jack.
1. Crossed what line? Acceptable discussions? No problem there (ie the Duke teasing of past joined in by many members and the moral compass thread I showed which was well recieved) Breaking rules? Nope, not close. Breaking Laws? Not really much difference between breaking laws and breaking rules. Breaking rules will tend to be the same thing but in lineball calls, erring on the side of caution.
Tell me the line is not just, not what Jack likes. Please.
2. Let's suppose that what you wrote is right. Let's suppose. Why would you have gone down the path of saying shit like Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member
Don't really expect you to admit you might have stepped over the line a little.
Crap,....Talking about the rules of this site and how they're enforced. Save the legal semantics for the admins.
I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.
... doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.
I don't think you would, would you? If it was simply personal taste/preference/opinion you MAY have PM'ed me and said "Les do we really need to go there?" OR you could have posted online and said 'Can you guys stop with those references and implications of Alfonso having sex with dogs." To which i might have replied as "Sure Jack, no worries, I did a couple of days ago but the thread moved on and I am not revisiting it. It was just funny seeing years ago someone wrote that about him. Meh, no biggie"
You didn't though. Did you Jack?
Would like to know where you ARE coming from and the crux of it because I do not think this looks like how someone would act on things if it was simply personal opinion on it. Bit more involved somehow and the shots at my character were a little bit left field.
-
Yes, I think that's exactly what you did. I think your words are saying he fucks dogs. Just like you've understood my words to be saying you've broken the law, you've broken the tos, or you're a bad person for saying he fucks dogs. Yes, I do see the problem here.
I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs and fucking dogs is a crime.
... doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.
What are you saying? You do not seem consistent. You seem to be changing the goalposts whenever I try to pin you down to backing a claim. Why are you changing goalposts all the time?
Am I to believe
You THINK that is exactly what I said? I'm not hypothetically accusing someone of a crime. Am saying that's exactly what you did; you said someone fucks dogs
You think that is what my words are "saying" (implying)? I think your words are saying he fucks dogs
Or you know I did not "say" that at all? ... doesn't really mean you said he fucks dogs.
These things say three entirely different things. It is like three people giving three different accounts. Why is that?
You see why I am finding it difficult in seeing anything you are trying to say and why (when I see you seemingly jumping around the place from one position to the next - scrambling for purchase) that I have a few misgivings about being told that the crux of the matter was just Sorry, missed the part you added. The crux of the arguement is I think you crossed the line and were out of order with the dog fucking, and you don't. This is what I understand this arguement to be about.
-
Yes. That's what I think. I didn't bother nitpicking every instance where you used the words 'you said' in this discussion, where I disagreed that's what I said, because that's your opinion and interpretation of what I said. Yes, do see why you're having difficulty here. You're free to think whatever you wish about what you said, and so am I. Your reaction, or anyone else's reaction to what I think isn't going to change what I think. This is where your difficulty lies. Am actually going to stop responding to this now. It would be easier to do that without you posing more questions. Of course, you are free ask me more questions, but am having trouble seeing the point is us continuing this. I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true, but I will say your point of view in this discussion in valid because you believe it and it's important to you.
-
Holy crap. Just noticed I wrote, in valid, instead of, is valid. That totally wasn't a freudian slip. Truly do appreciate your point of view, Sir. If you were having this discussion with someone else, would totally be rooting for both of you. Sorry if I sucked things up with you.
-
Yes. That's what I think. I didn't bother nitpicking every instance where you used the words 'you said' in this discussion, where I disagreed that's what I said, because that's your opinion and interpretation of what I said. Yes, do see why you're having difficulty here. You're free to think whatever you wish about what you said, and so am I. Your reaction, or anyone else's reaction to what I think isn't going to change what I think. This is where your difficulty lies. Am actually going to stop responding to this now. It would be easier to do that without you posing more questions. Of course, you are free ask me more questions, but am having trouble seeing the point is us continuing this. I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true, but I will say your point of view in this discussion in valid because you believe it and it's important to you.
Nor DID I call him a dog-fucker if you were actually being honest. You are being honest right? That is not your way of making a claim that is complete bullshit (and you know is bullshit, because I got you to find where i actually said that, and you couldn't) is it?
See that is the thing about accusing people, it is not just opinion.
Someone DID accuse him of screwing dogs. Accused him a number of years ago. That person was not me. I DID:
1) Say I had read this somewhere
2) Did post the quote by someone else where THEY made such a claim.
3) I did say I had not made it up - Someone else may have but it did not originate from me
4) I did say I was just creating rumours - you know rumours don't you Jack. Ask yourself "Rumours are true stories or false stories?" ask yourself again "If I was disclaiming something as all rumour am I wanting it to be seen as a truth or not?"
Well....that is it. That was the "evidence" of me calling him a "dog fucker"
Problem is....I didn't...anywhere.
So you say I'm not going to say you are in the right in calling cartman a dog fucker because I don't think that's true
but then if I didn't say that about him (as evidenced by your inability to find where I did and....well the fact I did not) then what bloody sense does your statement really make?
You keep falling over on this sticking point. I should not call Cartman a dog fucker. I didn't so therefore I get to believe what's important and you should believe I should not have called him a name I did not call him?
Jack that is silly.
Stop saying I have called him a dog fucker, and find where I have. It would be an insult to your integrity, credibility and intellect to hold a position you know to be incorrect. You have already gone searching when I asked you last time and you could not find something you stated 'that is exactly what you said". So it is not that you even "think" I said it. You have search and "know" I have not said it.
Just as you know what things I did say were not in breach of Laws, TOS or Rules. You know this too. Maybe you did not at the start of this thread but you do now.
"There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words."
I will not contest your right to say I have called Alfonso dog fucker but you need to find where I called him that in the first place. I AM aware others have past and present but you made the charge to me....so back it. You really have not.
-
Holy crap. Just noticed I wrote, in valid, instead of, is valid. That totally wasn't a freudian slip. Truly do appreciate your point of view, Sir. If you were having this discussion with someone else, would totally be rooting for both of you. Sorry if I sucked things up with you.
Thanks Jack. I misread it as "is".
I honestly think if I was reading this, I would be thinking "He makes some good points but does go on and on" and I would be thinking "Jack is a lot shorter and easier to read but what does Jack mean? It makes no sense? Can Jack show what they are meaning or translate it or back it up or something?"
That is kinda where I am now.
I do like you Jack but I have no idea why you would cast accusations that are found to be insubstantial and keep them leveled at me as though they were still of substance. Makes no sense. Logic circuits overloading in trying to process your posts.
As a disclaimer too. I did say the position you were holding was bullshit and you knew it. I don't know it. I can't see how you would not know because it makes no logical sense. I can't say you know it is bullshit.
-
Say what ever you want about my intellectual integrity. I know what I think about what you said, and wont lie about what I really think. This is my honesty and integrity, regardless of my intellect. Honestly wishing for never having this discussion, seeminly loosing a friend over some oh so not so huge deal. Also say what you want about my moral high horse. This is true, moral stick up my butt. I believe it and it's very important to me. We're very different and this isn't fixable. This could be why I don't have friends. Like said before, that you were even involved in this attack, much less the initiator, was a complete surprise. Sorry poking too personal with you, Sir. Usually try to avoid that sort of thing, and wouldn't have gone looking for it with you.
-
Then show where I called him a dog fucker.
That is what you said that I called him.
Find it and be are on the same page.
You have shown me where I haven't. You have shown where I have said that I read it somewhere.
What I am asking is for where I have said that as you have claimed. Should not be that hard.
I don't actually mind of being accused of what I said. Sometimes I say nice things and sometimes not. Do not like being accused of what I have not said.
For what it is worth, Jack, I would have preferred it if I had not have had this discussion but form says I always defend my claims nor hide behind others or what I do or say. Were it to have been anyone else at any time, the result would be the same.
-
Have already shown you your post and told you what I think. We disagree.
-
Have already shown you your post and told you what I think. We disagree.
OK. Then if that IS what you think tell me, out of interest, what you think of the below hypothetical exchange.
John: Hello Mary. I was reading a book last night that said Adolph Hitler was a nice bloke.
Mary: How could you?
John: What?
Mary: You said he was a nice bloke. He was a murdering immoral fiend.
John: No it was not me, it says here
Mary: I know what it says and what you said John, and I am not going yo argue. Believe what you want. I think he was terrible and you are wrong saying otherwise
-
I understand you can't see my point of view, and the only way I know how to do that, would require me to step out of line. That would be to recreate your post to contain something bad I once read someone here write about you. Their attack on you was a bannable offence, in my opinion, and this attack of yours was not, because one topic is worse than the other. I know if I were to read a post like that about me, that person wouldn't be able to talk their way out of whether or not they were saying I do it. I would win, and you would support me against whoever said it.
-
I understand you can't see my point of view, and the only way I know how to do that, would require me to step out of line. That would be to recreate your post to contain something bad I once read someone here write about you. Their attack on you was a bannable offence, in my opinion, and this attack of yours was not, because one topic is worse than the other. I know if I were to read a post like that about me, that person wouldn't be able to talk their way out of whether or not they were saying I do it. I would win, and you would support me against whoever said it.
Again the sticking point - "said it" - said what? Certainly not you said that I said because given your best efforts you find no mention of Me saying it.
What is this "talking my way out of"? I am not. Much like what I said, I am happy to own what I have done but not what I haven't. Much like I am not going to confess to breaking the rules of I believe I haven't but if you find I have I will accept it and act appropriately. The expression "trying to talk myself out of" suggest I am in a position from whichiI am trying to free myself. I am simply not, and you should know this because you have, when given the opportunity, not been able to show me saying what you said I exactly said.
But now this hypothetical? I dunno if it is moving goalposts again or if I even understand it but here goes
If I had been physically threatening women and 15 year old girls and you found an old post by perhaps a disgruntled member, saying I had sex with dead people, then......what?
If I was that person I guess I would argue it? Maybe I would scarper as I was being stood up to by someone I perceived not to be weaker than myself in the same way a 15 year old girl isn't?
But yes pretend this is what happened and you found someone else said that. I might have someone with a misguided sense of moral outrage racing to my defence but someone like my actual self wouldn't. Someone like me here now, might even quip something like "lol dead people? Ewwwww"
So this sound about accurate?
How's the hypothetical?
-
This is really terrible. Was really hoping you and I could simply accept each other's view. I'm not in this discussion with you to win it, but it seems that's the only thing you will accept from me.
Alfonso was into having sex with dogs.
You said cartman fucks dogs. Point loudly to all the other words around it and tell me how clever you were in the use of those words, and how those words really mean you didn't say these words. You did say these words and no amount of words you will ever produce will change that. It's also not a huge fucking deal. This isn't fixable, sir, and I want to walk away from this with you being okay with me. I need you to shake my hand and call it a day.
-
This is really terrible. Was really hoping you and I could simply accept each other's view. I'm not in this discussion with you to win it, but it seems that's the only thing you will accept from me.
Alfonso was into having sex with dogs.
You said cartman fucks dogs. Point loudly to all the other words around it and tell me how clever you were in the use of those words, and how those words really mean you didn't say these words. You did say these words and no amount of words you will ever produce will change that. It's also not a huge fucking deal. This isn't fixable, sir, and I want to walk away from this with you being okay with me. I need you to shake my hand and call it a day.
No I didn't I think I read some where that Alfonso was into having sex with dogs. Is that true?
This was the original quote. My quote has an entirely different meaning than yours BECAUSE you have not posted it complete. It is that John and Mary thing I alluded to earlier.
I could say that I read somewhere that Adolf Hitler was a nice bloke. It may or may not be true that i did read that. I may be mistaken. If in fact I did, I may have any view on how nice he was or none at all. I may be just saying this and knowing I had never in fact read it.
If mentioning I had read this to Mary makes her accuse John of having a strong opinion on it because he read it or knowing what that opinion is, then Mary is being silly. Isn't she Jack? Logically speaking?
This IS terrible. Accepting that I said something I never said? Never. Your quote-cropping was...well you will see what I mean in terms of honesty. I really don't think you Jack have really been honest and smart about this whole argument. I think that that the "point loudly to the words around it" is just a rather transparent attempt to say the sentence as a whole was not important as the quote-crop
you Jack have really been honest and smart about this whole argument.
Now read above, is that was I said? Or was this doing exactly the same thing as you to say something different. Do not try to say words around it have no meaning or significance or do not alter what is said. Either you do not believe this as most thinking people won't or you are unable to communicate rationally.
Which is it Jack?
Yes it is terrible.
-
:(
-
I accept your poing of view, sir, but I disagree.
-
I have substantively shown every accusation you have levelled at me as incorrect. Then finally at base tracts when I finally get to the heart of the matter and ask you to show where I have said that I called Alfonso a dog fucker, you first time around admit that I didn't whilst still accusing me and then quote crop dishonestly.
Now Jack. How ought I feel about this and your want to throw insubstantial accusations at me?
-
I don't know how you should feel, or even how I feel. I only know I have been honest about what I think. Like you, I find it very hard to truly understand any other point of view than my own. I don't understand why you've said the things you've said anymore than you will understand me, but I see this as an ability we both struggle. I can only decide if I will accept your point of view, and I do, because I respect you and your opinion regardless of how much I disagree or don't understand. I'm truly bothered that this is now about feelings, and you feel I've wronged you somehow. This was never my intention.
-
My intentions are moot. I'm sorry we can't fix this, sir.
-
I don't know how you should feel, or even how I feel. I only know I have been honest about what I think. Like you, I find it very hard to truly understand any other point of view than my own. I don't understand why you've said the things you've said anymore than you will understand me, but I see this as an ability we both struggle. I can only decide if I will accept your point of view, and I do, because I respect you and your opinion regardless of how much I disagree or don't understand. I'm truly bothered that this is now about feelings, and you feel I've wronged you somehow. This was never my intention.
I do not find it hard to understand other's points of view. I find it incredibly hard to see where you are coming from.
This is not 'now about feelings. " Not changing the goalposts. Look back through the thread and you will see me saying over and over that I do not know why you would come at me like this and that the accusations and whatever are quantifiable.
You accuse me of breaking the rules - Easy fix. Did I break the rules? If not, this kind of falls over. I hadn't. It fell over.
You accuse me of using legal semantic to try to distract from rule breaking activities - easy fixed. Rules are based on Laws and researching appropriate laws points to my not having "crossed the line" ..... or even fucking close
You accuse me of Not admitting knowing I had stepped over the line and not owning my actions - Disapproved this accusation.
You accuse me of bringing up unacceptable I2 discussion - Proved this incorrect
You accuse me of calling Alfonso a dog fucker - had not said this and when pushed, the BEST you could do is quote crop a sentence to say what you wanted to sat. I then showed a similar example of me saying the opposite of something by quote cropping. About as disingenuous and dishonest a tactic and changing quotes and posting "Fixed"
You accused me of trying to talk my way out of "it" - I dunno what "it" was, but I was never in "it". If I say that I never said "x" and you have accused me of "x' and you can't find where i said "x" then really me talking about having never said "x" is not me talking myself out of responsibility....is it?
BUT what is not quantifiable nor objective is why you would go accusing me of all of this in the last couple of days?
Also I have to think "OK I have been accused of shit I have not done, and with motive and intent I have not had, and with values I do not hold. In disproving them, have had more and more thrown at me. All by the same person. When the final key issue was discovered, I have asked for proof and not only was this not there but the evidence crop quoted and a number of demands not to question its transparent dishonesty and shake hands and walk away.
Is this above sounding like a person I should feel well disposed to, or not?
Do you think the actions of that person look reasonable or not?
Do you think I should say "Oh don't worry I love being accused of shit I did not do by people I like?"
Yeah. I am not thinking that sounds logical, reasonable or wise? In fact I may well be on my guard around that person for when they out of the blue decide to start throwing accusations my way, for no good reason.
Jack. I think the only thing i can say is whilst your argument was tenacious, and passionate, i no more am closer to seeing your position as having any redeemable qualities and no closer to appreciating why you would try this shit on.
I am not cross. Not even frustrated now. Very disappointed with you. That is about all. Can't say I trust you or your motives now. None of what you say seems to have made any sense or seems to have had good intent. It may, I simply don't know. Therefore I do not trust you. You are in my mind at any point a possible hair width away from another accusation on something I did not say, think, feel or whatever and it could launch without notice at any moment for any reason.
Will not bother needling or sparring with you. Plenty of the board for both of us. I will keep a wary eye on you expecting the left field accusation, but will not dog you. Of course I will contest anything you throw at me. But no need for me to get in your face otherwise.
Damn shame this whole business. Can't imagine it was worth it.
-
I understand you see it that I came at you, but the fact is, I had no idea you were involved, and that involvement doesn't change what I think about what you said. I wish it did. That post made me disappointed in you too; it made no sense or had good intent, and your reaction in this discussion has made me leery of you as well. I worry what you might one day read about me, and pass along to others with clean hands of only the messenger, now that I think you don't like me so much. It's acceptable that you don't trust me. I don't trust either and wouldn't expect you to, but that has nothing to do with this discussion or you in particular. I appreciate that you say you won't dog me around the board. That's very respectful, and all I can really ask. Damn shame indeed.
-
I understand you see it that I came at you, but the fact is, I had no idea you were involved, and that involvement doesn't change what I think about what you said. I wish it did. That post made me disappointed in you too; it made no sense or had good intent, and your reaction in this discussion has made me leery of you as well. I worry what you might one day read about me, and pass along to others with clean hands of only the messenger, now that I think you don't like me so much. It's acceptable that you don't trust me. I don't trust either and wouldn't expect you to, but that has nothing to do with this discussion or you in particular. I appreciate that you say you won't dog me around the board. That's very respectful, and all I can really ask. Damn shame indeed.
Or even what you saw I did not say?
I think the day you become a homophobic man, who threatens 15 year old girls, and obsesses about finding a particular gay man and raping him.....then sure, when that day comes, be leery as hell about me possible finding bad things written on here about you. When that day comes, whatever said here would be the least of the concern with respect to disrepute, and you would not likely be too leery at that stage. Is this what you are trying to portray or is it more a general concern? Not following this "passing on" and "cleaned hand messenger" thing? Sounds a little like another accusation but trying to appreciate what it is and is not saying first.
-
(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-488-488-90/15/1555/MP9DD00Z/posters/caution-drama-queen-just-ahead.jpg)
-
Fuck off, Cartman. Grown-ups are having a discussion.
-
Fuck off, Cartman. Grown-ups are having a discussion.
I can picture cartman with his little collection of images. He must have a folder called 'teh funiest imagez evar 4 lolz' or something of a similarly moronic ilk.
-
This thread is making me think quite a bit about something similar I did not so long ago. I said something I knew was bad/wrong/untrue about someone and it was out of line, and worse than this because it was behind their back. What I said was phrased in such a way that allowed the flexibility for me to say *I* didn't say that. When my comment was challenged, that was my reflexive response; that's exactly what I said...I didn't say it, and all the semantic reasons why. That wasn't true. I did say it, no matter how it was worded. I much appreciate the person who I said it to, because they refused to allow me to deny it. I admitted my wrongdoing to the person I said it, and also admitted it to the person I said it about, even though they might have never otherwise known. I'm feeling really good about this discussion today. I'm thankful for this exercise, though regretful for stepping on toes.
-
This thread is making me think quite a bit about something similar I did not so long ago. I said something I knew was bad/wrong/untrue about someone and it was out of line, and worse than this because it was behind their back. What I said was phrased in such a way that allowed the flexibility for me to say *I* didn't say that. When my comment was challenged, that was my reflexive response; that's exactly what I said...I didn't say it, and all the semantic reasons why. That wasn't true. I did say it, no matter how it was worded. I much appreciate the person who I said it to, because they refused to allow me to deny it. I admitted my wrongdoing to the person I said it, and also admitted it to the person I said it about, even though they might have never otherwise known. I'm feeling really good about this discussion today. I'm thankful for this exercise, though regretful for stepping on toes.
Both you and Al are taking this far too seriously. No offence intended fellas.
-
Indeed. :laugh:
-
Well, we know that Sir Les has fucked a cow, sow how could bestiality be a bannable offence??
-
This thread is making me think quite a bit about something similar I did not so long ago. I said something I knew was bad/wrong/untrue about someone and it was out of line, and worse than this because it was behind their back. What I said was phrased in such a way that allowed the flexibility for me to say *I* didn't say that. When my comment was challenged, that was my reflexive response; that's exactly what I said...I didn't say it, and all the semantic reasons why. That wasn't true. I did say it, no matter how it was worded. I much appreciate the person who I said it to, because they refused to allow me to deny it. I admitted my wrongdoing to the person I said it, and also admitted it to the person I said it about, even though they might have never otherwise known. I'm feeling really good about this discussion today. I'm thankful for this exercise, though regretful for stepping on toes.
Both you and Al are taking this far too seriously. No offence intended fellas.
I am a bit of a dog with a bone over these things. It is the aspie in me.
This thread is making me think quite a bit about something similar I did not so long ago. I said something I knew was bad/wrong/untrue about someone and it was out of line, and worse than this because it was behind their back. What I said was phrased in such a way that allowed the flexibility for me to say *I* didn't say that. When my comment was challenged, that was my reflexive response; that's exactly what I said...I didn't say it, and all the semantic reasons why. That wasn't true. I did say it, no matter how it was worded. I much appreciate the person who I said it to, because they refused to allow me to deny it. I admitted my wrongdoing to the person I said it, and also admitted it to the person I said it about, even though they might have never otherwise known. I'm feeling really good about this discussion today. I'm thankful for this exercise, though regretful for stepping on toes.
I don't think you are stepping on toes nor that this recent RL occurrence really resembles what happened here. In fact probably the opposite, if anything.
Here you accused someone of a heap of shit they did not do, and when asked to back it up, you had very little to back yourself with. Bit by bit it was shown that there was nothing substantial in your accusations. I dunno how that in any way mirrors your RL example. You seem to be trying to draw an inference that I really don't think is there. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am hardly disposed to nod my head and send affirmations.
Would like to actually have you clarify what looked like an accusation in this.
I understand you see it that I came at you, but the fact is, I had no idea you were involved, and that involvement doesn't change what I think about what you said. I wish it did. That post made me disappointed in you too; it made no sense or had good intent, and your reaction in this discussion has made me leery of you as well. I worry what you might one day read about me, and pass along to others with clean hands of only the messenger, now that I think you don't like me so much. It's acceptable that you don't trust me. I don't trust either and wouldn't expect you to, but that has nothing to do with this discussion or you in particular. I appreciate that you say you won't dog me around the board. That's very respectful, and all I can really ask. Damn shame indeed.
Or even what you saw I did not say?
I think the day you become a homophobic man, who threatens 15 year old girls, and obsesses about finding a particular gay man and raping him.....then sure, when that day comes, be leery as hell about me possible finding bad things written on here about you. When that day comes, whatever said here would be the least of the concern with respect to disrepute, and you would not likely be too leery at that stage. Is this what you are trying to portray or is it more a general concern? Not following this "passing on" and "cleaned hand messenger" thing? Sounds a little like another accusation but trying to appreciate what it is and is not saying first.
-
Well, we know that Sir Les has fucked a cow, sow how could bestiality be a bannable offence??
Yes, yes then I divorced her. Old news.
-
Well, we know that Sir Les has fucked a cow, sow how could bestiality be a bannable offence??
Yes, yes then I divorced her. Old news.
I didn't say it was new news.
I'm just saying that nothing that you and Jack are talking about are reasons to get banned. They may be assholish things to say, but if being an asshole gets you banned here, then it would only be CBC and Queen Vic here comparing shoes.
-
Well, we know that Sir Les has fucked a cow,
Stop being a fag, scrapheap
sow how could bestiality be a bannable offence??
Never said it was a bannable offense; not always so great with expression and making things clear.
-
Well, we know that Sir Les has fucked a cow, sow how could bestiality be a bannable offence??
Yes, yes then I divorced her. Old news.
I didn't say it was new news.
I'm just saying that nothing that you and Jack are talking about are reasons to get banned. They may be assholish things to say, but if being an asshole gets you banned here, then it would only be CBC and Queen Vic here comparing shoes.
You are right and I am sure I have said as bad or worse than I am being accused of.
All the same I don't like being accused by people I respect of shit I did not do or say. I figure if people are doing that, they have to back their claims.
-
I don't think you are stepping on toes nor that this recent RL occurrence really resembles what happened here. In fact probably the opposite, if anything.
Actually it's extremely similar and involves two members of this site. They know who they are. The only real difference is, what I did was worse. Of course we're going to forever disagree about what happened here and what didn't, and where the line of discussion lies in matters of crime. I'm not singling you out, or pointing to anyone else. We are very different, but I am much like you. I'm glad it seems we might walk away okay...dogs with our bones. I'm really hoping it never happens again, with anyone. I don't like having this type of conversation and usually don't. I don't know how to say what I know is right without saying others are wrong, which gives the affect of imposing my truth on others. It's not me. I'm still going treat you like I always have, because I like you, sir.
-
Actually the line is reasonably easily ascertained. That is what I have said all along. Is what is being said or done endangering the site. Posting Bestiality probably crosses that line in a way the little emoticon won't. But can be confirmed by reference to the rules underpinning the TOS. I've done that. No grey area.
If fact all your accusations have been similarly black or white.
It is not some vague six of one half a dozen of another, up for question.
They were black and white, yes or no, did or did not and right or wrong. No speculation
-
Odeon certainly clarified what is a bannable offence. It's great you said that. You are correct, black and white, and the line they make between them. It's how I roll, and can't see beyond it; not sure I would want to. Though realize I view myself by the same standards. As a teenager, I created piece of art for my mother; It's the only thing I've ever created that the perfectionist in me considered worth keeping. It's a self-portrait, the only one I've ever done; if you knew me better, you'd know why that's funny. It's interesting to look at it now because I was so young when creating it. I knew who I was then as concretely as I know now. It's extreme forces of black and white.
-
This thread is making me think quite a bit about something similar I did not so long ago. I said something I knew was bad/wrong/untrue about someone and it was out of line, and worse than this because it was behind their back. What I said was phrased in such a way that allowed the flexibility for me to say *I* didn't say that. When my comment was challenged, that was my reflexive response; that's exactly what I said...I didn't say it, and all the semantic reasons why. That wasn't true. I did say it, no matter how it was worded. I much appreciate the person who I said it to, because they refused to allow me to deny it. I admitted my wrongdoing to the person I said it, and also admitted it to the person I said it about, even though they might have never otherwise known. I'm feeling really good about this discussion today. I'm thankful for this exercise, though regretful for stepping on toes.
Both you and Al are taking this far too seriously. No offence intended fellas.
Agreed.
-
They may be assholish things to say, but if being an asshole gets you banned here, then it would only be CBC and Queen Vic here comparing shoes.
The mental image of the two comparing shoes is priceless. :plus:
-
Fuck off, Cartman. Kids are having a butthurt drama fest here.
FTFY Odeon.
-
You wouldn't understand so I won't bother explaining.
-
Odeon certainly clarified what is a bannable offence. It's great you said that. You are correct, black and white, and the line they make between them. It's how I roll, and can't see beyond it; not sure I would want to. Though realize I view myself by the same standards. As a teenager, I created piece of art for my mother; It's the only thing I've ever created that the perfectionist in me considered worth keeping. It's a self-portrait, the only one I've ever done; if you knew me better, you'd know why that's funny. It's interesting to look at it now because I was so young when creating it. I knew who I was then as concretely as I know now. It's extreme forces of black and white.
Does it look anything like this? :zoinks:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2rxemih.jpg)
-
Odeon certainly clarified what is a bannable offence. It's great you said that. You are correct, black and white, and the line they make between them. It's how I roll, and can't see beyond it; not sure I would want to. Though realize I view myself by the same standards. As a teenager, I created piece of art for my mother; It's the only thing I've ever created that the perfectionist in me considered worth keeping. It's a self-portrait, the only one I've ever done; if you knew me better, you'd know why that's funny. It's interesting to look at it now because I was so young when creating it. I knew who I was then as concretely as I know now. It's extreme forces of black and white.
Even without Odeon clarifying, I had shown by the very things underpinning the rules that i had not erred. That the accusations that I had and that the expressed accusations that I was knowingly breaking them fell by the wayside. But then I did not wait for Odeon. I actively researched to see where my positions were in respect to the rules before he commented. I would have fallen on my sword had i have (which was kinda completely invalidating yet another accusation).
In all these things there is a provability. It did not require Odeon giving a nod one way or another to make an accurate judgement.
In the same way saying I exactly said that "Alfonso fucks dogs" is exactly provable as a credible and more importantly valid claim or it is exactly provable as an invalid claim.
With these things it is not rational or honest to hold onto these things as vaguely ambiguous. It is only one thing or another. Not subject to interpretation. I did not get lucky that on this time and in these particular instances the claims proved false but under different scrutiny or for different reasons they may have been valid. They simply failed because they were not credible, correct or honest representations, and could not stand up to investigation.
There is no blurring of the lines or grey areas in your accusations. Approximately 10 pages of denouncing your accusations to me and I believe invalidating them. They were never right or never kind of right or nearly right. They were wrong and did not withstand scrutiny.
When too it is proved what I did or did not say then dishonest quote-cropping tactics aside, saying "I know what you said" or building a line of discourse of the "ifs", "whats" or whatever based on a claim of something I did not say is Fox News dishonest.
So no your story, about two unknown members here is not relevant for this reason. It is having to say "Yes but IF we pretend that you actually did say that Alfonso fucks dogs then...." I am not willing to pretend and it would be not only dishonest to nod my head along with this story, looking to draw paralleled that don't exist, but it would be absurd.
I don't know that the above quote actually addresses anything - you are a perfectionist and like black and white?
Again the accusations were provable and always were they proved in my favour not yours. They all did. Every single one. So being that you were making them against me (yes you say they were not specific....look at what you said then reassess) and so vehemently, I am going to ask again, why?
-
I wasn't trying to address anything, but rather an attempt to be personable in my point of view, pointing to myself so you don't see me as pointing at you. Though to be fair, being personable isn't my strongest suit. I know I'm a black and white thinker, and I actually saw you pointing that out to me as being a cue that you do in fact understand and accept my point of view, regardless of how much you disagree, and that we might both be done telling each other they're wrong. Obviously I misunderstood.
-
I wasn't trying to address anything, but rather an attempt to be personable in my point of view, pointing to myself so you don't see me as pointing at you. Though to be fair, being personable isn't my strongest suit. I know I'm a black and white thinker, and I actually saw you pointing that out to me as being a cue that you do in fact understand and accept my point of view, regardless of how much you disagree, and that we might both be done telling each other they're wrong. Obviously I misunderstood.
Yes. The black and white was rather the provability of the claims/accusations none of them lent themselves to shades of grey. I had no idea about the portrait or what this meant. It does strike me that as the accusations were at me and able to be disproven and that you seemed to be so many of them, there must be something behind all this more than you are leading on. Yes?
-
They may be assholish things to say, but if being an asshole gets you banned here, then it would only be CBC and Queen Vic here comparing shoes.
The mental image of the two comparing shoes is priceless. :plus:
We are both short and round and the sensible-shoe type. :2thumbsup:
-
I'm really sorry this happened sir. I was wrong for accusing you of anything and for offending you, especially since you've done me no wrong. I had no idea I was addressing you when I brought it up, but as I said before my intentions are moot. I didn't seek to offend you, but I did in fact offend you, and I regret doing that.
-
I'm really sorry this happened sir. I was wrong for accusing you of anything and for offending you, especially since you've done me no wrong. I had no idea I was addressing you when I brought it up, but as I said before my intentions are moot. I didn't seek to offend you, but I did in fact offend you, and I regret doing that.
That is OK Jack. It is the internet and not something that will leap off the webz and waylay either of us.
I can't pretend I understand you viewpoint or intentions or .... even where you are coming from. I know the fact that you have tenaciously kept at this for 7 pages and two or three days means that it means something to you. I suppose at base tacks it i not a huge deal. I should acknowledge that regardless of what it means to me it means something to you so I will stop pressing to get answers. I think this is about as far as this will resolve.
At one point I was frustrated and questioned your intellect and integrity. THAT was over the line. That was frustration talking. I did not mean that and I apologise. I don't really know why you started or persisted or what even your line of thought is so I really am not in a position to make claims on your intellect or integrity.
If nothing else I appreciate you did not run away from things. I hate when people do that.
Happy to end the argument/debate. I will not pester you elsewhere and this board is big enough for both of us. I will not seek you out for unwanted attention.
-
"I'm just saying that nothing that you and Jack are talking about are reasons to get banned. They may be assholish things to say, but if being an asshole gets you banned here, then it would only be CBC and Queen Vic here comparing shoes."
Talk about being damned with faint praise.
Here are the shoes I wore on my wedding day on 10 February 1840.
(http://www.northampton.gov.uk/images/shoehighlights_victoria.jpg)
Here are the shoes Lady Weeble wore to my wedding. :cfm:
-
I'm really sorry this happened sir. I was wrong for accusing you of anything and for offending you, especially since you've done me no wrong. I had no idea I was addressing you when I brought it up, but as I said before my intentions are moot. I didn't seek to offend you, but I did in fact offend you, and I regret doing that.
That is OK Jack. It is the internet and not something that will leap off the webz and waylay either of us.
I can't pretend I understand you viewpoint or intentions or .... even where you are coming from. I know the fact that you have tenaciously kept at this for 7 pages and two or three days means that it means something to you. I suppose at base tacks it i not a huge deal. I should acknowledge that regardless of what it means to me it means something to you so I will stop pressing to get answers. I think this is about as far as this will resolve.
At one point I was frustrated and questioned your intellect and integrity. THAT was over the line. That was frustration talking. I did not mean that and I apologise. I don't really know why you started or persisted or what even your line of thought is so I really am not in a position to make claims on your intellect or integrity.
If nothing else I appreciate you did not run away from things. I hate when people do that.
Happy to end the argument/debate. I will not pester you elsewhere and this board is big enough for both of us. I will not seek you out for unwanted attention.
:)
-
Is this all an elaborate set up for an April Fools Day joke?
-
Yes. You will be comparing shoes very soon now.
-
Is this all an elaborate set up for an April Fools Day joke?
That might have been nice were that the case.
You have very dainty feet. My foot is a bit longer than average length (size 10 ) but really wide. I struggled to find shoes that fit growing up. Mow days I just hope new shoes stretch
-
For some reason, I thought you had removed the taunt from your signature. This may have been an error in my perception, as I have signatures blocked at the moment, thinking I was noticing that while not logged in. It would be nice if I didn't think you are going to carry this topic around with every post. Your taunt is correct though. That's why I brought up what I've done. It wasn't to draw a parallel for you, but to make the point that I'm actually a hypocrite in this conversation and my viewpoint really has nothing to do with you in particular. I shouldn't have made it about you.
-
Yes that is true. I had forgotten about that. I normally just change them when something else comes along. The last one was Scraps and that was in a about a year and pmselle before that about the same and Ricky before that, similarly.
No reason to keep it though. I will remove it now
-
He (Marx) changed his username to Michael_Hutchence earlier and posted that Alfonso had posted pedo comments. When he was called for being a liar he locked the topic and changed his posts. Fortunately Alfonso saved the fabricated screen shot in a quote. Marx should be banned for fabricating evidence to get another member banned IMO.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html)
You cannot be serious - I know there'd been some discussions about banning/deleting stuff that violated TOS here,
but I cannot imagine things have gotten so bad that posts on other sites would result in any retribution here.
Whatever this marxie thing is though, it's fucking annoying - constantly asking for things not to be derailed.
:gotowp:
-
He (Marx) changed his username to Michael_Hutchence earlier and posted that Alfonso had posted pedo comments. When he was called for being a liar he locked the topic and changed his posts. Fortunately Alfonso saved the fabricated screen shot in a quote. Marx should be banned for fabricating evidence to get another member banned IMO.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,20578.0.html)
You cannot be serious - I know there'd been some discussions about banning/deleting stuff that violated TOS here,
but I cannot imagine things have gotten so bad that posts on other sites would result in any retribution here.
Whatever this marxie thing is though, it's fucking annoying - constantly asking for things not to be derailed.
:gotowp:
He did post it here. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed that marx edited every post on page 1.
-
Is this all an elaborate set up for an April Fools Day joke?
That might have been nice were that the case.
You have very dainty feet. My foot is a bit longer than average length (size 10 ) but really wide. I struggled to find shoes that fit growing up. Mow days I just hope new shoes stretch
PA wears a 13 EEE. Not sure what his size is right now because his foot is currently swollen from the last 2 surgeries. I think I bought him a 14EEE. Silly man wonders why I am always looking for shoes for him. At least he's wearing sandals which are more forgiving as to size.
-
Trying to find out what will get you banned piggy?
-
Yes that is true. I had forgotten about that. I normally just change them when something else comes along. The last one was Scraps and that was in a about a year and pmselle before that about the same and Ricky before that, similarly.
No reason to keep it though. I will remove it now
Thank you.
-
He did post it here. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed that marx edited every post on page 1.
No reason to bother with that work,
when baseless accusations will get whatever
information out.
-
He did post it here. Had you been paying attention you might have noticed that marx edited every post on page 1.
No reason to bother with that work,
when baseless accusations will get whatever
information out.
Yeah check it out, Odeon. Calandale is sooooooo smart that he didn't just have to make that shit up to make himself look smarter. Surely not. :lol1:
-
As much as I dislike Aspie Rogue
I dislike marx even more
Just personal opinion
are there any males you like?
-
This has some humorous nuggets in it.
-
This has some humorous nuggets in it.
Were you reliving the past today? :P
-
This has some humorous nuggets in it.
Were you reliving the past today? :P
Wait till you're old like us, sonny! You'll sit around reminiscing all goddamn day! :oldman:
-
:agreed: stop being ageist Semi Check your privilege.
-
This has some humorous nuggets in it.
Were you reliving the past today? :P
Wait till you're old like us, sonny! You'll sit around reminiscing all goddamn day! :oldman:
It will take me a while to age that much. :cbc: While we're waiting, why not tell us about your days as a flapper? :zoinks: :oldman:
:agreed: stop being ageist Semi Check your privilege.
I have been accused of discrimination. :GA: I will now check myself into rehab and meet with several prominent senior citizens to begin the healing process. :kumbaya:
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
If you remember being a hippie, you weren't doing it correctly. :stoned: :baked:
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
If you remember being a hippie, you weren't doing it correctly. :stoned: :baked:
I think there's a joke about the 60s ... if you remember them, you weren't there. :laugh:
-
Those were the days.
Mary Hopkin Those were the days (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyaTIXdN5fI#)
Terrific song, btw.
-
I had been under the misapprehension that Melanie of Brand New Key infamy had performed that ^^^ song.
-
Mary Hopkin was first.
It's a little known fact these days that "Those Were The Days" was the first single released under The Beatles' Apple label.
-
I certainly did not know it. I would have probably guessed Joe Cocker or Billy Preston.
-
Billy Preston was the first to perform and release "My Sweet Lord". Also under the Apple label, although he moved to A&M later.
-
^One of my all-time favourite songs, that, btw. And Preston's version is good, too.
-
^One of my all-time favourite songs, that, btw. And Preston's version is good, too.
I had not realized that either. Nothin From Nothin was his first radio hit here in the USA that I recall. It is also a favorite of mine.
-
^One of my all-time favourite songs, that, btw. And Preston's version is good, too.
I had not realized that either. Nothin From Nothin was his first radio hit here in the USA that I recall. It is also a favorite of mine.
Billy Preston was fab.
I have lots of Beatles-related trivia in my head. Like the fact that it was Eric Clapton who did the original guitar riffs in "Something".
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
If you remember being a hippie, you weren't doing it correctly. :stoned: :baked:
I think there's a joke about the 60s ... if you remember them, you weren't there. :laugh:
You weren't there, then. :P
Now I'm interrupting the reminiscing. :oldman:
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
If you remember being a hippie, you weren't doing it correctly. :stoned: :baked:
I think there's a joke about the 60s ... if you remember them, you weren't there. :laugh:
You weren't there, then. :P
Now I'm interrupting the reminiscing. :oldman:
REMINISCING, The Little River Band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQWlL-jj5Q#)
-
I was never a flapper, I was a little baby polyester hippie! :tard:
If you remember being a hippie, you weren't doing it correctly. :stoned: :baked:
I think there's a joke about the 60s ... if you remember them, you weren't there. :laugh:
You weren't there, then. :P
Now I'm interrupting the reminiscing. :oldman:
REMINISCING, The Little River Band (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQWlL-jj5Q#)
Your age is showing. :P
-
:hide:
-
:hide:
How are you going to get out from under the chair? :oldman: :P
-
Rather amused at this thread being resurrected.
-
Rather amused at this thread being resurrected.
The Resurrection did not happen for your amusement! God is not mocked! :christ:
-
Can we just talk about the Beatles?
-
We should talk about the Beatles.
-
I like The Beatles. In My Life is a nice little ditty.
The Beatles - In My Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKQpRgxyyqo#)
This version was used on a tv show I watched back in 1999 and 2000.
Chantal Kreviazuk In My Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcchRhFUMF8#)
-
We should talk about the Beatles.
I'm one of the members who can remember seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday. However, not too many people recall that their first introduction to the American public was earlier that week when a clip of them was shown on the NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. Which I remember watching. Here's a current report on the clip.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862 (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862)
-
We should talk about the Beatles.
I'm one of the members who can remember seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday. However, not too many people recall that their first introduction to the American public was earlier that week when a clip of them was shown on the NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. Which I remember watching. Here's a current report on the clip.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862 (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862)
Where you one of the many screaming teenagers back then?
-
We should talk about the Beatles.
I'm one of the members who can remember seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday. However, not too many people recall that their first introduction to the American public was earlier that week when a clip of them was shown on the NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. Which I remember watching. Here's a current report on the clip.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862 (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54308862/#54308862)
Where you one of the many screaming teenagers back then?
No. I preferred The Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, Paul Revere and the Raiders, the Monkees, etc. I didn't like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. I've never had good taste in (popular) music. Having said that I didn't like them, I did see A Hard Days Night.
-
I screened a Spanish film at the festival, a true story about a schoolteacher who was a Beatles fanatic and who set out to meet with John Lennon when he heard that Lennon was in Almería to act in a movie ("How I Won The War" directed by Richard Lester). It's a great film, one of the very few from this year's festival that I truly want to watch.
To make a long story short, the schoolteacher did eventually meet with his idol. Apparently Lennon spent some of the time correcting the Beatles song lyrics the Spaniard had jotted down in his notebook. At the time, record sleeves didn't include song lyrics so fans would frequently get them wrong.
Every Beatles record released after this short Almería encounter included printed song lyrics.
-
What is the title?
-
I think it is "Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed". I can highly recommend it.
-
The title, of course, is a reference to "Strawberry Fields".